Forum menu
How is that 'easy'?
its as easy as every other "solution"
Is it right that the economy is so influenced by investment in non productive assets? Would the economy be in a better place if no one paid rent or mortgage? But "had" to invest the money in productive assets such as business, industry?
Why is housing a non-productive asset?
Why should someone "have" to invest in industry or business? Who's decision should that be?
Junkyard - lazarusaw the right wingers engaging in the politics of envy
With the execption of council tax, students pay the same taxes as everyone else.And of course Income tax !! - unless this has changed
It's not changed for at least a decade, students pay income tax, though most are in a position that they don't earn enough to even hit the lower threshold.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/students/doi_pay_tax_on_pt_job_9_2.htm
It's almost like you have a chip on your shoulder.
[b]mrmo[/b]
No there is an even easier solution, nationalise all housing and award houses on the basis of need.....
Need determined by who and how ? Why don't you point out a country where this has been a successful policy or even one where they've tried it and it's been unsuccessful.
Housing is a productive asset - you live in it, it facilitates you being able to eat and sleep and thus be prepared for work. Housing is also very productive in terms of tax generation, the income from stamp duty now exceeds that from petrol and diesel fuel duty and VAT.
Binners & maccruiskeen +1
Its a strange situation, the 50 or so council houses in our village have some fairly well off people in them, I can think of 2/3 which have "poor" families in.
Yet the £400,000 house out the back is rented out to a family with 3 kids neither parents work and I believe the rent is £850 pcm paid for by housing benefit.
They have a better car than my wife who works, strange world !!!!
BTW I dont work but dont sign on, maybe I should and get into this benefits system, fair I suppose as in 42 years I've only had £123 in benefits.
THM - I don't think any more of Ed Balls 'savings' are any more credible than Osbournes. Its all just ideological playing to their own particular audience.
The one I think is going to be the daddy though. In the gap between proposed savings and what it actually costs to deliver, is IDS's Universal Credit welfare system. Its clearly dissolved into a completely unworkable shambles already. But he can't back down now. So onwards he'll plough, spaffing billions of taxpayers money as he just keeps on digging
This looks like its got real potential. I reckon it could be up there with the NHS records computer fiasco. Or possibly even worse due to the more compressed timescale. It certainly won't be saving anything.
But it'll make the life of frightful poor people immeasurably worse, so job done!
But it'll make the life of frightful poor people immeasurably worse, so job done!
I think their plan is that the poor either starve to death or top themselves, which is where the real savings come from.
20000*400*4*12=384m (using maximum value for housing benefit i could find ont tinterweb
384m p.a.- admin costs - lag in booting out 'high earners'-housing benefit you'd have to pay anyway(slghtly wooden dollars)-maintenence cost of social housing provision=2-300m???
Not peanuts i guess but winter fuel allowance is 10X more
The under 25 housing benefit thing proabably shakes out at about 6-700m saving. Lets be generous and say a billion for the pair. Where's the other 11bn?
Council housing was not mean for the poor - it was provided as affordable housing.
Need determined by who and how ?
backhanders,
Housing and the associated benefits bill is a joke, but where are the plans to deal with it? If we accept that there are not enough houses, build more, if we say that there are enough houses but they are not in the right place, move businesses to where people are. If you want to cut the government costs, why not relocate from expensive London to cheap Stoke or Ebbw Vale?
It is easy to pick on the poor and the young, try a spare bedroom tax on the wealthy, bearing in mind very very few people ever actually go from the gutter to the top, you are born with money and make more, or you are born in the gutter and stay there. So what "right" do they have to "their" money?
Under 25s are also a red herring - v small part of total benefits and housing.
Maybe it's a Clive Woodard 1% thing!!!!!
Binners, in which case why do these threads always develop around the idea that there is only one party that is (1) driven by an -ology and/or (2) guilty of policy mistakes and crap execution? It doesn't follow. Even the lib Dems have proved themselves to be power-hungry pragmatists.
