Supply and Demand in action......

stueyhants

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Everybody has a choice Graham, everybody has a choice.......;)

If you truly believe that success in life is just down to individual choices in life how do you contrast that with the worsening social mobility figures.

Are people making worse choices today rather than decades ago?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

globalds wrote: »

I think what people are trying to explain to you Hamish ...Is that sometimes the result can be because of a choice made by someone else or just life ,taking you out on the blind side.
One day you think you have it all going fine ...Next thing you know you picking up the pieces.

Absolutely agree. It's happened to me a lot in life.

But because of the choices I made, I had a safety net in place. I had the education and abilities to pick up the pieces, regroup, rebuild, and move on.

I could have chosen to not study hard, to not work hard, to not save. In which case I would more than likely have failed.

Should there be some infrastructure in place to support people.More than likely to the detriment of free market prices ?
Should the system of protection involve the free market or should it be fully social housing ?

I've never claimed a day of benefits in my life. Don't believe in them for myself, don't believe it is the responsibility of the state to provide for me.

But I do think a safety net should be in place, for those that need it. But it should be short term, and limited to a fixed amount per lifetime in the vast majority of cases. (there will obviously always be exceptions, but they should be rare)

National Insurance should be just that. Insurance. You pay in, you take out when you need it. But benefits have become a lifestyle choice for many. And that is unnaceptable.

brit1234

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Interesting.

You posted on hpc about house prices. You post on MSE about house prices. You even popped on over to pricedout to post about, house prices.

Hamish Master Forum Stalker

stueyhants

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

.

But I do think a safety net should be in place, for those that need it. But it should be short term, and limited to a fixed amount per lifetime in the vast majority of cases. (there will obviously always be exceptions, but they should be rare)

.

You do realise that if you had your way and the safety net was limited there would have be significantly more repossessions and prices would have crashed further. House prices were basically 'saved' by an unlimited safety net. You can't have it both ways

Entertainer

***Breaking news*** High house prices in rural areas mean local children can’t afford to live there. This is like an epiphany for me, all this time I never knew. The fact that I can never live in the village I grew up in Kent because bungalows go for half a million now, was something that totally passed me by, I just wasn’t aware of it. Or the fact that this is the case up and down the U.K. I’m ashamed of my wanton ignorance on this subject and am so grateful to be educated by our esteemed expert north of the border.

Of course supply and demand can never be the solution here. Building can never be sufficient and the demand is too high to limit prices. Although interestingly enough I’m not sure I would want to live in the countryside anymore given the importance of internet speeds. The only measure that can be taken is via social housing to cater for local people or some of the covenants that you see in the West Country restricting occupancy to people with local residence.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

stueyhants wrote: »

You do realise that if you had your way and the safety net was limited there would have be significantly more repossessions and prices would have crashed further. House prices were basically 'saved' by an unlimited safety net. You can't have it both ways

That safety net is limited to two years.;)

But regardless, I have no issue with benefits, even quite generous ones, as a short term safety net.

I do accept that sometimes life throws bad things at people.

But the key thing for me, is that over a lifetime, people should not take out more than they put in.

Make benefits more generous, increase JSA to a decent amount, cover mortgages/rent etc. But limit it to an amount you'd reasonably put in. Perhaps 4 or 6 years in a 40 year working life, for example.

As it is just now, we have second and third generation benefits cheats, living off the taxpayer. Which is unnaceptable.

globalds

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But the key thing for me, is that over a lifetime, people should not take out more than they put in.

Is that all citizens ...or just those entitled to benefits ?

When you talk of putting in , I guess you are talking only in monetary terms ?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Absolutely agree. It's happened to me a lot in life.

But because of the choices I made, I had a safety net in place. I had the education and abilities to pick up the pieces, regroup, rebuild, and move on.

I could have chosen to not study hard, to not work hard, to not save. In which case I would more than likely have failed.

.

You also had a step up from your parents, as no matter what you write about your oh so perfect example above, you fail to mention you yourself could not afford the property you desired, so chose to use your parents.

For a moment there I thought you were saying it was all about choice.

But then you have conviniently missed luck, background, handouts as you described how well you have done for yourself, by yourself....though not quite so by yourself as you make out....while basically preaching to others they made the wrong choices.

We could have ended up just like you if we had made the right choices. Able to muffle some words from our butts.

But some of us made the wrong choice and had kids. I'm sure we'll be just fine with our brilliant choices bringing us the best thing ever

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

globalds wrote: »

Is that all citizens ...or just those entitled to benefits ?

Welfare, benefits, state handouts, whatever you like to call them.

When you talk of putting in , I guess you are talking only in monetary terms ?

Yes.

globalds

So if you stop peoples welfare , and presumably ask them to leave there state funded accommodation....
What happens to them ..
Lets for the sake of this discussion assume it is a single Mom with 3 kids.