RTB: Housing Question

Exodi

onwards&upwards wrote: »

So actually not even a quarter goes to unemployed people, much less if you don’t consider people past state retirement age to be ‘unemployed’, which of course hardly anybody does.

I know Comms had the a similar response but I want to emphasise my surprise at your view. Your comment of 'not even a quarter goes to unemployed people' (or 1/8 if we're fair not including the retired) puzzles me as the unemployment rate is ~4% (or 1/25)...

onwards&upwards

Exodi wrote: »

I know Comms had the a similar response but I want to emphasise my surprise at your view. Your comment of 'not even a quarter goes to unemployed people' (or 1/8 if we're fair not including the retired) puzzles me as the unemployment rate is ~4% (or 1/25)...

Makes sense though that people who aren’t earning need more than those who are!

My comment was in response to the comment that paying tax was directly equivalent to ‘divvying it up among the masses of unemployed’.

We’ve now established that there aren’t ‘masses’ of unemployed and that the vast majority of taxes get spent elsewhere.

I like this site, don’t want to see it turn into a nasty ‘fake news’ daily mail like place, it’s supposed to be supportive.

SnooksNJ

Brown_Bear wrote: »

Or in the USA - who owned the land before the first 'settlers'?

Redistribution and wealth transfer has always occurred.

.

Non land owners giving land holders a deadly disease and then squatting is what you consider acceptable wealth transfer? Ok.

Comms69

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Makes sense though that people who aren’t earning need more than those who are!

My comment was in response to the comment that paying tax was directly equivalent to ‘divvying it up among the masses of unemployed’.

We’ve now established that there aren’t ‘masses’ of unemployed and that the vast majority of taxes get spent elsewhere.

I like this site, don’t want to see it turn into a nasty ‘fake news’ daily mail like place, it’s supposed to be supportive.

But that’s only money up front those people are also not contributing to the budget yet using the services- the cost is more than money in the pocket

Guerillatoker

LocoLoco wrote: »

it's created terrible inequality by pumping huge amounts of unearned cash into the housing market whilst simultaneously removing thousands of affordable homes from the market.

Why does a house become unaffordable once it has been bought by a private landlord?

(If it was bought by the tenant it hasn't removed it from the market as it was never on the market)

Guerillatoker

SnooksNJ wrote: »

Non land owners giving land holders a deadly disease and then squatting is what you consider acceptable wealth transfer? Ok.

He didn't say acceptable.

I'm suspecting Brown_Bear was insinuating it wouldn't be an injustice if that land was now transferred to the worse off, considering how it was originally acquired.

[Deleted User]

onwards&upwards wrote: »

My comment was in response to the comment that paying tax was directly equivalent to ‘divvying it up among the masses of unemployed’.
.

It was a tongue in cheek comment in reply to the person to who doesn't appear to agree with people inheriting money.

I was genuinely interested to know where he thinks peoples money should go if not to their families.

To the government? To the poor?

Sorry if you took offence to that

Brown_Bear

Guerillatoker wrote: »

He didn't say acceptable.

I'm suspecting Brown_Bear was insinuating it wouldn't be an injustice if that land was now transferred to the worse off, considering how it was originally acquired.

Yes, that was the general point I was making.
Although my opinion of what is just or unjust doesn't really matter.
Wealth and land transfers have gone on throughout history and continue today.

The simple idea that ''this is my land because I worked hard, paid someone for it and therefore it will always be mine (and the govt will ensure it is)'' is not true or realistic.

Brown_Bear

Deleted_User wrote: »

It was a tongue in cheek comment in reply to the person to who doesn't appear to agree with people inheriting money.

I was genuinely interested to know where he thinks peoples money should go if not to their families.

To the government? To the poor?

In an ideal world - yes.
But in reality - that would be impossible to enforce (as I explained - you could just sell before death and hand over the cash).

The reality (regardless of my opinion) is that housing wealth in the UK is an easy target for the govt. Which is why they encourage it.

SnooksNJ

Guerillatoker wrote: »

He didn't say acceptable.

I'm suspecting Brown_Bear was insinuating it wouldn't be an injustice if that land was now transferred to the worse off, considering how it was originally acquired.

It's not an injustice to transfer every single home in New England to someone worse off?
Brown Bear should be Elizabeth Warren's running mate if she gets the nomination.