Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Rusty_Shackleton

ukcarper wrote: »

People not in social housing have to do that all the time, I would have loved to live where I was born but I couldn't afford it and moved 20 miles away. I lived in council property with my parents until I got married, I had no expectations of getting council accommodation in that area.

20 miles isnt too bad - london councils have been trying to send people to live in places like Milton Keynes for christs sake. Thats appalling, they'd literally be removing people from their entire lives in terms of family and friends. The problem for council housing tenents as well is that they have the least means to travel and maintain aspects of their lives if they move further afield. Friends of mine back home often have to live further afield due to shortage of available housing in the area, but they also drive, so living 20-30 miles away in another town isn't such a big deal. There isnt any justification for arbitrarily deciding to get rid of social housing in parts of london or anywhere else due to property values, a balance of housing and residents (in terms of wealth) is important.... Do any of you really want the divisions that having more like gated communities for the wealthy/ghettos for the poor would cause? Dont you recognise the costs of such social vandalism?

Rusty_Shackleton

economic wrote: »

its morally wrong to use others peoples labour to pay for someone elses rent.

Same old boring, highly flawed and simplistic argument. By that logic lets do away with the state pensions, the NHS, schools the works. Afterall, why should I pay for your retirement/healthcare/kids education? I dont want trident or aircraft carriers, so other people can pay for that if they want them, but I dont see that they're defending me so why should I pay?

Where does that kind of argument end?

ukcarper

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

20 miles isnt too bad - london councils have been trying to send people to live in places like Milton Keynes for christs sake. Thats appalling, they'd literally be removing people from their entire lives in terms of family and friends. The problem for council housing tenents as well is that they have the least means to travel and maintain aspects of their lives if they move further afield. Friends of mine back home often have to live further afield due to shortage of available housing in the area, but they also drive, so living 20-30 miles away in another town isn't such a big deal. There isnt any justification for arbitrarily deciding to get rid of social housing in parts of london or anywhere else due to property values, a balance of housing and residents (in terms of wealth) is important.... Do any of you really want the divisions that having more like gated communities for the wealthy/ghettos for the poor would cause? Dont you recognise the costs of such social vandalism?

There never has and never will be enough council housing in central London to house every body living there that needs it, is not practically possible to house the children of people in council accommodation in the area they live. People have to take responsibility for themselves. You are the opposite of great ape and economic, in my opinion social housing is a necessity but it is not a right.

Rusty_Shackleton

ukcarper wrote: »

There never has and never will be enough council housing in central London to house every body living there that needs it, is not practically possible to house the children of people in council accommodation in the area they live. People have to take responsibility for themselves. You are the opposite of great ape and economic, in my opinion social housing is a necessity but it is not a right.

If there isnt enough for genuinely deserving cases, then more should be built. And no, im not talking about migrants to the area, i mean the genuinely too poor to house themselves that are local to that area. Its not very difficult to means test, clamp down on illegal subletting etc. But the current situation of shortages and B&Bs leads to, lets ship them off to milton Keynes or any number of nasty policy ideas youve seen listed here.

Rusty_Shackleton

AFF8879 wrote: »

I still don't buy this at all. Social housing is an absolutely critical public service provided by the government and paid for by the taxpayer, it will always exist, the key is to ensure it is located effectively to provide maximum benefits both economically and socially. I don't think anyone is saying that all social tenants should be looked down upon and forced out of London, which sounds like the statement your point is trying to counteract.

People above have been arguing there should be no social housing in zones 1 and 2! Thats a rather large area covering several boroughs, which some people would like to make the preserve of the rich. Id say im arguing against the point theyre making.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Im not saying social tenants are a race. Im saying everyone would recognise treating a specific race like that would be outrageous, why is it any less so to do it to the poorest in society?

And what about people born in those areas, where their entire life is based... What about when they need to move out of the family home? Do you think it would be right to force them, say, out of london entirely because they cant afford london rents? Do you know what, don't bother answering that, I know your answer, and its morally wrong when we could simply supply sufficient social housing (granted this has been made harder by the selling off and not replacing social housing, but there's no time like the present to start putting it right).

I give you some credit for actually engaging in debate even if your views are totally devoid of actual thinking for yourself.

Think about these questions and get back to me

What is it that you feel social housing solves, are there other ways those problems can fully or partially be solved

What is the correct level of social housing? How much of the local stock should be social

If we had 'the correct amount of social housing' according to whatever figure it is you think is right why is it that areas which already exceed that figure still have the problems that council homes are supposed to address

Do you agree with me that 15 years ago just before the mass migration we had the closest to 'idea ' as we could with close to 70% ownership and 10% private rental. So 15 years ago we were as close to perfect as we have ever been.

ukcarper

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

If there isnt enough for genuinely deserving cases, then more should be built. And no, im not talking about migrants to the area, i mean the genuinely too poor to house themselves that are local to that area. Its not very difficult to means test, clamp down on illegal subletting etc. But the current situation of shortages and B&Bs leads to, lets ship them off to milton Keynes or any number of nasty policy ideas youve seen listed here.

Have you ever been to central London where are they going to build them and who is going to pay for them. You seem to live in cloud cuckoo land.

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Same old boring, highly flawed and simplistic argument. By that logic lets do away with the state pensions, the NHS, schools the works. Afterall, why should I pay for your retirement/healthcare/kids education? I dont want trident or aircraft carriers, so other people can pay for that if they want them, but I dont see that they're defending me so why should I pay?

Where does that kind of argument end?

schools, nhs, pension all benefit society and even though for eg i may not have kids, it would benefit me as there will be better educated generations later on who are hopefully productive to help pay for my pension/ provide for services like NHS / provide technology i can enjoy etc etc.

paying for someone to rent in an area that they dont need to be in whilst there are countless many who would benefit by buying the social housing instead, is just crazy.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Have you ever been to central London where are they going to build them and who is going to pay for them. You seem to live in cloud cuckoo land.

cuckoo is quite fitting given cuckoos steal other birds nests...

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Same old boring, highly flawed and simplistic argument. By that logic lets do away with the state pensions, the NHS, schools the works. Afterall, why should I pay for your retirement/healthcare/kids education? I dont want trident or aircraft carriers, so other people can pay for that if they want them, but I dont see that they're defending me so why should I pay?

Where does that kind of argument end?

It's reasonable or much less destructive to pay people a fixed amount for housing and let them purchase housing for their needs. In the same way its reasonable to give poor people money and let them choose where and what type of food to buy as opposed to having government run shops