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!
Do you support social housing?
Comments
-
JencParker wrote: »No it is not a right - I agree, but with today's low wages and high cost of living that excludes those on low wages without some help whether that be through low cost housing or child benefits.
To use your own technique of putting words into other people's posts ...
You support children being born into poverty?? Disgusting.
People should take care of their own housing and essential needs before even considering having children. Contraception is free in the UK. None of this having children and then going begging to the state for help otherwise the poor !!!!!! will starve.0 -
I've ended up voting no. The answer depends on what the question is taken to mean. Personally I think council housing as an idea is a bandaid to hide a problem we should address: There isn't enough housing available and people can't afford it.
The question is meant as it was posted.
Do you support in the idea of social housing?
I clarified that this concept had nothing to do with the current model, it's financing or how it is provisioned
I wonder if by answering no, what you would expect should something untoward happen in your life.
My basis is that there should be a basic level of social housing that provides a minimum level of support, whilst incentivising those that can afford to move on.Clearly we have a need for social housing now
So you do support the idea of social housing.we should be looking at how we can get enough property into the market so that it is affordable and there is competition amongst landlords for tenants.
As a BTL LL, I do not envisage that this will ever be a sustainable business model.
Investors went into BTL, because there is a gap in the market.
This gap means that it is profitable investment.
If there was a surplus of property, investors would sell of and reduce the competition.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
Kennyboy66 wrote: »
The way you chose to express the numbers was deeply dishonest, intended to mislead and you are fully aware of that.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »The question is meant as it was posted.
That's where you went wrong :eek:'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0 -
JencParker wrote: »No it is not a right - I agree, but with today's low wages and high cost of living that excludes those on low wages without some help whether that be through low cost housing or child benefits.
What do you believe is a minimum level of income one could survive on and then bring up a child?
This website should give plenty opportunity to save outgoings.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
No I don't support social housing.
Does the govt subsidise food or energy or clothes for those on low incomes? So why should it offer subsidised housing.
However of course the govt should ensure all its citizens are housed and housing benefit provides a mechanism to ensure that this happens. In general I think benefits should be given as cash so the recipeints can choose whether to spend them on warm clothes or mroe heating for example but I can see a good rationale for the current system of giving benefit specifically for housing as it prevents the !!!!less spending the money on alcohol/sky/whatever then being homeless on the streets.
So:
No to social housing provided by the state
No to subsidised below market rents
Yes to supporting those on low incomes with housing costs
Yes to adjusting tenancy laws to give longer security of tenure if required
A big reason it is such an issue is because land use restrictions make housing much more expensive than build costs. This is another area where the govt should stop interfering in the market.I think....0 -
That's where you went wrong :eek:
Now now purch.
With 73%+ voting to support social housing, I believe the outcome is that the majority of this forum support social housing as opposed to your premise that there would be little support for it
:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
No I don't support social housing.
Does the govt subsidise food or energy or clothes for those on low incomes? So why should it offer subsidised housing.
However of course the govt should ensure all its citizens are housed and housing benefit provides a mechanism to ensure that this happens. In general I think benefits should be given as cash so the recipeints can choose whether to spend them on warm clothes or mroe heating for example but I can see a good rationale for the current system of giving benefit specifically for housing as it prevents the !!!!less spending the money on alcohol/sky/whatever then being homeless on the streets.
So:
No to social housing provided by the state
No to subsidised below market rents
Yes to supporting those on low incomes with housing costs
Yes to adjusting tenancy laws to give longer security of tenure if required
A big reason it is such an issue is because land use restrictions make housing much more expensive than build costs. This is another area where the govt should stop interfering in the market.
You could argue that the government does subsidise food with the subsidies given to farmers.
They also subsidise the private and public corporate sector by subsidising the wages of the low paid through tax credits which have enabled them to continually pay low wages.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Now now purch.
With 73%+ voting to support social housing, I believe the outcome is that the majority of this forum support social housing as opposed to your premise that there would be little support for it
Yes, Yes....I was wrong, completely and utterly wrong.
What I meant about you going wrong was that you asked a simple direct question, which on this forum means a thread full of muddle, confusion, cross purposes and argument usually from posters who actually agree with each other but won't stop arguing long enough to realise that fact.
Oh, and I would like to reiterate that I was wrong.'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0 -
JencParker wrote: »You could argue that the government does subsidise food with the subsidies given to farmers.
They also subsidise the private and public corporate sector by subsidising the wages of the low paid through tax credits which have enabled them to continually pay low wages.
Sure but everyone benefits from those subsidies (if they exist) not only those who have been lucky enough to have been 'chosen' in some way.I think....0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards