Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Cakeguts

buglawton wrote: »

Be honest, overall demand would still be up sharply as young people leave home earlier. Some landlords would indeed sell, to pocket the 40% price increases kindly provided by the taxpayer. But with current planning laws and a strong tendency for builders to first landbank then only build expensive developments, where's any real increase in starter home supply coming from?

Apart from the UK's green belt policy in the most intensively popular housing locations, there's also the the fact that every young person (including the EU) favours S.E. England to job seek in.

The problem is that there are a lot of not very bright and not very financially aware young people who move to London to work. They only see the amount they will be paid not what it will cost them to live there. I feel that this is being caused by university degrees that don't lead to graduate jobs. So the people with these degrees feel entitled to earn more they then see a job advertised in London that won't cover living costs and move to London to get it. The problem is that if they have been to a not very high standard university and are not very bright they don't understand that the job that they see that is better paid than they can get outside London is not enough to cover living costs in London.

fatbeetle

Arklight wrote: »

Poverty is measured by the standards of the time, not by making a specious parallel with the past.

Unless you think it's fine for doctors to administer a good bleeding for ailments because this was good enough for people in the 16th Century, your example has no merit.

The rest is a load of boring Daily Mail poor blaming. Maybe at some point you lot will grow up enough to move beyond that.

I'm not holding my breath.

Your reply is laughable. The experience of people who are still living, is valid, and worth considering.

To make comparisons to C16 medicine, and to throw in the "Daily Mail" cliche, just proves how bereft of original thought you are.

Moby

Cakeguts wrote: »

Well the direction of travel is that everyone is getting better off. But you can't legislate for parents who are just plain stupid and have more children than they can afford. You also can't legislate for people who don't care about their children and are selfish and can't be bothered to stop having children when they have exceeded the number that they can care for. I hope you aren't suggesting that people are forced to be sterilised? You also can't legislate for selfish parents who spend benefit money on things and not on providing a roof over the children's heads so that they have somewhere to store the things.

We need more housing for the single disabled people. Not for families. Families are well provided for.

My point is that we have to legislate for these social problems otherwise we are guilty of turning away and ignoring them. Should the children pay for the sins of the parents like in Victorian times?

buglawton

GreatApe wrote: »

You are exaggerating

Its also unreasonable to expect a 3 bedroom terrace for the average person let alone the average FTB as the average property is a 2.7 bedroom terrace iirc

If you do a search for London plus 30 miles you get a hit for 1500 properties for under £250k

One of the big problems is that most FTBs and renters turn their noses up at average properties.
Maybe this is a fault of the internet. In the olden days you might have gone to an agent and they only showed you the properties within your budget. Now people have access to high res photos of all the properties in their areas and they look at properties they can't afford and then when viewing properties they can afford they get disheartened with what they can afford vs their heightened expectations.

I've seen local new build show homes, compared to their 1960s counterparts they are tiny inside, have no storage space and size zero gardens. Yet semis are just shy of £500,000. Yes there are some 2 bed terraces, really tiny, at £350,000. This compares with £2,000 in the early 1960s for a semi with generous garden and driveway size in a popular suburb of London, 25-30 miles distant as are my new build examples today. There's something badly wrong with the marketplace, it's more of a land speculation business than a house manufacturing one.

I'm thinking that parents who feel pressured into helping their offspring to buy a new build today, should consider encouraging them to emigrate instead.

cogito

Arklight wrote: »

Poverty is measured by the standards of the time, not by making a specious parallel with the past.

Unless you think it's fine for doctors to administer a good bleeding for ailments because this was good enough for people in the 16th Century, your example has no merit.

The rest is a load of boring Daily Mail poor blaming. Maybe at some point you lot will grow up enough to move beyond that.

I'm not holding my breath.

So in your view, if you don't have a smart TV, a playstation, a car and don't eat out every week, are you living in poverty? Where do you draw the line?

Arklight

cogito wrote: »

So in your view, if you don't have a smart TV, a playstation, a car and don't eat out every week, are you living in poverty? Where do you draw the line?

