Rupert_Baehr Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 The government already took their chance of getting an education, a property, a family or a decent job. They're rioting because they feel they have nothing else left to lose & there is no other way for them to be heard. So, yes, this sounds like a great idea, if you want to cause a civil war. When did the government take their chance of getting a decent education? Don't they have schools, just like everybody else? Don't those schools have teachers, just like other schools? Don't those schools have classrooms, just like other schools? Don't those schools receive capitation fees, just like other schools? If those schools produce unqualified poorly-educated people, then - given that they have the same resources as other schools - what do you think might be the cause of the problem? Could it be that the people who attend the schools (when they bother to attend) don't bother to work?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 You really are spouting drivel here.. I'm sorry, but that would be you. OK to put another spin on it... Tesco & Sainsbury's both buy a can of baked beans from the manufacturer for 10p Sainsbury's sell their can of beans for 25p Tesco thinks oh hang on.. if we sell our can of beans for 20p we will probably sell a lot more, we're still in profit and will make much more money than Sainsburys. Is that subsidy? It is if the the 5p is offset against prices for other groceries, yes. Just like council housing. Arguing that council housing isn't subsidised is a nonsense. Council housing is by it's very essence subsidised, that's the point of it and the reason for it's existance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'm sorry, but that would be you. It is if the the 5p is offset against prices for other groceries, yes. Just like council housing. Arguing that council housing isn't subsidised is a nonsense. Council housing is by it's very essence subsidised, that's the point of it and the reason for it's existance. Would a "loss leader" be an example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Would a "loss leader" be an example? Does having lower rents than market value encourage you to spend more money on other council services? I doubt it. The analogy itself is a nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 The(brilliant) idea any convicted rioters having benefits stopped and getting evicted from their council houses is being floated around, and there has been an an E petition since last thursday, which actually crashed due to the shear amount of people attempting to access the site at once http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8d396a2c-c406-11e0-b302-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1UjMkqi6r If you have a strong opinion either way on this then you must take part in the petition as and when its back up and running. the government will throw money at the scum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'm sorry, but that would be you. Afraid not! Arguing that council housing isn't subsidised is a nonsense. Council housing is by it's very essence subsidised, that's the point of it and the reason for it's existance. Profound.. but not accurate! In fact 'it's a nonsense'! Please explain, if the rent for a house, council or otherwise, MORE than covers the cost of its existance(sic) how it is subsidised? As it's not costing anybody but the tenant anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Afraid not! 'fraid so. Profound.. but not accurate! In fact it's a nonsense! Please explain, if the rent for a house, council or otherwise, MORE than covers the cost of its existance(sic) how it is subsidised? It's already been explained in terms that any 10 year old can fathom in post #62. As it's not costing anybody but the tenant anything. Nonsense. The council is not getting the full value that it could in terms of rent for those properties, thus they are subsidised by everyone having to pay more council tax to cover this shortfall. The council tax on a council property does not cover the entirety of this shortfall, it's shared across everyone who pays council tax, thus they are subsidised. If rents were higher, then less council tax would be required. It's not rocket science. Council houses are subsidised, that's the very reason they exist, and rightly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 The(brilliant) idea any convicted rioters having benefits stopped and getting evicted from their council houses is being floated around, and there has been an an E petition since last thursday, which actually crashed due to the shear amount of people attempting to access the site at once http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8d396a2c-c406-11e0-b302-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1UjMkqi6r If you have a strong opinion either way on this then you must take part in the petition as and when its back up and running. Rioters will no doubt be fined at the very least, and this will be stopped at source from their benefits, so in effect they are already having their benefits stopped/cut, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 'fraid so. 'fraid not.. see what I did there.. It's already been explained in terms that any 10 year old can fathom in post #62. When all else fails lets resort to personal abuse eh.. (btw see post #63) Nonsense. The council is not getting the full value that it could in terms of rent for those properties, thus they are subsidised by everyone having to pay more council tax to cover the shortfall. The council tax on a council property does not cover the entirety of this shortfall, thus they are subsidised. No, because as previously explained.. profit isn't a 'thing' that HAS to be paid for. The council IS getting what it needs to MORE than cover the cost of that housing through rents. Thereby the cost of housing isn't subsidised. The council doesn't exist to create profit, it exists to manage services with the funds it has. And the funds raised by the housing rents MORE than covers the cost of that housing. That's not exactly rocket science either. Using the arguments you've stated one could argue every single service provided by the council is subsidised. In which case lets put out the street lights and stop the dustbins being emptied of those who live in private housing. sub·si·dy [suhb-si-dee] noun, plural -dies. 1.a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like. (nope not this one..) 2.a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return. (not this one either...) 3.a grant or contribution of money. (as no one but the tenant is paying toward the cost... nope not this one) 4.money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs. (hmm.. unsurprisingly not this one either) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 'fraid not.. see what I did there.. I did, but you're still incorrect. When all else fails lets resort to personal abuse eh.. (btw see post #63) It's not a personal abuse unless you really can't understand something that's self evident to a 10 year old. Since that's what you appear to be suggesting, I withdraw the remark and apologise. Post 63, laughable (as usual). No, because as previously explained.. profit isn't a 'thing' that HAS to be paid for. The council IS getting what it needs to MORE than cover the cost of that housing through rents. Thereby the cost of housing isn't subsidised. And I explained that the council *could* get more than needs to be paid (assuming there are no bars against them doing so), and because they don't the council tax across the board must be higher to reflect this, therefore council housing *is* subsidised. The council doesn't exist to create profit, it exists to manage services with the funds it has. Indeed, a fund that has to cover the cost of the services it provides. If this fund has a shortfall, lets say, because council house rents aren't as high as they could be, then the money must be found from elsewhere. That elsewhere is council tax, which is higher than it could be because it subsidises the reduced rents on council properties (as well as many other things no doubt). I have no problem with this, it makes sense. And the funds raised by the housing rents MORE than covers the cost of that housing. That's not exactly rocket science either. Did I suggest otherwise? The fact still remains that the council *could* get more in rent for those properties, that they don't means the lost revenue must be found from elsewhere. Using the arguments you've stated one could argue every single service provided by the council is subsidised. For some people that is the case, for others it isn't. Depends how much you pay. Regardless, whatever you pay is going to be slightly higher across the board to cover the reduced rents on council properties. In which case lets put out the street lights and stop the dustbins being emptied of those who live in private housing. Why? They're not necessarily the ones being subsidised in this scenario. 3.a grant or contribution of money. (as no one but the tenant is paying toward the cost... nope not this one) Totally incorrect, the tennant isn't the only one paying the cost, as has been explained (in detail) at least 3 times now! So there you have it, by your own definitions it's number 3! Glad we got that sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.