Think the unthinkable - let's help the coalition with some blue-skies thinking...

Pennywise

lynzpower wrote: »

The problem is that a weeks rent is sometimes a lot more than a weeks work on the minimum wage.

Which tends to prove that rents and house prices are far too high and will inevitably have to come down in proportion to wages etc.

lynzpower

Pennywise wrote: »

Which tends to prove that rents and house prices are far too high and will inevitably have to come down in proportion to wages etc.

Oh totally 100000% agree. most of the problems we face in thier country are due to a massive HPI :eek::eek::eek:

Unfortunately Cameron has no intention of deflating the bubble lets see what leverage those pesky lib dems have up their sleeves to delfate this housing bubble :T

lynzpower

Nosht wrote: »

SICK LEAVE.

Why not try the Canadian system?
I believe there that you have 3 weeks sickness a year allocated & if you are not off work then this leave accumulates & you can retire earlier at the end of your working days by the number of unused sick days.

Regards,


N.

And what happens if you are off sick from an accident caused by your employer?

nolongerindenial

Aspiring_Writer wrote: »

My last line was, circumstance & perception. That means people perceive they have a right to anything and everything and the incumbent Labour Govt provided the circumstances to make it happen, i.e lax benefit & welfare system.

Bringing a child into this world when you know full well you can't afford to feed or look after it without state help is ignorant and makes no attempt at understanding reality...

lynzpower wrote: »

The problem is that a weeks rent is sometimes a lot more than a weeks work on the minimum wage.

This is the harsh reality of life at the moment. However if a tenant can not afford the rent they will have to move house. Exactly the same as if a homeowner can not afford the mortgage.

However in time with a system like this in place, you quickly find that landlords can not find tenants and as such are forced to lower the rents.

I am not saying it is not a harsh system, and is not going to cause a lot of pain for a lot of people - but what incentive is there at the moment for joe blogs on the dole to go out and LOSE money getting a minimum wage job? Gaining a bit of self respect yet adding to the stress he can not afford to eat?

There are always exceptions to the rules, those with disabilities or looking after the disabled should get paid a minimum "wage" to prevent the need for expensive care agencies (often charging upwards of £15 an hour and hiring minimum wage staff to do the caring in our area), my points above are only meant as a baseline to start with.

Another benefits system reform is going to cost the taxpayers millions of pounds, and potentially provide no benefit to anyone or the economy by the time these costs are taken into account, all the headlines watered down etc. If we are going to have to spend the money lets start from a clean slate.

wolvoman

LydiaJ wrote: »

The NHS does not provide home care for people who need help with dressing/bathing etc. They have to pay for it. It is very expensive. They can claim some benefits to help with the cost of it.

Presumably if I work hard through my life and tuck away some savings to pay for just such a risk in my old age I will not get those benefits you refer to as I have savings?

However if I fritter my savings on beer and gambling I'll then be entitled to the benefits?

See what's wrong with the system?

lynzpower

nolongerindenial wrote: »

This is the harsh reality of life at the moment. However if a tenant can not afford the rent they will have to move house. Exactly the same as if a homeowner can not afford the mortgage.

However in time with a system like this in place, you quickly find that landlords can not find tenants and as such are forced to lower the rents.

I am not saying it is not a harsh system, and is not going to cause a lot of pain for a lot of people - but what incentive is there at the moment for joe blogs on the dole to go out and LOSE money getting a minimum wage job? Gaining a bit of self respect yet adding to the stress he can not afford to eat?

There are always exceptions to the rules, those with disabilities or looking after the disabled should get paid a minimum "wage" to prevent the need for expensive care agencies (often charging upwards of £15 an hour and hiring minimum wage staff to do the caring in our area), my points above are only meant as a baseline to start with.

Another benefits system reform is going to cost the taxpayers millions of pounds, and potentially provide no benefit to anyone or the economy by the time these costs are taken into account, all the headlines watered down etc. If we are going to have to spend the money lets start from a clean slate.

Im afraid the truth of the matter is if you do away with housing support that people on low paid jobs simply lose thier homes. They then lose thier jobs. Of course if they are street homeless they will also lose thier children and probably thier health.

I personally dont think that anyone should be forced to be street homeless- were a developed country and I will pay higher taxes to ensure that people are not living on the streets.

In some areas there are simply no jobs. Hell even in london there isnt much around.

You dont find landlords offering thier homes to the homeless for free do you?

chucky

lynzpower wrote: »

In some areas there are simply no jobs. Hell even in london there isnt much around.

if you can't find a job in London - you're not looking hard enough or you don't want a job badly enough.

there is no excuse for anyone in London not being able to work.
maybe not what you'd like to do but there are plenty of jobs out there.

lynzpower

chucky wrote: »

if you can't find a job in London - you're not looking hard enough or you don't want a job badly enough.

there is no excuse for anyone in London not being able to work.
maybe not what you'd like to do but there are plenty of jobs out there.

I actualy have a job but thanks for your concern!

michaels

The only way to make housing more affordable would be to build more houses where they are needed - this would probably require building on currently green land and/or increasing housing density. We all know that the UK housing density for new properties is already one of the highest in the world so it seems more land needs to be made available - not popular to those already in an area but how else can this be achieved?

It would be good if the housing demand could be spread more evenly across the UK but I don't know how this can be brought about - at the moment the ares with the good schools and good jobs are in high demand and thus expensive and thus populated by the high earners and therefore generate even more of the good jobs and the schools improve further with an opposite spiral in the less attractive areas. Any blue skies thoughts on how to reverse this effect so that the country is less starkly divided and thus land could be used more efficiently to increase the housing stock.

lynzpower

michaels wrote: »

The only way to make housing more affordable would be to build more houses where they are needed - this would probably require building on currently green land and/or increasing housing density. We all know that the UK housing density for new properties is already one of the highest in the world so it seems more land needs to be made available - not popular to those already in an area but how else can this be achieved?

It would be good if the housing demand could be spread more evenly across the UK but I don't know how this can be brought about - at the moment the ares with the good schools and good jobs are in high demand and thus expensive and thus populated by the high earners and therefore generate even more of the good jobs and the schools improve further with an opposite spiral in the less attractive areas. Any blue skies thoughts on how to reverse this effect so that the country is less starkly divided and thus land could be used more efficiently to increase the housing stock.

Michaels honestly I dont think it will need to be green belt land. Lets take london as a good exmaple of where there is real housing demand.

Local gov sells off its land to private companies who build houses on - that arnt affordable.

This is cos local authorities need to raise money - erm for things like Large LHA bills to pay for private sector more expensive rentals! :think: Look around your town how many ederelict buildings and empty units there are- many many many many!!

We have got into a repeated cycle where the private sector is "best" when its not. Especially in housing provision.

As for the other issue, well i just dont know about that apart from making sure that regional development agencies ( are these now going??) should be attracting to where the housing is.

Maybe the new business rates stuff will attract new bu.inesses but ideally it would be good to be in an area of housing and labour surplus.