Yes, everyone on benefits has a posh car, Sky TV and a fridge covered in restaurant menus.

Boredatwrork

Moby wrote: »

My point is that we have to legislate for these social problems otherwise we are guilty of turning away and ignoring them. Should the children pay for the sins of the parents like in Victorian times?

I totally agree Moby, as a decent society we have to take care of the vulnerable, and its the right thing to do to have some kind of safety net for those who fall on hard times.
But it should be basic supplies, bus vouchers, food vouchers, not cold hard cash to allow people to make future bad decisions (many who made bad decisions that got them into their mess), and if the left want more support with this, these are the steps they should be advocating,
Giving cash to people who on the face of it use the cash to further a lifestyle that got them into this mess is not going to solve a problem.
You also forget the argument that many people would rather spend their hard earned money on their own children, I have worked 12 hour shifts for a number of years, I have very limited access to my child because of time limitations, I have a friend who chooses to be unemployed and does very sporadic temporary work (he is perfectly healthy), why should my money support him, what does he do in return? He lives in a house partially paid by the government, in a more desirable town to mine, and inturn his children are in a better catchment area than mine. He is often down the park with his kids (which his wife confessed they pretty much had the third to get a free upgrade on their house) while I am slaving away to put food on my (and it appears theirs) dinner table, this is anecdotal I know, but it does make the blood boil somewhat. Unsurprisingly he is a big fan of socialism, I try to avoid this topic with him for my own sanity.

My question is how do we determine who is vulnerable, the Torys are seen as meddling and 'evil' if they dare even mention the issue, yet they are condemned also for ignoring it (the same as the NHS)
The left don't appear to distinguish between legitimate cases and non legitimate cases and prefer to paint them all as needy, poor and vulnerable and beyond criticism or scrutiny, they play identity politics etc to gain support.
Your solution appears to be keep pouring money in no questions asked, I don't see that as solution and as a tax payer (like millions of others), it is our right to ask difficult questions as to where the money is going, of course any changes are going to play into any claimants perception of being abused, which then garners support from the left, so it is impossible to really determine whats legit and what isn't, and this is the issue the left have to reconcile, the left are doing the most damage to this country in my opinion, by refusing to support the idea of separating the wheat from the chaff, they are the ones who allows anyone to cry wolf to become a claimant, they are the ones denying legitimate cases as the money has to be shared more widely, this is where moderate people say enough is enough, and this is where the left to a large extent are seen as victims of their own making.

Arklight

Boredatwrork wrote: »

I totally agree Moby, as a decent society we have to take care of the vulnerable, and its the right thing to do to have some kind of safety net for those who fall on hard times.
But it should be basic supplies, bus vouchers, food vouchers, not cold hard cash to allow people to make future bad decisions (many who made bad decisions that got them into their mess), and if the left want more support with this, these are the steps they should be advocating,
Giving cash to people who on the face of it use the cash to further a lifestyle that got them into this mess is not going to solve a problem.
You also forget the argument that many people would rather spend their hard earned money on their own children, I have worked 12 hour shifts for a number of years, I have very limited access to my child because of time limitations, I have a friend who chooses to be unemployed and does very sporadic temporary work (he is perfectly healthy), why should my money support him, what does he do in return? He lives in a house partially paid by the government, in a more desirable town to mine, and inturn his children are in a better catchment area than mine. He is often down the park with his kids (which his wife confessed they pretty much had the third to get a free upgrade on their house) while I am slaving away to put food on my (and it appears theirs) dinner table, this is anecdotal I know, but it does make the blood boil somewhat. Unsurprisingly he is a big fan of socialism, I try to avoid this topic with him for my own sanity.

