Do you support social housing?

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

On balance is it better for family separation to be funded and supported by the taxpayer or would it be on balance better to discourage such separation.

How would you know? We don't have a sample of children living in low/medium income households where the parents want to separate but can't because of financial constraints to look at the impact.

The state shouldn't be in the business of punishing people for ending relationships. Besides the general ethical principle it would also lead to cases where people are locked into abusive relationships, and any process of assessing for this would be both costly and likely ineffective (any couple wanting a divorce would invariably end up with one or both partners claiming abuse).

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

How would you know? We don't have a sample of children living in low/medium income households where the parents want to separate but can't because of financial constraints to look at the impact.

The state shouldn't be in the business of punishing people for ending relationships. Besides the general ethical principle it would also lead to cases where people are locked into abusive relationships, and any process of assessing for this would be both costly and likely ineffective (any couple wanting a divorce would invariably end up with one or both partners claiming abuse).

maybe actually read what I wrote?

JencParker

ukcarper wrote: »

As someone who has separated I can tell you the financial aspect is very low in the majority of cases.

I agree with this, and would say the financial aspect is what kept me in an abusive relationship for longer than I should have.

JencParker

michaels wrote: »

At present, anecdotally at least, the benefits system discourages some couples from living together who would otherwise be contemplating it. Is that a socially desireable outcome?

And you could say the same thing about house buying. The abolition of the single tax relief and then the offering of mortgages on two salaries rather than 1 meant that not only did house prices rocket, but couples bought together, perhaps before they were truly committed to each other.

JencParker

Hooloovoo wrote: »

Clearly I am, because I don't have any sympathy at all for anyone dumb enough to have FIVE CHILDREN before bothering to ensure their family has the security of owning their own home.

So only home owners should have children!?!?

Hooloovoo

JencParker wrote: »

So only home owners should have children!?!?

Yes. You're happy to be at the mercy of your landlord putting your children out to live on the street??!!!?

JencParker

Hooloovoo wrote: »

Yes. You're happy to be at the mercy of your landlord putting your children out to live on the street??!!!?

What a sick individual you are. I would not be happy and feel for those in that position, but that should be remedied by more secure rent control as it used to be and still is with social housing, not by saying you can't have children unless you own a house. Next people like you will be saying people shouldn't breathe unless they pay for it.

wotsthat

JencParker wrote: »

So only home owners should have children!?!?

If someone can't afford to house themselves then, perhaps, they can't afford children either and shouldn't expect others to pay for them. It's not so controversial.

I'd argue that children provide a future economic benefit and there's therefore a case for socialising the cost but most of the shrill outrage here is pure entitlement.

Hooloovoo

JencParker wrote: »

Next people like you will be saying people shouldn't breathe unless they pay for it.

You're such a troll. I don't know why I bother keeping on replying to your posts.

JencParker

wotsthat wrote: »

If someone can't afford to house themselves then, perhaps, they can't afford children either and shouldn't expect others to pay for them. It's not so controversial.

I'd argue that children provide a future economic benefit and there's therefore a case for socialising the cost but most of the shrill outrage here is pure entitlement.

The poster didn't say if they can't afford to house themselves, he said unless they OWN their own home!