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
Help to Buy is not causing a housing bubble
Comments
-
EchoLocation wrote: »??? I think you've maybe misread my post.
in the sense I don't understand it, then maybe yes or maybe no0 -
true
but then you didn't actually say anything coherent about housing or low pay.
I thought I was quite clear it might be better if subsidies were not there and employers should pay a living wage which you seem to agree with (note I said might because that would also cause problems). The difference is you seem to think we can build our way out of the problem and I don't to be honest I can't see an easy solution.0 -
I thought I was quite clear it might be better if subsidies were not there and employers should pay a living wage which you seem to agree with (note I said might because that would also cause problems). The difference is you seem to think we can build our way out of the problem and I don't to be honest I can't see an easy solution.
No easy solution because once a vast dependency infrastructure is built up it is difficult to knock it down.
Lots of people, rich and poor have built their lives around the subsidises.
But I believe that it can be better once the pain has been suffered.
There must be a support system at the bottom and for people in temporary difficulties but eh rest is better with a market based system where people make their own choices.0 -
No easy solution because once a vast dependency infrastructure is built up it is difficult to knock it down.
Lots of people, rich and poor have built their lives around the subsidises.
But I believe that it can be better once the pain has been suffered.
There must be a support system at the bottom and for people in temporary difficulties but eh rest is better with a market based system where people make their own choices.
Council housing used to work quite well as a way of providing accommodation to low paid workers.0 -
Council housing used to work quite well as a way of providing accommodation to low paid workers.
no it didn't
some workers were allocated good quality 'council' accommodation for life based on their circumstances at that time
Many workers in exactly the same circumstances were not.
Those that were allocated tax payer subsidised accommodation were trapped for life as it was very difficult to move for a job or because circumstances changed. so developed a total dependency way of life ...
Their children learnt that one could live a 'decent' life with no responsibilities, without working, so degenerated into minor crime, drug taking and child production without responsibility
No, it never did work but some nostalgic people think it did.
Many people in russia still mourne for the good old days of the USSR0 -
no it didn't
some workers were allocated good quality 'council' accommodation for life based on their circumstances at that time
Many workers in exactly the same circumstances were not.
Those that were allocated tax payer subsidised accommodation were trapped for life as it was very difficult to move for a job or because circumstances changed. so developed a total dependency way of life ...
Their children learnt that one could live a 'decent' life with no responsibilities, without working, so degenerated into minor crime, drug taking and child production without responsibility
No, it never did work but some nostalgic people think it did.
Many people in russia still mourne for the good old days of the USSR
It worked to the extent that it gave for low paid workers somewhere to live and you obviously have no idea what council estates were like in the 60s and 70s what they have developed into now is nothing to do with council housing per say.0 -
It worked to the extent that it gave for low paid workers somewhere to live and you obviously have no idea what council estates were like in the 60s and 70s what they have developed into now is nothing to do with council housing per say.
I am very familiar with council housing in the 60/70s : many of my friends lived in them but we were too poor to be considered.
At that time people were employed and grateful for the improvement in their living conditions given the destruction of the war and the slums.
But the basis fault lines of dependency were set , which is exactly what was wrong with council housing.
Whats your take on what went wrong?0 -
I am very familiar with council housing in the 60/70s : many of my friends lived in them but we were too poor to be considered.
At that time people were employed and grateful for the improvement in their living conditions given the destruction of the war and the slums.
But the basis fault lines of dependency were set , which is exactly what was wrong with council housing.
Whats your take on what went wrong?
They were sold off without being replaced they were increasingly allocated to the long term unemployed. There may be other problems outside London where communities were decimated by the closure of local industries but my experience in from the south east where jobs were available but private property was out of reach.
I'm not sure what you mean by to poor to considered for one as that depended on your need not how poor you were. We lived in what you would consider a slum until my sister was old enough and our need was consider to be high enough.0 -
their wages are not being subsidised by the tax payer.
our elected government has forced the price of house up by paying silly amounts of HB, by restricting the supply of new housing, by allowing until occupancy of social housing, by a mad tax credit system that discourages full time working etc
what has that got to do with supermarkets?indeed so, people who choose not to work or choose to only work part time are all subsidised by other people who do work.
tax credit are an un-necessary recent invention which have caused a lot of harm to the people receiving them and their children; in the same way that housing benefit has distorted the housing market, cause prices to rise for everyone without significantly encouraging new building
what has that got to do with supermarkets?Given we have to make the choice why should the taxpayer subsidise low paid workers (or unemployed) to live in central areas whilst expecting other people to live is smaller properties and/or commute?
Are one group more worthy than the other?
In any event you are doing these lower paid no service:
London is the richest part of the country and taxpayer shouldn't be subsidising Londoners.
If London needs these jobs and they weren't taxpayer subsidised then the wage rates would rise due to simply supply/demand.
Win Win for everyone
I am confused.
You say jobs are not subsidised then they are.
Presumably supermarkets would fall into the last statement I have hilighted in bold. They would have to raise wage rates."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: »I am confused.
You say jobs are not subsidised then they are.
Presumably supermarkets would fall into the last statement I have hilighted in bold. They would have to raise wage rates.
Yes of course they are subsidised in the literal sense but one has to distinguish between cause and effort, between intentions and results.
They are only subsidised now, not because they need to be, but because the state has constructed a multi-layed complex subsidy system that prevents the natural economic forces to work such that they wouldn't need subsidy.
So because we subsidised rents we created higher rents which means we need higher subsidies for wages etc.
Supermarkets are indeed subsidised because the workers need to pay high rents but they are only high because of the HB subsidies.
Each feeds on the other.
Many of the results are perverse: the unemployed and unemployable are assisted at the expense of normal working people.
Stop the cycle and things will improve.
Then we won't be subsidising supermarkets.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards