Government should help those without bank of mum and dad

Bantex_2

Cannot see why selling at 50% discounts to the chosen few was a good idea.

CLAPTON

Bantex wrote: »

Cannot see why selling at 50% discounts to the chosen few was a good idea.

100% (or maybe is it 50%) agree

ABetterLife

CLAPTON wrote: »

There is little reason why tax payer subsidised council housing should be an option.

I see it an desirable that more people own rather than live in ghettos of subsidised housing.

So if it isn't/wasn't an option, what do people do if they can't afford to rent privately/buy? Live on the street?

How is council housing tax payer subsidised, other than in the case of HB claimants (which can be claimed on private housing too). Plenty of working TAXPAYERS live in council houses too.

Bantex_2

ABetterLife wrote: »

So if it isn't/wasn't an option, what do people do if they can't afford to rent privately/buy? Live on the street?

How is council housing tax payer subsidised, other than in the case of HB claimants (which can be claimed on private housing too). Plenty of working TAXPAYERS live in council houses too.

Anything supplied at below market value is in effect subsidised.

ABetterLife

Bantex wrote: »

Anything supplied at below market value is in effect subsidised.

Right .....

CLAPTON

ABetterLife wrote: »

So if it isn't/wasn't an option, what do people do if they can't afford to rent privately/buy? Live on the street?

How is council housing tax payer subsidised, other than in the case of HB claimants (which can be claimed on private housing too). Plenty of working TAXPAYERS live in council houses too.

I believe that people should be subsidised rather than specific property.
So I support housing benefit for people who need it although I think the current system is flawed.

Although I suppose one shouldn't mention Bob Crow but why was a person who was earning over 150,000 living is subsidised property?

ABetterLife

CLAPTON wrote: »

I believe that people should be subsidised rather than specific property.
So I support housing benefit for people who need it although I think the current system is flawed.

Although I suppose one shouldn't mention Bob Crow but why was a person who was earning over 150,000 living is subsidised property?

Fair enough, I understand that.

The problem I've noticed with benefits is they're inaccessible/penalise people who truly need it while the people who don't seem to be allowed to take advantage.

Am I the only one who feels like this? It seems unfair and everyone's POV seems to be, 'lets reduce them then/get rid of them/make them even more inaccessible/penalise claimants more', instead of 'let's just punish/not let people take advantage'.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

I believe that people should be subsidised rather than specific property.
So I support housing benefit for people who need it although I think the current system is flawed.

Although I suppose one shouldn't mention Bob Crow but why was a person who was earning over 150,000 living is subsidised property?

But you always address your criticism at the current system of council housing and do not take into consideration that the system can be improved. The problem with subsidising people in private renting is that the Landlord is naturally in business to make money and this is also included in the subsidy.

BillJones

ABetterLife wrote: »

Fair enough, I understand that.

The problem I've noticed with benefits is they're inaccessible/penalise people who truly need it while the people who don't seem to be allowed to take advantage.

The more generous they are, though, the more people feel able to allow themselves to be in a position to "truly need it".

If life on benefits were less well funded then we'd find that an awful lot fewer people were "unfortunately" ending up needing them, as they'd make surre that that never happened.

ABetterLife

BillJones wrote: »

The more generous they are, though, the more people feel able to allow themselves to be in a position to "truly need it".

If life on benefits were less well funded then we'd find that an awful lot fewer people were "unfortunately" ending up needing them, as they'd make surre that that never happened.

So how much does a person on benefits 'earn' compared to a person in full time, minimum wage work?

(The reason I specify minimum wage work is because not everybody has a degree/an entry into anything else above minimum wage, and to get a degree/qualification requires studying, which also requires money to live. IYKWIM?).

If I'm truly honest, I'd rather people didn't lose their homes/live in more crap situations just to stop people taking advantage. I'm sure there's other ways instead of making it even harder. The stories I've heard from people who've actually needed the help hasn't left me in good faith.