Government should help those without bank of mum and dad

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

My objections to the council housing are
-they form ghetto
-the occupants have no responsibility for their surroundings
-it prevents mobility as moving from council property to council property
-the acquisition of the property is based on circumstances at the time and then the occupancy is for life irrespective of change in circumstances increase in income, reduction of people living there
-taxpayers on similar income subsidise the council tenants
-there is a basis unfairness when whole swathes of London are out of bounds to (say) nurses, teachers, policemen, utility workers etc while council tenant can live for life at low rents irrespective of whether they work or not.
-and of course the properties are heavily subsidised by taxpayers who themselves don't benefit

The argument that profit adds to the cost is a little odd: if it were so why don't local authorities run their own care homes, generate their own electricity, run their own rubbish collection, repair their own roads, build their own council houses etc etc?


Subsidising people rather than property avoids most of these difficulties.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

My objections to the council housing are
-they form ghetto
-the occupants have no responsibility for their surroundings
-it prevents mobility as moving from council property to council property
-the acquisition of the property is based on circumstances at the time and then the occupancy is for life irrespective of change in circumstances increase in income, reduction of people living there
-taxpayers on similar income subsidise the council tenants
-there is a basis unfairness when whole swathes of London are out of bounds to (say) nurses, teachers, policemen, utility workers etc while council tenant can live for life at low rents irrespective of whether they work or not.
-and of course the properties are heavily subsidised by taxpayers who themselves don't benefit

The argument that profit adds to the cost is a little odd: if it were so why don't local authorities run their own care homes, generate their own electricity, run their own rubbish collection, repair their own roads, build their own council houses etc etc?


Subsidising people rather than property avoids most of these difficulties.

You are still comparing with old and council estates do not have to be ghettos they never used to be. The reason councils out source are many and it lots of cases the out sourced work is inferior and workers are paid less.


Is BTL is an efficient way for councils to pay for rent normally there are quite a few fingers in the pie actual landlord, letting agency, bank.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

You are still comparing with old and council estates do not have to be ghettos they never used to be. The reason councils out source are many and it lots of cases the out sourced work is inferior and workers are paid less.


Is BTL is an efficient way for councils to pay for rent normally there are quite a few fingers in the pie actual landlord, letting agency, bank.

If the outsourced work is inferior and workers are paid less then why don't council run them with the same wages and same inferior standards but keep all that massive profit for either extra services or reduce council tax ?

Yes, paying money to needy people only when they are in need is much more efficient that subsidising properties for ever.

BillJones

ABetterLife wrote: »

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

They don't earn any of their benefits, that's why they are benefits, not wages.

It's not helpful or useful to conflate money handed out to meet basic needs with wages earned for carrying out a job, and there is little reason to believe that the amounts should be comparable.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

If the outsourced work is inferior and workers are paid less then why don't council run them with the same wages and same inferior standards but keep all that massive profit for either extra services or reduce council tax ?

Yes, paying money to needy people only when they are in need is much more efficient that subsidising properties for ever.

Probably the easy option rather than deal with unions and manage it themselves. I'm not sure why you keep saying subsidising properties for ever there is no reason why they can't charge a realistic rent and give LHA in a similar way to the way it is given to people in private property.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Probably the easy option rather than deal with unions and manage it themselves. I'm not sure why you keep saying subsidising properties for ever there is no reason why they can't charge a realistic rent and give LHA in a similar way to the way it is given to people in private property.

I believe Bob Crow still believed in communism : he believed they got it a just a little bit wrong and a few tweaks would make it work OK.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

I believe Bob Crow still believed in communism : he believed they got it a just a little bit wrong and a few tweaks would make it work OK.

Do you really think BTL is an efficient and effective way of providing rental accommodation for the lower paid. You are just as bad as Bob Crow because you believe private enterprise is the solution to everything where in fact we need a balanced approach.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you really think BTL is an efficient and effective way of providing rental accommodation for the lower paid. You are just as bad as Bob Crow because you believe private enterprise is the solution to everything where in fact we need a balanced approach.

I don't believe that private enterprise is the solution for everything: e.g natural monopolies

There seems nothing special about housing that is monopolistic in it's nature so I believe a balanced approach with a market economy supported with appropriate rules and regulation.

Life will not be perfect on course, but will be better that the council housing that is subsidised by the poor, restricts freedom of movement for the tenants, is inflexible to meet their changing needs
etc.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't believe that private enterprise is the solution for everything: e.g natural monopolies

There seems nothing special about housing that is monopolistic in it's nature so I believe a balanced approach with a market economy supported with appropriate rules and regulation.

Life will not be perfect on course, but will be better that the council housing that is subsidised by the poor, restricts freedom of movement for the tenants, is inflexible to meet their changing needs
etc.

BTL is subsidised by the poor why does council housing have to restrict freedom of movement or be inflexible. If it does I think that is better than being subject to having to move at short notice. If the private sector was willing to provide good long term accommodation then that would be ok but they aren't .

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

BTL is subsidised by the poor why does council housing have to restrict freedom of movement or be inflexible. If it does I think that is better than being subject to having to move at short notice. If the private sector was willing to provide good long term accommodation then that would be ok but they aren't .

Lots of landlord prefer long term tenants : in fact why wouldn't any profit motivated, lazy, idle landlords prefer a long term tenant?

What evidence do you have that there is massive compulsory eviction of private tenants?