Britain is living through the best time ever

chucknorris

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

I tend to agree, but I wouldn't go as far as that, I favour would extending the claw back of the discount to say 10 years, on a sliding scale.

Moby

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?

Germany is a good example to follow imo. Social democracy was the driving force after the war. They started from scratch and built an economy on partnership between the state and individual. The unions were integrated into decision/policy making and not viewed as the 'enemy within'. In contrast the Thatcherite model which still prevails here as a response to industrial strife was highly divisive and set interest against interest. Whatever you think of that and the reasons....! Osborne has continued this divide and rule with his mantra about supporting 'people who work' and those that don't are excluded. I like the Waitrose/John Lewis model rather than the Tesco model let's say. I don't like the way the govmt has used home ownership as the driving force of their housing policy. The dream of property ownership is the idol which too many people have been encouraged to worship. The govmt has encouraged this 'aspiration' as their main goal. They are appealing to the 'greed' within us to own and possess the land. Fact is there is only so much to go around and there are 60 odd million of us now on these islands. It ain't going to work is it....not without social strife and increasing inequality! Pretty obvious really but govmt know that most people don't see beyond the end of their own nose!

Of course individuals have responsibilities to work, care for their families etc.....I am not an apologist for the !!!!less! I just think the !!!!less/workshy argument is trotted out time and time again by the right as a mask to hide the inherent unfairnesses they are not prepared to acknowledge or deal with.....probably because the problem is too complicated for them and requires a degree of state intervention which is anathema! Politicians prefer simple short term solutions to such problems because all they are interested in is their own five year cycle of accountability to the electorate!

We need thoughtful politicians who think long term and are not interested in power for it's own sake.....any names come to mind?:)

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

I would expect you to celebrate the layabout rather than the person making a positive contribution to society and leading a worthwhile life and setting a fine example to his children.

actually the layabout's interest would be paid by the state : and in any event the 4 bed house he has, would have significant equity.
Of course his children have left home, so he can make do with a one bed flat rather than un-necessarialy occupying a four bed detached house (for life) at public expense.

a win win for society however you look at it.

p00hsticks

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Housing provision for the poor and benefit claimants in London is poor? Then move out of London, free up the housing the working commuters and come and live in a northern council estate. The working owners will then improve their own houses and estates.

I suspect that you'll find that there is already a lengthy waiting list for council housing in most of those northern towns, and they'll (quite rightly IMO) be giving priority to those with local ties to the area.

there's generally a reason why northern towns are seen as cheaper to live in and that's because there are often limited opportunities for employment and the percentage of local "poor and benefit claimants" is already higher than the national average.

Why would you handicap these towns further by dumping London's great unwashed on them as well ?

chucknorris

Moby wrote: »

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

It it is patently obvious, why ask the bloody question then?

I agree with you about the unfairness though, it is totally unjust that benefits should be at (or near) a level where they equal what some people's earnings are, that is a totally crazy system, especially when you consider that it is tax from workers paying for it (double whammy). Except perhaps for people that are totally incapable of working (i.e. due to a disability).

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would expect you to celebrate the layabout rather than the person making a positive contribution to society and leading a worthwhile life and setting a fine example to his children.

actually the layabout's interest would be paid by the state : and in any event the 4 bed house he has, would have significant equity.
Of course his children have left home, so he can make do with a one bed flat rather than un-necessarialy occupying a four bed detached house (for life) at public expense.

a win win for society however you look at it.

You really are something nothing in my post supports anybody just the concequencies of selling him the house at a discount. He may well have equity but if he doesnt work again it would soon disappear. To make it clear I'm not saying it's right that we support him just that that is what would happen. I take it your happier that he has £1500 a month of our money that £500.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Germany is a good example to follow imo. Social democracy was the driving force after the war. They started from scratch and built an economy on partnership between the state and individual. The unions were integrated into decision/policy making and not viewed as the 'enemy within'. In contrast the Thatcherite model which still prevails here as a response to industrial strife was highly divisive and set interest against interest. Whatever you think of that and the reasons....! Osborne has continued this divide and rule with his mantra about supporting 'people who work' and those that don't are excluded. I like the Waitrose/John Lewis model rather than the Tesco model let's say. I don't like the way the govmt has used home ownership as the driving force of their housing policy. The dream of property ownership is the idol which too many people have been encouraged to worship. The govmt has encouraged this 'aspiration' as their main goal. They are appealing to the 'greed' within us to own and possess the land. Fact is there is only so much to go around and there are 60 odd million of us now on these islands. It ain't going to work is it....not without social strife and increasing inequality! Pretty obvious really but govmt know that most people don't see beyond the end of their own nose!

Of course individuals have responsibilities to work, care for their families etc.....I am not an apologist for the !!!!less! I just think the !!!!less/workshy argument is trotted out time and time again by the right as a mask to hide the inherent unfairnesses they are not prepared to acknowledge or deal with.....probably because the problem is too complicated for them and requires a degree of state intervention which is anathema! Politicians prefer simple short term solutions to such problems because all they are interested in is their own five year cycle of accountability to the electorate!

We need thoughtful politicians who think long term and are not interested in power for it's own sake.....any names come to mind?:)

Germany did have many good feature after the war

Certainly the ordinary people didn't support communists so would not have supported the UK trade unionist who set out to overthrow the state.

They recognised that to gain prosperity it was necessary to work with management rather than strike all the time

They recognised that change and industrial evolution was essential rather than something to be fought against time and time again.

There was no need for a Thatcherite revolution there as they had already adopted the best features.

Moby

chucknorris wrote: »

It it is patently obvious, why ask the bloody question then?

I was responding to someone elses line of argument!

I agree with you about the unfairness though, it is totally unjust that benefits
should be at a level where they equal what some people's earnings are, that is a
totally crazy system, especially when you consider that it is tax from workers
paying for it (double whammy). Except perhaps for people that are totally
incapable of working (i.e. due to a disability

).

I am a worker too who also pays taxes...but don't see things so simplistically. There may be a problem as you describe but the divide and rule rhetoric which you have so voraciously lapped up doesn't solve the problem. To pull the rug from under families depending on the benefit without a thought out social policy to replace it with just creates another casualty family. It's the children that will suffer long term!

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

Germany did have many good feature after the war

Certainly the ordinary people didn't support communists so would not have supported the UK trade unionist who set out to overthrow the state.

They recognised that to gain prosperity it was necessary to work with management rather than strike all the time

They recognised that change and industrial evolution was essential rather than something to be fought against time and time again.

There was no need for a Thatcherite revolution there as they had already adopted the best features.

Yes that's right Clapton....that's what I said with the rider.... management recongnised the importance of co-operation as well. It was a two way process and not just driven from the top!

chucknorris

Moby wrote: »

I am a worker too who also pays taxes...but don't see things so simplistically. There may be a problem as you describe but the divide and rule rhetoric which you have so voraciously lapped up doesn't solve the problem. To pull the rug from under families depending on the benefit without a thought out social policy to replace it with just creates another casualty family. It's the children that will suffer long term!

I do not see things simplistically, I am aware that it is complicated, do you imagine that only socialists are intelligent enough to have valid opinions?

My wife's family came here from Vietnam, they were picked up from a boat at sea, they spent about 6 months in a refugee camp in dire conditions in Singapore, then a further 6 months in this country with all 5 of the family sharing only one room (2 adults and 3 children (aged 7 to 10). Then they were moved to a council house in Wales, they didn't suffer long term, my wife and her brother ended up with first class honours degrees (they couldn't speak English when they arrived here) and good careers. My wife thinks the same about the benefits system as I do, that it should only cover the basics (except for the disabled and sick).