The clue is in the question. Hard as it may be to believe, perhaps they earned it. What right does anyone else have to take it away?So what "right" do they have to "their" money?
Council housing was not mean for the poor - it was provided as affordable housing.
Ahh but now they're in the private housing market they get the benefit of becoming the squeezed middle and can now pour scorn on the poor as the reason for all their ills.
Council housing was not mean for the poor - it was provided as affordable housing.
What should happen now then? Lots of building?
Even the lib Dems have proved themselves to be[s] power-hungry pragmatists.[/s] [b]Tories at heart.[/b]
FIFY
Well it costs quite a bit to buy/build a property so that's why there's a shortage - end up paying for people to stay in short-term private accommodation.
No, the reason there's a shortage is Right to Buy sold off houses far too cheaply, and the funds went to central government rather than councils.
Rents for existing council houses more than cover maintenance so it's completely untrue to say that tenants are a drain on resources.
What should happen now then? Lots of building?
I think its more likely IDS had Workhouses in mind 😉
What should happen now then? Lots of building?
yes.
currently a huge amount of tax money is paid to private landlords for substandard properties.
The clue is in the question. Hard as it may be to believe, perhaps they earned it. What right does anyone else have to take it away?
and how many have earnt it and how many inherited it? There is precious little social mobility, if you are born with money you are in a better position than someone who wasn't.
So no inherited wealth? I wouldn't like that sort of society and I'm not going to get much.
Pure inheritance is v low - approx 5%and how many have earnt it and how many inherited it?
True, but that doesn't answer the question. What right do you have to take their money away if they have worked to earn it?if you are born with money you are in a better position than someone who wasn't.
Pure inheritance is v low - approx 5%
and how many rely on assistance from parents? Which is IMO more an issue than inheritance.
For example how many first time buyers need help from parents?
If you want stability which is helpful if your trying to raise kids and get them through school knowing where your going to be living does help.
And no I don't have an answer, but to attack any one segment of society without actually offering a solution what does that achieve?
If you want the brightest in the best jobs, is having parts of society buying privilege actually a good thing?
True, but that doesn't answer the question. What right do you have to take their money away if they have worked to earn it?
Despite right wing dogma, hard work and financial sucsess are not inextricably linked, opportunity and luck are far more important.
No, the reason there's a shortage is Right to Buy sold off houses far too cheaply,
Hmm - i reckon an extra five million people might not have helped 😉
opportunity and luck are far more important.
Or rather the education level of your parents.
We can also look at the way America now segregates itself by education. The greatest predictor of a child's academic success, even more than economic class, is still their parents' education level.
Hmm - i reckon an extra five million people might not have helped
We didn't struggle so much in the 1950s and 60s, despite a rising population at that time.
Despite right wing dogma, hard work and financial sucsess are not inextricably linked
Are you suggesting that the likes of Dave and Gideon, or Boris, aren't the PM and chancellor, or Mayor of London purely by merit of their dazzling intelligence, relentless hard work and almost god-like vision?
Next you'll be suggesting some bonkers conspiracy like the offspring of all the that 5% with their oodles of inherited wealth all attend the same school, then all go on to the same course at the same university, and on they trudge down a well trodden path to take their rightful place running the country?
Pfft! Thats insane 😉
[img] 
[/img]
No, the reason there's a shortage is Right to Buy sold off houses far too cheaply,
I believe it is still considered one of the cheapest ways for a party to buy an election (they spent someone else's money rather than their own)......
There no way my neighbour would give up their council house, last year they had a pellet boiler put in, solar panels and a new fence provided. They leave lights on all night as the panels give free electricity, windows open on freezing days, both have 4x4s bought cash and are always out. For them to buy a 3 bed in the next village as there isn't anything that small in our village unless ex council would cost £400k+, to be honest I'd not want them to move as they're good neighbours.
