Right to buy

[AronSearle]

No benefits give you ownership

Benefits give you money, Job seekers allowance, housing benefit (cash paid into the persons account), disability payments.

Benefits can also save you money (reduced social rent vs private).

So benefits provide you with money/assets you would otherwise not have.

I'm unsure how you fail to grasp this, is it wilful?

this cannot be said to be a bribe in any shape or form

I am not arguing it is, you lot are.

 

[Micilin]

AS, You could also use the Irish example to show how the resulting oversupply led to a crash in house prices, with ghost estates common , incomplete half built houses in many towns and villages and in some areas, knocking down newly built houses .

I've not said that supply is the only factor, but that it is the main one. It is supply and demand that is a factor in the money supply too, as banks relax lending and speculators gauge when to get in and out at the right stage, based in part on their assessment of the supply/ demand balance.

The empty flats in London that you mention are not lingering on the market unsold, though, are they? They are commodities . The demand there is not for housing, but for an asset to speculate on. This is still supply and demand- the demand for the flats outstrips the supply. It's just that the flat is not used to live in. Do you really think that supply and demand plays no part in this?

Back to the earlier discussion, do you still disagree that many people who bought RTB did not get to use the house to fund their old age retirement?

As for debating with you, I don't see that you or me making a better argument over such a subject makes either one of us a numpty,but if it makes you feel a little bit better on a Friday evening, then fill your boots.

 

[Davidel]

No benefits give you ownership

Benefits give you money, Job seekers allowance, housing benefit (cash paid into the persons account), disability payments.

Benefits can also save you money (reduced social rent vs private).

So benefits provide you with money/assets you would otherwise not have.

I'm unsure how you fail to grasp this, is it wilful?

this cannot be said to be a bribe in any shape or form

I am not arguing it is, you lot are.

I enjoyed the selective cropping of the last quote, you are arguing that benefits are a bribe and ive explained how its a not the case. Benefits are a necessity, its society's way of helping the less fortunate and its open to all that requires it, it is more a gift than any form of bribe and you know it.

The bribe is: pre election - "vote for me and ill give you this over and above what is already given", post election "look what i gave you, you should continue to vote for me", this is intrinsically how bribes work. Again though, i suspect that you don't like being bested in a pretty simple argument and will play the semantics game, i refer you again to the sophist argument, i suggest you look it up.

 

[big-all]

in general "benefits " are well below the level required to give a poverty level off living
more so if you dont have children
a single adult will get around £72 a week to pay all bills feed and clothe them selves plus pay a contribution to housing if its greater than around £80 a week and around £3-5 towards council tax

 

[AronSearle]

you are arguing that benefits are a bribe

No, 'you lot' are arguing that right to buy is a bribe by your own illogic.

I am simply asking you to explain how if RTB is a bribe, how all other benefits are not, because as said, all the criteria 'you lot' use to show RTB is a bribe equally applies to other benefits.

You can't just pick and choose what to apply your own criteria to, that just called 'making things up'.

 

[AronSearle]

AS, You could also use the Irish example

I did, go back a page and read.

I've not said that supply is the only factor, but that it is the main one.

Again, go back and read, Supply is a factor, but that also includes the supply of money, the supply of housing is not a main factor.

As for debating with you

No, you are not even reading my posts properly, or providing any figures.

You are not debating with me, you are just smashing your keyboard and producing text.

 

[Micilin]

AS, You could also use the Irish example

I did, go back a page and read.

That's why I responded to it. You raised the Irish example to make a point, and I said you could also use this example to make another point to suit my argument.

It's the way debating often works. You know- argument,then counter argument kind of thing.

However , you never addressed the point I made on it. Which isn't how debating works.

I'm not sure what you mean by me smashing a keyboard, but again, if it makes you feel better, carry on.

If you feel that supply and demand is not ONE of the main factors in an economy, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[AronSearle]

If you feel that supply and demand is not ONE of the main factors in an economy, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And this is why I asked if you read what I wrote? Because I described how supply and demand *is* a factor, but it is not the supply of housing that is the issue, it is supply of money.

A sample example.

If 10 average workers each wish to buy a house, and 1 millionaire is looking to buy to rent, then regardless of how much the workers think the house is worth, the millionaire sets the price of housing.. And this in a nutshell is what we have, lots of people who 'could' afford housing if prices were sensible, but prices are set by the people who can afford to pay more, and lots of people with money treat housing as investment.

You can build all the houses you want, but practically there are far more moneyed 'landlords' than supply could ever meet to neutralise. Baby boomers looking for a pension nest, foreign investors, a great number of domestic investors.