Houses are affordable!

ukcarper

Balabalabala_and_Volare wrote: »

Then EMPLOYERS should foot the cost.

Which would be past on to consumers which would increase cost of living.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I don’t know any that’s why I think things will not change.

Well if we have a fairly good system of allocating goods on price is it not harmful or even dangerous to suggest that the system that is the best one we have is in some way unfair or broken?

This is the danger of the loony left period the uk seems to be heading into.
People working themselves up against free markets
They should pause for a moment and actually look around things are good in this county most things are very good. High wages full employment more floor space per capita than any other time in history and better quality housing in all the tenures than any other time in history. Very low crime rates and generally the ability to live a good decent free live.

ukcarper

Balabalabala_and_Volare wrote: »

Needs? Really? Why?

So we don’t need dustmen, hospital porters, shop assistants, road cleaners, just to name a few.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Well if we have a fairly good system of allocating goods on price is it not harmful or even dangerous to suggest that the system that is the best one we have is in some way unfair or broken?

This is the danger of the loony left period the uk seems to be heading into.
People working themselves up against free markets
They should pause for a moment and actually look around things are good in this county most things are very good. High wages full employment more floor space per capita than any other time in history and better quality housing in all the tenures than any other time in history. Very low crime rates and generally the ability to live a good decent free live.

Certainly not against free markets, but we need to provide for everybody. I know life isn’t fair but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make things as fair as possible.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

So we don’t need dustmen, hospital porters, shop assistants, road cleaners, just to name a few.

What are you trying to argue for?

That we need to subsidies these people to live in private rentals in London else Londoners could not afford to have clean streets and shop assistants? Who is it you are trying to help, the shop assistant or the Londoner buying the cup of coffee from the ship assistant?

Balabalabala_and_Volare

ukcarper wrote: »

Which would be past on to consumers which would increase cost of living.

As we are talking about the wealthier areas of the country paying a premium for services rather than than receiving a taxpayer subsidy, what is the point you're making?

Balabalabala_and_Volare

ukcarper wrote: »

So we don’t need dustmen, hospital porters, shop assistants, road cleaners, just to name a few.

Oh, we need them. But not he long term unemployed in areas of very high economic activity, orthe perennial part timers reliant on the subsidy of tax credits, or those Ebay hobbiests who think that turning a few quid entitles them to live in the most expensive city in europe at the expence of a subsidy paid for from terraced houses in Middlesbrough!!!!!

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

Certainly not against free markets

Yes I am aware you are quite a reasonable poster perhaps from being older you have experienced different stripes of governments which gives you more of an understanding of reality than the youngsters that talk the talk with no experience under their hats (or worse yet false data information and propaganda)

but we need to provide for everybody.

We already do you can live a good decent life on benefits in this country.
I do know a good number of people on benefits about half live perfectly good lives the other half live in hell but the reason is not lack of even more money it is almost always some form of addiction gambling alcohol violence etc. These people need more help I would be pro helping them in any way that is possible but it wont be an extra twenty a week that solves their ills.

I know life isn’t fair but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make things as fair as possible.

When you say that I bet 99/100 readers will think government benefits money poor people etc

The truth is unfairness comes across the board. It comes from the generic differences we are born with and the parenting we receive. Plenty of well off people from well off families also end up in the gutter. There should be help to stop people falling down in the first place for poor and well off people. I am not sure what can be done but if I had a magic bottle with one wish left it would be for some cure for addictions rather than for the government to give the poor £2000 / £3000 / £4000 etc more. The former would do much more good than the latter

Balabalabala_and_Volare

ukcarper wrote: »

Which would be past on to consumers which would increase cost of living.

In the wealthiest city in europe? Why not?

ukcarper

Balabalabala_and_Volare wrote: »

In the wealthiest city in europe? Why not?

Because it’s not only the wealthy that have to pay for goods and services, if you maid minimum wage in London £50k a year what effect do you think that would have.