Off course there is not absolute link between hard work and financial reward - to borrow a phrase, that's insane and for lot of reasons. Ditto there is no absolute link between financial reward and any other factor be it luck, opportunity, parents education etc. But equally it's absurd to suggest that financial reward comes without hard work.
Still not an answer as to why people should not have a right to their money especially if they earned it, which was posed as a solution to the problem under discussion.
If you had dazzling intelligence and god-like (God/Gods exist?) vision why on earth would you want to be a politician. That really is insane.
Still not an answer as to why people should not have a right to their money especially if they earned it, which was posed as a solution to the problem under discussion.
if it solves the question under discussion that shirley that is enough of a justification?
So would stealing.....so no, not sufficient justification IMO. Why not just take "their" house of them, it would save the aggro of collecting the money and building new ones.
But equally it's absurd to suggest that financial reward comes without hard work.
Have you heard of the Royal Family or Paris Hilton?
THM have you heard of [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax ]Taxation?[/url]
And remind me what percentage of the working pop they represent? That's as silly as a politician picking on one benefit scrounger and then making a wider point.
(Leaving aside the issue of whether Liz and Phil work hard!!!!)
Yes, I pay it why?
Personally I front believe anyone should be in a council house or subsidised housing is they afford enough to live in private rented accommodation. Council houses should be for people that can not afford to live anywhere else. When you start earning more you should have to move out. It should purely be seen as a service provided by the council. Yes councils should build more houses but only when their current stock is full of people in need. I also agree that if you have a house that is to big then you should have to move. But of course the council should have to provide you with the option of something smaller before they start charging you extra for spare bedrooms.
Also council houses in expensive locations should be sold off so that more council houses can be built in cheaper locations. I have also ways worked and have had to skimp and save to pay my rent and have had to choose to live in cheaper locations, thats just life.
Why should I have to subsidise someone living in a council house through council tax, who can afford to rent there own house privately, it makes no sense
Leaving aside the issue of whether Liz and Phil work hard!!!!
I'm sure they do work hard, but the wealth they have is hugely disproportionate compared with say a factory worker who probably works harder..
But equally it's absurd to suggest that financial reward comes without hard work.
Taking the example of any member of the present Tory cabinet… at what point during the gestation of the foetus had it worked hard enough to have earned its vast inherited wealth?
This could really complicate the abortion/pro-life debate 😉
We didn't struggle so much in the 1950s and 60s, despite a rising population at that time.
Really? in the fifties we still had tens of thousands of families living in army huts that they had squatted in after the war (my mum was one of them) and millions more were overcrowded, most young married couples moved in with their parents while they were waiting for a council house that more often than not turned out to be a prefabricated bungalow that you would be prosecuted for putting animals in nowadays.
The squatting movement was massive in the sixties - you seem to forget that 'Cathy Come Home' was shown in '66 not '96!
Compare the housebuilding rate between then and now. The Luftwaffe did cause one or two problems you know...
True footflaps, which is why as an employee it helps to have skills that are not easily replicated. Otherwise supply and demand suggest that our returns from hard work will not be high.
Working hard in itself doesn't guarantee anything. I am sure the aforementioned foetus (poor really!) works hard but to little positive effect clearly.
Why should I have to subsidise someone living in a council house through council tax, who can afford to rent there own house privately, it makes no sense
Council house residents are not subsidised.
Ransos - Ssssshhhhhhhh…. you'll tear a hole in the Daily Mail/reality continum . Then Christ only knows what'll happen 😉
Compare the housebuilding rate between then and now.
Agreed, we're not building houses quick enough to match the need,
but theres still four million immigrants* since Thatcher sold off the council houses
*Figures - 1991 census 3.6 million non-UK born respondents, 2011 census, 7.5 million non UK born respondents.
but theres still four million immigrants* since Thatcher sold off the council houses
Yep, they come over here, paying our taxes... where will it end?