We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

BBC show on council housing now - 21:00 4th May

1…3839414344…50

Comments

  • Jimmy_31
    Jimmy_31 Posts: 2,170 Forumite
    Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »
    Perfectly serious. Making anything free is quite straightforward. Prescription would seem the obvious answer in this case.


    Not really free though is it, somebody still has to pay for it and im guessing it wont be somebody on benefits.
  • Wee_Willy_Harris
    Wee_Willy_Harris Posts: 7,512 Forumite
    Jimmy_31 wrote: »
    Not really free though is it, somebody still has to pay for it and im guessing it wont be somebody on benefits.

    The cost of opiates is minute, compared to current retail levels. All those savings you mentioned would make it a massive saving over the current system. It was your idea, remember?
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    I thought giving council houses to idle layabouts being a good idea was bad enough.

    But now I see the conversation has gone a step further. Give them more benefits so they can afford more heroin. Poor little souls.
  • ILW
    ILW Posts: 18,333 Forumite
    Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »
    The cost of opiates is minute, compared to current retail levels. All those savings you mentioned would make it a massive saving over the current system. It was your idea, remember?

    Would you also recommend free ciggies for smokers, free cakes for eaters, free prostitutes for "sex addicts", free booze for drinkers etc etc? If not, why not?

    By free, I mean taxpayer funded.
  • Wee_Willy_Harris
    Wee_Willy_Harris Posts: 7,512 Forumite
    Graham_Devon wrote: »
    I thought giving council houses to idle layabouts being a good idea was bad enough.

    But now I see the conversation has gone a step further. Give them more benefits so they can afford more heroin. Poor little souls.

    Do keep up, dear boy. We are discussing the merits of FREE heroin, so no need for more benefits.
  • Wee_Willy_Harris
    Wee_Willy_Harris Posts: 7,512 Forumite
    ILW wrote: »
    Would you also recommend free ciggies for smokers, free cakes for eaters, free prostitutes for "sex addicts", free booze for drinkers etc etc? If not, why not?

    By free, I mean taxpayer funded.

    Well, all the above get free treatment already, don't they? All those free nicotine patches, gastric bands, visits to the priory etc etc etc. Of course, your average sex/food/drink/tobacco addict isn't breaking into your house to fund their next fix. Though it's strange you should mention prostitutes as the price they charge, at street level, nearly always matches the price of a wrap of heroin.
  • ILW
    ILW Posts: 18,333 Forumite
    Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »
    Well, all the above get free treatment already, don't they? All those free nicotine patches, gastric bands, visits to the priory etc etc etc. Of course, your average sex/food/drink/tobacco addict isn't breaking into your house to fund their next fix. Though it's strange you should mention prostitutes as the price they charge, at street level, nearly always matches the price of a wrap of heroin.

    They get free treatment, not handed their vice of choice. Big difference.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Newbie
    Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »
    You clearly have given very little thought to the MASSIVE cost implications.

    As for suggesting an alternative, I already have. Do catch up.

    Would be much cheaper in the long run. As soon as living on benefits stops being a long term lifestyle option the benefits bill will be MASSIVELY reduced.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Newbie
    Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »
    Do keep up, dear boy. We are discussing the merits of FREE heroin, so no need for more benefits.

    That would be a good idea provided they got their full 'entitlement' in one go.
  • neverdespairgirl
    neverdespairgirl Posts: 16,501 Forumite
    Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »
    Perfectly serious. Making anything free is quite straightforward. Prescription would seem the obvious answer in this case.

    That's how it used to be here, before the 1971 Act.
    ...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.6K Life & Family
  • 259.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture