Housing Before BTL

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

What's that got to do with the point I made, my mum would have needed that support so instead of me and my sister providing the state would have had to.

can you make your point once more, I dont see what your mum has to do with any of this

are you saying your mum won a council lotto ticket 50 years ago and that was a good thing because now you can look after her as the lotto ticket is close by to you?

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't see how they are harming you now to be honest.

yes thats because we are now quite rich as a nation thanks to a lot of things but mostly electricity, science, capital, productivity, free trade etc

If you go to poorer nations, they have a more hard view of the poor in some cases almost hate them. Its because for them giving to the poor really harms their own quality of life

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

can you make your point once more, I dont see what your mum has to do with any of this

It's very simple.

If you got your wish and turfed his mum up North, his mum would then have required care from the system.

It would very likely have cost you, as a taxpayer more to fund this care (and the new home) than it would to have done nothing and allowed the family unit to care for her.

Obviously you can't care for someone who is 2-300 miles away.

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

yes thats because we are now quite rich as a nation thanks to a lot of things but mostly electricity, science, capital, productivity, free trade etc

If you go to poorer nations, they have a more hard view of the poor in some cases almost hate them. Its because for them giving to the poor really harms their own quality of life

So they don't harm you - but you still want them gone?

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

can you make your point once more, I dont see what your mum has to do with any of this

are you saying your mum won a council lotto ticket 50 years ago and that was a good thing because now you can look after her as the lotto ticket is close by to you?

You want to move pensioneers from social housing in London to other parts of the country or have I got that wrong. What has me winning a lotto ticket go anything to do with anything yes my parents got a council house in 50 years ago as a large number of people did, they both worked all thier lives but we're never in a position to buy or pay high private rents in the area they lived.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

According to ONS unemployment rate in North East is twice that in South East .

For the most recent ONS data its 6.2% for London and 7.9% for the NE

That seems a big difference but if you look at it as 93.8% employed in London vs 92.1% in the NE its not all that big a difference.

Also there are regional differences that may go some way to explain things. eg London has left the recession before the rest of the country so employment rates will catch up a bit

Also there could be other factors at play. For instance someone working in manufacturing in the north might be more likely to have less transferable skills or be physically more frail in older years (but pre retirement) rather than an office worker in London. Or it might be that the north is cheaper to live so more people who could work opt not to work so much


but generally it makes sense that people move to where the jobs are. So you wont get 50% unemployed in the north and 0% in London as the unemployed in the north will move to London. unless of course the government gave them a lotto ticket 20 years ago and there are stuck there...

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's very simple.

If you got your wish and turfed his mum up North, his mum would then have required care from the system.

It would very likely have cost you, as a taxpayer more to fund this care (and the new home) than it would to have done nothing and allowed the family unit to care for her.

Obviously you can't care for someone who is 2-300 miles away.

how do you know what someones life would be like if they took a different road? I know if I lived my life 100 times over 1 would be in 100 different situations.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you wish to discuss ideas and ideologies - then go ahead.

Thanks.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But pretending they are a "new reality" when it's anything but is absolutely pointless. Seriously, what's the point in arguing over a load of sums which are completely and utterly useless? For a start, you'd have to leave the EU if you want to force families and their children out of an area, out of schools, remove them from relatives and stick them up north. The very fact that you adamantly support the very system which stops you carrying out your pipe dreams is even more puzzling - but hey ho.

I quite like thinking about things differently and can't see the harm in doing so. If you don't want to discuss then don't bother - it ain't happening anyway.

No-one is being forced to do anything - we're talking about providing an incentive allowing a potentially more productive person to replace a less productive person who might be able to support their own housing provision.

God knows what the EU has got to do with this - I guess forumonics of the kind you pretend to dislike.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Therefore, it's merely an ideology. If that's what you want to talk about, then fine. Other people will stick to discussing what we can realistically do. So we'd probably be best trying to keep the fairy land arguments and reality arguments seperate - otherwise it simply turns into a point scoring game.

As far as I can see your ideas are just as pie in the sky - curing a system which has become overly reliant on subsidy by increasing subsidy doesn't make any sense at all. Proposing mainstream nonsense doesn't make it any less fairy land.

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

how do you know what someones life would be like if they took a different road? I know if I lived my life 100 times over 1 would be in 100 different situations.

I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with the point ukcarper or I made.

Again, faced with the reality of a real situation, you offer some pie in the sky fairy land response to ignore dealing with realism.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

s far as I can see your ideas are just as pie in the sky - curing a system which has become overly reliant on subsidy by increasing subsidy doesn't make any sense at all. Proposing mainstream nonsense doesn't make it any less fairy land.

Unless it's HTB, or QE, or anything you may personally favour from via an increase in your property value?

This appears to be the issue, and I think you may even agree. You get nothing from this subsidy. You do from other subsidies into the housing market which you quite clearly support.