Britain is living through the best time ever

Mistermeaner

Moby wrote: »

Since you asked........IMO France, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, Canada. I personally think Costa Rica is a really special place to live as well. ....but direct comparisons are pointless. No I'm not losing my job....but colleagues are and I was thinking of them. Yes I've been all over the world including Africa and India.....I wouldn't view comparisons as valid of course. Regarding the role models point I was talking about life chances and how the lack of opportunity affects social mobility. We are generally a class ridden highly stratified country IMO. I view the way we treat prisoners as a sign of civilisation and decency. 'Boo hoo hoo' as a social policy is hard to respond to but perhaps that was your intention. Of course right thinking people would agree that the increasing suicide rate is a serious concern. Likewise NHS services are deteriorating badly recently and that is something which matters to me a lot. You may have had a good experience but sadly many don't and I was thinking of them.
I simply don't recognise the picture painted by the article and got the impression the person writing it was also slightly muddled becase they finished it by saying.......... 'Our industrial production could improve, our dependence on imports to be weakened but one thing is for certain, it isn't all that bad'....well it ain't all that good either IMO and that's accepting her terms of reference! I wouldn't tend to define value in such simplistic terms anyway!

You don't say how all the 'problems' in your view should be fixed. What should we be doing?

Mistermeaner

BobQ wrote: »

I think the point that is not made clear is that SOME of us are living this dream but many are not. But if your a rich journalist what do you care about those who are not living in your world.

Even the poorest in this country have it very very good. Free shelter, money for nothing. Free healthcare. Have a couple of kids and youand them are well looked after. Hell we even top up the wages of the low paid.

What in your view is not generous enough?

Mistermeaner

Moby wrote: »

I thought I had quite eloquently...... but those who think with their wallets, which I fully accept make up the majority on here, see things differently. Here's Owen Jones take on many of the issues:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/14/right-to-buy-scheme-disaster-housing

Whether you agree with rtb or not people still have more than adequate shelter. Home ownership is not a right.

For what it is worth I disagree with rtb but only the discount element of it. I do also think we need to relax planning so more homes are built and let market force control price.

That aside in general the poor and needy are housed incredibly well in this country - look how many live in central London essentially for free.

Mistermeaner

Moby wrote: »

Totally accept what you say but do you think because you could do it..... everybody could/should/ is in a position to? Is it really that simple for you? Besides I think the move from the workhouse to the welfare state was a great achievement of the left ...don't you......... and we should protect it wouldn't you agree?
Surely people come here looking for a better life and to escape places like Syria. Are you saying I should be grateful for the fact that I don't live in Syria?

So what's the solution - all jobs are guaranteed for life and no-one can be made redundant?

If you lose your job the state will pay your prior wages indefinitely?

chucknorris

Moby wrote: »

Totally accept what you say but do you think because you could do it..... everybody could/should/ is in a position to? Is it really that simple for you? Besides I think the move from the workhouse to the welfare state was a great achievement of the left ...don't you......... and we should protect it wouldn't you agree?
Surely people come here looking for a better life and to escape places like Syria. Are you saying I should be grateful for the fact that I don't live in Syria?

Yes, you should be grateful that you don't live in Syria, I certainly am, I have absolutely no doubt about that.

chucknorris

Mistermeaner wrote: »

So what's the solution - all jobs are guaranteed for life and no-one can be made redundant?

If you lose your job the state will pay your prior wages indefinitely?

People obviously have to take responsibility for their own lives, but equally obviously a 'safety net' is needed for those that can't (not won't) look after themselves. The scope of this 'safety net' is IMO the problem.

PixelPound

Mistermeaner wrote: »

For what it is worth I disagree with rtb but only the discount element of it. I do also think we need to relax planning so more homes are built and let market force control price.

That aside in general the poor and needy are housed incredibly well in this country - look how many live in central London essentially for free.

I thought initially I disagreed with the discount element of RTB, and then I looked at it. In theory discounting RTB does allow people to buy their house who couldn't afford market value, this to me isn't the real problem I object to. Its the selling the property a few years later to pocket that discount, that's not promoting home ownership.

For the RTB discount to work as I assume it was envisaged, it should be akin to shared ownership in that the discount has to be repaid when the house is sold. So if someone gets a 45% RTB discount whenever they sell it, 45% of the sale value goes back to the council. The seller may have made a profit as house prices increased, and the buyer still gets a 100% freehold as they would normally.

I know plenty of people who bought their house under RTB and will live in it until they die, to me this is who RTB was aimed at, not the enterprising person able to get a council house, to then buy and sell once time limits are gone.

I watched a documentary on London's new slums, people stuck on housing benefit in substandard flats in minimum wage jobs. Free isn't always a cushy number

Moby

chucknorris wrote: »

Yes, you should be grateful that you don't live in Syria, I certainly am, I have absolutely no doubt about that.

....but that's patently evident anyway surely and it's not a justification for the unfairness and lack of equality in our own society.

CLAPTON

nic_c wrote: »

I thought initially I disagreed with the discount element of RTB, and then I looked at it. In theory discounting RTB does allow people to buy their house who couldn't afford market value, this to me isn't the real problem I object to. Its the selling the property a few years later to pocket that discount, that's not promoting home ownership.

For the RTB discount to work as I assume it was envisaged, it should be akin to shared ownership in that the discount has to be repaid when the house is sold. So if someone gets a 45% RTB discount whenever they sell it, 45% of the sale value goes back to the council. The seller may have made a profit as house prices increased, and the buyer still gets a 100% freehold as they would normally.

I know plenty of people who bought their house under RTB and will live in it until they die, to me this is who RTB was aimed at, not the enterprising person able to get a council house, to then buy and sell once time limits are gone.

I watched a documentary on London's new slums, people stuck on housing benefit in substandard flats in minimum wage jobs. Free isn't always a cushy number

lets say 2 people in broadly similar circumstances use RTB

lets say after a few years both lose their job.

one stays put and lives the rest of their life on benefits

the other sells their RTB and moves to find a new job, using the money in full to buy a new place :


you celebrate the first layabout and persecute the useful worthwhile person

if the 'discount' has to be paid back when you move, it creates a huge incentive never to move or improve oneself

total madness

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

lets say 2 people in broadly similar circumstances use RTB

lets say after a few years both lose their job.

one stays put and lives the rest of their life on benefits

the other sells their RTB and moves to find a new job, using the money in full to buy a new place :


you celebrate the first layabout and persecute the useful worthwhile person

if the 'discount' has to be paid back when you move, it creates a huge incentive never to move or improve oneself

total madness

But what happens to that layabout he can't pay his mortgage so he's evicted the council have a duty to rehouse him, no social housing available so he's put into private rental property and we end up paying a least twice as much in LHA as we would have had to if he was still in social housing.