My question is how do we determine who is vulnerable, the Torys are seen as meddling and 'evil' if they dare even mention the issue, yet they are condemned also for ignoring it (the same as the NHS)
The left don't appear to distinguish between legitimate cases and non legitimate cases and prefer to paint them all as needy, poor and vulnerable and beyond criticism or scrutiny, they play identity politics etc to gain support.
Your solution appears to be keep pouring money in no questions asked, I don't see that as solution and as a tax payer (like millions of others), it is our right to ask difficult questions as to where the money is going, of course any changes are going to play into any claimants perception of being abused, which then garners support from the left, so it is impossible to really determine whats legit and what isn't, and this is the issue the left have to reconcile, the left are doing the most damage to this country in my opinion, by refusing to support the idea of separating the wheat from the chaff, they are the ones who allows anyone to cry wolf to become a claimant, they are the ones denying legitimate cases as the money has to be shared more widely, this is where moderate people say enough is enough, and this is where the left to a large extent are seen as victims of their own making.

It's funny how everyone on the Right campaigning for poor people to be paid in food vouchers and recycled clothes has an unemployed friend on benefits whom they hate living a millionaire lifestyle.


Having looked at Entitledto.co.uk for an unemployed couple with three children the most I can make it work out as is about £1600 a month if paying private rent of £1100pcm in SE England. It's unlikely anywhere in the SE would be less than that for a 3 bedroom house.


This is subject to the benefit cap.


So 5 people get about £500 a month to live on after the taxpayer has paid that month's mortgage instalment for their buy to let landlord.


According to the calculator they would be much better off if one of them worked. At 40 hours a week minimum wage they'd be almost £1000 a month better off.


You would have to be quite committed to being lazy to not do this. Perhaps they can't find full time work, at all.

westernpromise

Arklight wrote: »

You would have to be quite committed to being lazy to not do this. Perhaps they can't find full time work, at all.

The UK basically has full employment, so yes, anyone who could work but doesn't has chosen not to do so.

I'm very pleased to hear they're better off if one works. That's the idea.

If they don't work because they can't speak the language well enough to do so, then they're constructively unavailable for work and should be denied benefits altogether. If you're not prepared to accept work you're ineligible for out of work benefits. At that point they would probably find a way to return to whatever country they originated from where they do speak the language.

Yes it's going to be disruptive for the kids, but that's the parents' fault for having a family without the means to support one, and they hold the solution in their hands. The taxpayer certainly shouldn't give way to emotional blackmail - it would be immoral to do so.

Boredatwrork

Arklight wrote: »

It's funny how everyone on the Right campaigning for poor people to be paid in food vouchers and recycled clothes has an unemployed friend on benefits whom they hate living a millionaire lifestyle.

Its funny how your attempt to use sarcasm is quoshed by the fact that it is in quite a number of cases true, hence why the huge backlash and huge bill. would you like their address, maybe you could go visit them, see what poor and needy spin you can put on it. As always..I see you dont give a damn about the tax payers situation or children

Arklight wrote: »

Having looked at Entitledto.co.uk for an unemployed couple with three children the most I can make it work out as is about £1600 a month if paying private rent of £1100pcm in SE England. It's unlikely anywhere in the SE would be less than that for a 3 bedroom house.

You are right they must not exist, the three kids (including one who is my god child), is all a figment in my head, the house, and town and schools they frequent aren't really there, and he is paid a full time wage for spending his time all day doing nothing that resembles full time work.

Arklight wrote: »

According to the calculator they would be much better off if one of them worked. At 40 hours a week minimum wage they'd be almost £1000 a month better off.
You would have to be quite committed to being lazy to not do this. Perhaps they can't find full time work, at all.

Yes the bloke is bone idol, yes they cant find full time work, because when pushed into it and given the opportunity, he always has an excuse why he cant do this or that. I as have other pointed out with him the thousands of people from the EU who have successfully found work, he agrees with us all the way to the point where he has to actually pull his finger out.
You also seem to forget the fact they have been doing this for the last 20 years, and the website you quote is based on the current system, ironically the system the left are currently complaining about.

However much you point to this or that, they do exist, and they are doing what I am describing, ther boiler broke 2 years ago, they complained about going to the local newspaper as they had young kids in the winter, they had a boiler installed within 2 weeks, ironically my boilet broke exactly the same winter, it cost me 4k and took 2 months due to arranging the money, not a fun xmas with a year old. But you are right i;m just making it up. :sad: