Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
Come on you're a smart guy, it's not that complicated, if a house builder is demanding a minimum of 20% profit before they'll build a house they are artificially inflating the price of the houses they do eventually build as they're not building as many and you were saying that you think it's ok for westminster council to break the law by not enforcing housebuilders legal obligations to provide a certain percentage of social housing because they might end up being occupied by a neer-do-well, completely ignoring the fact it's more likely to be occupied by someone like a very good friend of both of ours.
|
Ah, got it. Ta
Damn right developers want a minimum of 20% profit as (iirc) once they sell the property they are liable to capital gains tax at 28 or 29%.
Factor that onto build costs, land costs, wages , commercial loan costs (both servicing the loan & setting it up) and then the uncertainty of future house sales prices and
you would want 20% as well!
---------- Post added at 16:21 ---------- Previous post was at 16:17 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
You've taken one issue in a small part of the country and applied it to the rest of the country .
|
No, I'm simply giving Woolwich as an example of what can go wrong. I haven't (iirc) extrapolated that to the rest of the country.
Quote:
Why,
I rather think you are making a very large assumption and it's betraying your rather pompous attitude towards social housing tenants
|
No, I'm simply asking why, if you can afford a more expensive vehicle than I can, you are living in a council house and I'm not? Surely you should be in a private dwelling, freeing up council housing for those less fortunate/well off than yourself?
