1 in 8
so all the policy has achieved is reduce housing stock….handy for the big 6 house builders, as it keeps house prices high. Are those big 6 donors to Tory party…..
Mortgages for people on UC. Is it the stupidest idea ever?
- Thread starter Notch7
- Start date
1 in 8
so all the policy has achieved is reduce housing stock….handy for the big 6 house builders, as it keeps house prices high. Are those big 6 donors to Tory party…..
Yes, but the problem is convincing these companies to build houses for nothing - or at a loss. I'm sure plenty of people here are fully aware of the rising costs of materials; not to mention the labour costs.
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 11,233
- Reaction score
- 961
- Country
Sure I read not long ago that it is still cheaper to the taxpayer for the state to build social housing, than it is to force people into expensive private rented accommodation and pay more money into welfare to support this.
We have a system in place that helps land owners and property owners make more money from the tax payer. It's a bit like the old tripartite system, with rich landowners, wealthy managers, and poor people forced to live in crap accommodation.
We have a system in place that helps land owners and property owners make more money from the tax payer. It's a bit like the old tripartite system, with rich landowners, wealthy managers, and poor people forced to live in crap accommodation.
You’re taking over where Ellal left off in the Tory bitterness stakes.
There is a long queue.
Of the above examples you gave I have not mentioned any of them. You are the one who is stereotyping people, not me.
I am referring to those people who simply don't WANT to work because they think others should pay for their lifestyle. I appreciate, and accept, there will always be people who need help from the state and I have no objections to my taxes helping to pay for this service. What I object to is the way some people 'play' the system to obtain things because of loop holes in the system or the namby pamby attitude of officials who are scared of tackling a social problem because it may upset someones feelings.
I recently encountered someone at work who demanded she be allowed to park in a disabled parking slot because she suffers from multiple joint pain and can't walk very far, (never been known to use any mobility aids and sometimes has to climb 3 flights of stairs to some lessons). I politely explained why she couldn't, (i.e. she does not have a Blue Badge as she is not officially recognised as disabled and we have no medical notification from either her GP or a hospital to say she has such a condition), and that even though we are on private property we still have to follow the Road Traffic Regulations. I.E. Parking only allowed in those bays by Blue Badge Holders and the badge must be displayed. I was threatened personally that I would be reported to the disability organisation for discrimination. My reply was to tell her she had the right to do so and I would provide any necessary details she required. The following day she parked in one of the bays and placed a printed text message on her dashboard purporting to be from DVLA saying she is entitled to a Blue Badge. As it happened, we had the local police liaison officers on site for their usual monthly meeting and were being escorted out of the building after the meeting by the senior welfare manager when they spotted the sign. I was called on the radio and asked to come out and speak with them. After speaking with them they then decided they wanted to speak to the car owner so they went back in, found out what room she was in, asked her to leave her lesson and spoke to her. In no uncertain terms. They actually saw her performing strenuous ballet moves in preparation for her A Level exam. She was told she was completely in the wrong and to provide medical evidence of her alleged condition. In the meantime she either parked in the main car park with everyone else or simply found another way of getting to college. We are still waiting for evidence and the matter is ongoing.
THESE are the sort of people I am referring to! Regarding the cases you cited, I would have no problem with them receiving all the appropriate help they need.
I think all house buyers see their homes primarily as an investment in their own future, what needs to be done is stopping home investments becoming more commercialised, but I'm not sure how that could be managed.
..and there are a surprisingly large number of them in the communities, simply playing the system for all it is worth, making it a lifestyle choice. If more were done to force these people to go to work and sort themselves out, there would be more money available for the genuine cases.
This.
You may enjoy this youtube vid. Its about 40mins long, but covers more issues than this thread currently discusses, but its all tied together.
But there are also a whole load more people on universal credit who can work but choose not to that you're ignoring with your list above, or just don't manage their money.
Even with the list above, some of these people are capable of earning their own living, albeit with state support.
The problem is the expected standard of living. The left want the needy to be state funded to the same standard of living as those who work hard and earn it themselves.
I think in some European countries renting is a lot more prevalent than private ownership, I've heard some say the UK seems almost obsessed with the notion of getting on the property ladder.
As others have touched on, whilst it's a valid assertion to say we need to break the cycle of expecting property prices to continually increase, in reality how do you achieve that? And, is there a genuine appetite to achieve it? Part of the answer could be ensuring there is a sufficient quantity of stock for sale at a more reasonable level. However, unless we go down a mandatory fixed price route, you'd still have people offering over the asking price which ultimately contributes to prices going up and up. So it's a vicious circle of sorts.
Also, people talk about the need for property prices to drop, in some areas significantly so. However, how does that work for people that have a mortgage based on a much higher valuation? Let's face it, it's highly unlikely a house in a good area currently valued at £600k will ever go back on the market for £200k+ less. So maybe it's more about partly accepting we are where we are property prices wise, but trying to find mechanisms and reasonable policies that reduce the chances of continued significant increases?
Also remember, in many areas, the reported massive increases (in selling prices and rent levels) simply hasn't occurred to anywhere near the same extent.
As others have touched on, whilst it's a valid assertion to say we need to break the cycle of expecting property prices to continually increase, in reality how do you achieve that? And, is there a genuine appetite to achieve it? Part of the answer could be ensuring there is a sufficient quantity of stock for sale at a more reasonable level. However, unless we go down a mandatory fixed price route, you'd still have people offering over the asking price which ultimately contributes to prices going up and up. So it's a vicious circle of sorts.
Also, people talk about the need for property prices to drop, in some areas significantly so. However, how does that work for people that have a mortgage based on a much higher valuation? Let's face it, it's highly unlikely a house in a good area currently valued at £600k will ever go back on the market for £200k+ less. So maybe it's more about partly accepting we are where we are property prices wise, but trying to find mechanisms and reasonable policies that reduce the chances of continued significant increases?
Also remember, in many areas, the reported massive increases (in selling prices and rent levels) simply hasn't occurred to anywhere near the same extent.
Which makes for a situation of no incentive.
Which is always the left/right argument. The right want to incentivise the needy to help themselves, the left want to give them handouts.
nowhere in your post did you state you were only referring to “benefit scroungers”…and therefore you are including everybody on benefits
So please can you clarify what percentage of people on benefits are “people who don’t want to work”
”a whole load more people….”
but do you have a percentage?
Conny never mentioned anything about how many of those on benefits are scroungers.
”just don’t manage their money” - no I’m sorry, thats untrue. There are people on UC going for days without food.
