Corbynomics: A Dystopia

cells

westernpromise wrote: »

Maybe, but your calculation is based on two suppositions - that social tenants want to buy and that they will maintain their property. Having always had this done for free, I would guess they will have no inkling of how much it costs to do the latter. When they find out they will -probably not bother.

whats that got to do with us?
there are currently owners who dont keep good repair of their homes its not anyones business but their own

cells

Social tenants should also have the right to use their RightToBuy discount on private homes. That is to say a person living in a 2 bed £300,000 flat in inner London who would be given £100,000 discount if they bought that flat should have the right to go out and spend that £100,000 on any property. They may choose for instance to go and buy nice 3 bed house in Stoke-on-trent for £100k which the government will cover

Their £300k flat they vacated would be sold to cover the £100k, plus the government then has another £200k left over. The benefits are the £200k excess for the governemnt and moving one person out of crowded london to oversupplied sotke

TheNickster

cells wrote: »

Social tenants should also have the right to use their RightToBuy discount on private homes. That is to say a person living in a 2 bed £300,000 flat in inner London who would be given £100,000 discount if they bought that flat should have the right to go out and spend that £100,000 on any property. They may choose for instance to go and buy nice 3 bed house in Stoke-on-trent for £100k which the government will cover

Their £300k flat they vacated would be sold to cover the £100k, plus the government then has another £200k left over. The benefits are the £200k excess for the governemnt and moving one person out of crowded london to oversupplied sotke

What about tenants in the private sector who are in receipt of housing benefit? Surely they also should be able to use their HB to be able to buy - it seems unfair otherwise especially if they are in the private sector only because of the shortage of social housing.

cells

TheNickster wrote: »

What about tenants in the private sector who are in receipt of housing benefit? Surely they also should be able to use their HB to be able to buy - it seems unfair otherwise especially if they are in the private sector only because of the shortage of social housing.

nobody is likely to lend them money to buy. with the social tenants the sale of the social property can fund the move.

cells

fafafafafafasadsong wrote: »

Free money for all!

yes the majority do get free money/services

westernpromise

Yippee!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/08/labour-must-allow-all-members-leadership-vote-court-rules

Yeremiy a shoo-in. Will Smith chuck in the towel and run to lead one of the factions Labour will now split into?

TheNickster

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I'd be a supporter of radical reform of the system.

It's absolutely not ok to be paying thousands in rent for massive homes for large families in a perpetual state of handouts.

The safety net should be just that, not a way of life.

It seems to me that your objection is more on a matter of principal rather than that of a major problem given that large families are a very tiny percentage of those on benefits.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-truth-about-the-child-benefits-cap/11739



The following short article details why the Joseph Rowntree Foundation argues why you are wrong:- They are

1) There is no evidence that benefit sanctions deter people from having children and that best way of reducing birth rates is to increase women's education and opportunities in the labour market.

2) It is often unfairly punishing families especially when thay may have formed their families when their incomes were higher and then been pushed into problems through illness, bereavement or redundancy.

3) It does not 'incentivise' people into work because the real barriers to work for parents of large families are childcare costs, juggling arrangements for childcare for children of different ages, lack of flexible and part time jobs, low wages.

4) It is a counter productive way to save money.

and I would add that large families are extremely hard work for parent(s) almost however much the household benefit income is.

I would be interested in a response to each of their arguments.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/should-large-families-face-benefit-sanctions

The question then is do you have a solution that meets your objection but does not replace one 'problem' with another or more problems?

TheNickster

cells wrote: »

nobody is likely to lend them money to buy. with the social tenants the sale of the social property can fund the move.

Even so it is still unfair. How would you address that unfairness?

Your scheme for social tenants is to a large extent self financing but in the private rented sector housing benefit is a transfer of taxpayers money to private landlords although taxing the landlord may get only a smallish proportion of it back to the government.

TheNickster

westernpromise wrote: »

Yippee!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/08/labour-must-allow-all-members-leadership-vote-court-rules

Yeremiy a shoo-in. Will Smith chuck in the towel and run to lead one of the factions Labour will now split into?

What has the Prince of Bel-Air got to do with it?

Thrugelmir

ukcarper wrote: »

I think the reason London and the south east are more expensive than places like Stoke is because of supply and demand and the availability of good employment.

First came the oil rich Arabs.

Then the Russians

Now the Chinese.

Not forgetting the French either.