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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Costs soar as Labour voters told to pay their way
Comments
-
Is it right that people who are working and don't get benefits can't afford to live in the very areas that you are suggesting the unemployed or very low earners should?
You can commute to London from most of the South East in less than an hour. I know people who pay higher rate tax who live out in the commuter belt (one as far up as Kettering) rather than pay London prices; but sure the taxpayer should be funding a NMW cleaner's Islington apartment :rotfl:
Your argument is effectively that firms are using benefit as a subsidy because they'd have to pay better wages if their workers couldn't live locally on housing benefit. How does that make sense?
It doesn't make sense. You friend who is a HRT makes the choice to pay the season ticket and commute because it makes their books balance.
For the cleaner the season ticket would probably be 50% of their take home pay if not more. Cleaners can't work from home either.
Firms are effectively using benefit a subsidy, as are the government, to keep their essential services running too.
Not saying they should be housed in "palatial" apartments though. Wasn't there some talk years ago about pulling floating hostels into play or was that prisons? Look nice moored against some pontoons outside Westminster."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
It was Prisons.0
-
The difference is that those who are lucky enough to be HR taxpayers can afford the commuting costs from living further outside the area they work in.Is it right that people who are working and don't get benefits can't afford to live in the very areas that you are suggesting the unemployed or very low earners should?
You can commute to London from most of the South East in less than an hour. I know people who pay higher rate tax who live out in the commuter belt (one as far up as Kettering) rather than pay London prices; but sure the taxpayer should be funding a NMW cleaner's Islington apartment :rotfl:
Your argument is effectively that firms are using benefit as a subsidy because they'd have to pay better wages if their workers couldn't live locally on housing benefit. How does that make sense?
Not coming from London i'm not aware of the cost of Oyster cards etc, but using Manchester as an example:
I live 12 miles from Manchester, the annual season ticket cost for the Metrolink is £960.
If someone lived in say Liverpool, which is 33 miles from Manchester then the season ticket would cost £2800.
Thats 21% of a persons gross income if they work 40hrs p/w at NMW (24% of their net salary). I'm pretty sure the cost will be substantially more for a similar journey in the London area.
What you are suggesting is that London shuld be solely for the elite, in which case, how many of the elite will be willing to do the NMW work?
There are 2 answers to solving the problem. 1 build affordable housing in all areas of london, and let those on the lowest incomes live in them and pay reasonable rents, not the vastly over inflated rents that are currently charged, or employers have to take responsibility and pay salaries, even to those doing the least/non profitable jobs, which mean they don't need to claim additional benefits in order to meet their housing costs.
Simply banishing these people from the more expensive parts of London should not be an option.[SIZE=-1]To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
[/SIZE]0 -
One issue not mentioned here but discussed in many places some employers deliberately don't allow people to do more than a minimum number of hours due to employers NI.
They also ensure their workers hours are just irregular enough so that the workers cannot get a second job.
So yes big biz is very cleverly using the state to subsidise them.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
The difference is that those who are lucky enough to be HR taxpayers can afford the commuting costs from living further outside the area they work in.
Not coming from London i'm not aware of the cost of Oyster cards etc, but using Manchester as an example:
I live 12 miles from Manchester, the annual season ticket cost for the Metrolink is £960.
If someone lived in say Liverpool, which is 33 miles from Manchester then the season ticket would cost £2800.
Thats 21% of a persons gross income if they work 40hrs p/w at NMW (24% of their net salary). I'm pretty sure the cost will be substantially more for a similar journey in the London area.
What you are suggesting is that London shuld be solely for the elite, in which case, how many of the elite will be willing to do the NMW work?
There are 2 answers to solving the problem. 1 build affordable housing in all areas of london, and let those on the lowest incomes live in them and pay reasonable rents, not the vastly over inflated rents that are currently charged, or employers have to take responsibility and pay salaries, even to those doing the least/non profitable jobs, which mean they don't need to claim additional benefits in order to meet their housing costs.
Simply banishing these people from the more expensive parts of London should not be an option.
Why wouldn't some-one with a job in Manchester live in Manchester rather than Liverpool; is the price of housing too high there?
As far as London housing is concerned I think it is a wonderful idea for the rest of the UK to pay massive amount of tax to build housing for Londers who will then live for life in heavily subsidised housing.EU tariff on agricultual product 12.2%
some dairy products 42.1% cloths 11.4%
EU Clinical Trials Directive stops medical advances0 -
As far as London housing is concerned I think it is a wonderful idea for the rest of the UK to pay massive amount of tax to build housing for Londers who will then live for life in heavily subsidised housing.
With about 1/6 of the UK's population living in London I think the number of tax payers there means Londoners will be paying for each others heavily subsidised housing.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
With about 1/6 of the UK's population living in London I think the number of tax payers there means Londoners will be paying for each others heavily subsidised housing.
Yes indeed but it's good to know the 5/6th of the population outside London will be willing contributors to their subsidised housing.EU tariff on agricultual product 12.2%
some dairy products 42.1% cloths 11.4%
EU Clinical Trials Directive stops medical advances0 -
Yes indeed but it's good to know the 5/6th of the population outside London will be willing contributors to their subsidised housing.
Doesn't the London 1/6 largely dwarf the other 5/6?
Southerners like to tell us how they keep the rest of the country."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
One issue not mentioned here but discussed in many places some employers deliberately don't allow people to do more than a minimum number of hours due to employers NI.
They also ensure their workers hours are just irregular enough so that the workers cannot get a second job.
So yes big biz is very cleverly using the state to subsidise them.
AIUI 16 hours NMW.
Employ 2/3 people and it also helps the unemployment figures look good too.
:beer:"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Doesn't the London 1/6 largely dwarf the other 5/6?
Southerners like to tell us how they keep the rest of the country.
is it so then?EU tariff on agricultual product 12.2%
some dairy products 42.1% cloths 11.4%
EU Clinical Trials Directive stops medical advances0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards