Swampster Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 The key point behind the concept is as I understand it that council housing is highly subsidised That is a fallacy! Just because it is cheaper than private rentals does not mean that it is subsidised. It is simply that way because tenants pay a fair rent to a not for profit organisation.. and not subsidising some landlord's jet-set lifestyle and 4 holidays to the Bahamas each year. a) If they own the property, what can you do? This crime doesn't warrant seizing of such property unless due to the failure to pay fines. If you're willing to take a home off anybody, then why isn't this crime worthy of seizing property? Simply because they're a bit wealthier they shouldn't suffer the same punishments? is that what you're espousing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Why would they if the tenant is paying them rent, it's not the landlords job to be their moral judge. If i was renting out my property to someone who had cheerily burned down or stolen other peoples property i would probably rather they vacate my property as i would not regard them as suitable custodians of what was mine. As I said, in all cases it should be optional, councils can evict, banks can repo, landlords can terminate - then it's all fair and those councils, landlords and banks who wish to house rioters can continue to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 As I said, in all cases it should be optional, councils can evict, banks can repo, landlords can terminate - then it's all fair and those councils, landlords and banks who wish to house rioters can continue to do so. Indeed, this I can agree with in it's principle.. but like you said earlier, there are further practicalities to consider, that really do make this issue much lest simplistic than some would have us believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 That is a fallacy! Just because it is cheaper than private rentals does not mean that it is subsidised. It is simply that way because tenants pay a fair rent to a not for profit organisation.. and not subsidising some landlord's jet-set lifestyle and 4 holidays to the Bahamas each year. Given the not for profit organisation is the local council, subsidised on pain of jail by council tax payers then yes it is subsidised. If the council charged market rates for it's housing stock it would have more money and have to charge less council tax. It doesn't, i'm not suggesting that's a bad thing by the way, but the resulting gap between the market rate and actual rate for council rented property is subsidised by council tax payers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Given the not for profit organisation is the local council, subsidised on pain of jail by council tax payers then yes it is subsidised. If the council charged market rates for it's housing stock it would have more money and have to charge less council tax. It doesn't, i'm not suggesting that's a bad thing by the way, but the resulting gap between the market rate and actual rate for council rented property is subsidised by council tax payers. The money received by council rents, more than covers the cost to keep/maintain these buildings, notwithstanding the fact that it gives the council some financial stability in owning those houses (long since paid for) by the very virtue of owning them as assets. What you seem to be suggesting is that council house tenants should be subsidising other services too. As an aside, council tenants also pay full council tax.. so if they are subsidised using your argument, they're self subsidised by the tenants themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 If i was renting out my property to someone who had cheerily burned down or stolen other peoples property i would probably rather they vacate my property as i would not regard them as suitable custodians of what was mine. provided you could afford to have the property empty (for who knows how long) thats fine, but if it meant you couldn't pay the mortgage on the place and you stood to lose it, would you then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 If you're willing to take a home off anybody, then why isn't this crime worthy of seizing property? Simply because they're a bit wealthier they shouldn't suffer the same punishments? is that what you're espousing? No i'm not. It's just the way the current laws are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Well done, a true example. I used to volunteer, but not currently, even though I do go out of my way to help others... Personally I see anarcho-communist as a pipe dream, literally. Life will always have a hierarchy, you just can't get away from that. Also if you could show me a communist society which has survived longer than 50 years without turning into a dictatorship or imploding... Every now and again with various people I bring up the subject of removing capitalism, but it would take a whole lot of automated infrastructure to do, but even then there would still be hierarchy. Who would ever sit at school dreaming of being a bin man? Who would want to work extra hard after numerous years of extra study for the same wage of a menial position... We need incentive! To be honest, I think if it was a pipe-dream it would have been long forgotten about by now. Lberalism is very different to totalitarianism- it allows for personal creativity and development and thus incentive with or without the provision of money. If you're interested in how natural hierarchies can still lead to egalitarian societies take a look at this: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways-three-complementary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 If i was renting out my property to someone who had cheerily burned down or stolen other peoples property i would probably rather they vacate my property as i would not regard them as suitable custodians of what was mine. As I said, in all cases it should be optional, councils can evict, banks can repo, landlords can terminate - then it's all fair and those councils, landlords and banks who wish to house rioters can continue to do so. Maybe if the private tenant had stored stolen gear there, then it may be open and shut case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 An ill thought out petition designed as knee jerk retribution and not punishment. Taking away benefits and or housing will only increase the amount the taxpayer will have to pay in the long run and serve no useful purpose. And I also agree that council housing is not subsidised as they have been paid for many time from rent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.