Council house debate

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No. It's fabbman who needs to change. He needs to understand that there are rewards to being a productive person, to working for a living, to aspiring to better things and stop feeling jealous of people who, by and large, he wouldn't swap lives with even if he had the chance..... because he did. But most of all, he needs to stop feeling envy towards others just because he sees their housing circumstances as an opportunity for him to get on the housing ladder.

Fabbman doesnt need to change.

Scrounging layabout scumbags need to change.


It sounds to me that fabbman is a decent human being who is responsibly looking after their family

Hes probably pi55ed off with working for a living whilst thousands upon thousands of scumbags get free houses and benefits for doing nothing, and he is also probably pi55ed off that he has been paying taxes for years and contributing to this country and then an immigrant comes along and gets a free house AND FREE FURNITURE.

In my opinion if a council tenant has never had a job or tried to get a job then they should no longer be entitled to a council house and should also lose all benefits and have to live the life of a tramp.

Also if people live in council houses and are able to save a deposit for a house of their own (no matter how long it takes) then thats what they should do and if they dont then boot them out as well and then people who are paying a fortune for a private rent whilst trying to save a house deposit can have that council house and be able to save up their house deposit a lot faster and then the process repeats.

Building more council houses wont stop the problems, If there are no council houses left then what are all the scumbags who never ever work going to do, yes they will have to get a job and provide for themselves.

You say there are rewards for being a productive person and working for a living, you dont need to state the obvious because we all know that, the problem here is that you have people who dont work have never worked and will never work getting rewarded for doing absolutely nothing for their whole lives, free house, free money, for sitting on the couch all day watching tv.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Fabbman doesnt need to change.

Scrounging layabout scumbags need to change.


It sounds to me that fabbman is a decent human being who is responsibly looking after their family

Hes probably pi55ed off with working for a living whilst thousands upon thousands of scumbags get free houses and benefits for doing nothing, and he is also probably pi55ed off that he has been paying taxes for years and contributing to this country and then an immigrant comes along and gets a free house AND FREE FURNITURE.

In my opinion if a council tenant has never had a job or tried to get a job then they should no longer be entitled to a council house and should also lose all benefits and have to live the life of a tramp.

Also if people live in council houses and are able to save a deposit for a house of their own (no matter how long it takes) then thats what they should do and if they dont then boot them out as well and then people who are paying a fortune for a private rent whilst trying to save a house deposit can have that council house and be able to save up their house deposit a lot faster and then the process repeats.

Building more council houses wont stop the problems, If there are no council houses left then what are all the scumbags who never ever work going to do, yes they will have to get a job and provide for themselves.

You say there are rewards for being a productive person and working for a living, you dont need to state the obvious because we all know that, the problem here is that you have people who dont work have never worked and will never work getting rewarded for doing absolutely nothing for their whole lives, free house, free money, for sitting on the couch all day watching tv.

So you want the process of owning a house to be subsidised by the taxpayer? Why should that happen? Surely it is the individuals responsibility to be able to afford whatever they buy. Or do you just want to turn homeowners into scroungers?

propertyman

Well the problem is that there are simply not enough houses where there are jobs, and taking east London in particular they are cramming more and more in. Perhaps we tackle businesses, stopping huge new office blocks and giving them tax incentives to move elsewhere and tax incentives to those on benefits to take the new jobs they create. Back to the New Town movement.

You can then push those on benefits to got to jobs that actually exist rather than those imagined to exist by no 10.

Lower all round rental and capital values mean that there is less need, and disparity, between private and public sector housing, while those that worked hard for their 5 bed house can keep it without being taxed till they squeak.

But people who live in squalor with old fridges & mattresses on the "garden" will always exist.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

So you want the process of owning a house to be subsidised by the taxpayer? Why should that happen? Surely it is the individuals responsibility to be able to afford whatever they buy. Or do you just want to turn homeowners into scroungers?

I would much rather have somebody who wanted to buy their own house in a council house so they get a chance to save a house deposit than somebody who doesnt work and has never worked in the council house.

Can you tell me why that is a bad thing.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I would much rather have somebody who wanted to buy their own house in a council house so they get a chance to save a house deposit than somebody who doesnt work and has never worked in the council house.

Can you tell me why that is a bad thing.

Because home ownership is a desire, not a need.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Because home ownership is a desire, not a need.

I NEED to buy a house because i will not be given a council house.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I NEED to buy a house because i will not be given a council house.

Now you sound like a spoiled 4 year old.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Now you sound like a spoiled 4 year old.

Oh looks like you have not got an answer to that then.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Oh looks like you have not got an answer to that then.

OK. Firstly, no-one is "given" a council house. Tenants "rent" them but the title remains with the council. Unfortunately, if you don't qualify for social housing, then you don't qualify for social housing. Not everyone can. But I remember you saying you didn't want it anyway.....

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I dont want social housing

..... So what's the problem. I also remember advising how easy it was to get social housing in the North West, so it's available to you if you change your mind.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

OK. Firstly, no-one is "given" a council house. Tenants "rent" them but the title remains with the council. Unfortunately, if you don't qualify for social housing, then you don't qualify for social housing. Not everyone can. But I remember you saying you didn't want it anyway.....



..... So what's the problem. I also remember advising how easy it was to get social housing in the North West, so it's available to you if you change your mind.

And i remember saying to you that we were talking about the parasites who dont pay rent because they are on benefits because they cant be ar5ed to get a job getting a free house for life, whilst hard working people have to private rent.

I know plenty of parasites on my estate who were given a free house years ago and they will never ever pay a penny for it in their lives.

Whats the problem you ask, are you serious or just not all there.