just_words Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 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 Your main point is that it's not been forgotten. Many silly things are still practised, it does not make them any less silly! All religion for instance! I will read the article, however before I even start, we are not hunter gatherers, we moved on to farming at least over a thousand years ago if not two or more. We are too many in number to maintain a lifestyle like that. Also in a society like that there is still hierarchy, but also the lack of some necessities of modern life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 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. Come on this is basic economics. Council owns asset - in most cases seeks to get maximum financial return from that asset - ie the market rate In the case of council houses it doesn't for social reasons it charges less rent overall than it could - ie below the market rate. Person in band A council tax council flat - pays council tax at band A rate, gets subsidised housing as a result. Person in band A private flat - pays council tax at band A rate, does not get subsidised housing as a result. Net result the person in the private flat pays the same and does not get the subsidy given to the person in the council flat, thus while both pay the same the benefit is higher for the council tennant, so the private renter subsidises the council tennant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Come on this is basic economics. Council owns asset - in most cases seeks to get maximum financial return from that asset - ie the market rate In the case of council houses it doesn't for social reasons it charges less rent overall than it could - ie below the market rate. Person in band A council tax council flat - pays council tax at band A rate, gets subsidised housing as a result. Person in band A private flat - pays council tax at band A rate, does not get subsidised housing as a result. Net result the person in the private flat pays the same and does not get the subsidy given to the person in the council flat, thus while both pay the same the benefit is higher for the council tennant, so the private renter subsidises the council tennant. Utter rubbish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Your main point is that it's not been forgotten. Many silly things are still practised, it does not make them any less silly! All religion for instance! I will read the article, however before I even start, we are not hunter gatherers, we moved on to farming at least over a thousand years ago if not two or more. We are too many in number to maintain a lifestyle like that. Also in a society like that there is still hierarchy, but also the lack of some necessities of modern life. I'm not saying we should become hunter gatherers lol I'm saying that egalitarianism is the original state for human society and that there is some understanding to be had for modern modes of society by re-examining our past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Come on this is basic economics. So what you ARE suggesting then is that instead of subsidising the life style of the wealthy landlord (charging over-inflated rental) then council tenants should pay the same (over inflated rentals) to pay more towards council services so that those wealthy enough can pay less council tax? Considering the rentals received more than adequately covers the the cost of the housing itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 what a load of complete utter crap - jesus. 1 kid riots, should the whole family be evicted/barred from benefits or just the tit who rioted? do brothers, sisters, widowed mothers etc suffer? 2 these homeless penniless ex rioters will commit crimes in order to survive, possibly against me, not against some **** in a posh village in surrey who signs the petition. 3 it's the court's job to punish crime, not the housing departments. 4 in the event of a successful appeal against conviction, does the innocent party have a right to sue for losing their income, home , family? The riots happened, they were disgraceful and pointless and stupid, decent loving muslim families in Brum are bereft of loved ones, people are homeless and jobless - why can't we contrate on them rather than spouting stupid medieval crap about what to do with the retards who rioted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 The problem with that scenario andygardner is that the council are not in any market or competition so market rates don't apply. Councils are not allowed by law to compete with private landlords so therefore nothing gets subsidised. Council housing is not designed for maximum financial return but as a service to the community that anyone regardless of status or finances can apply for. The fact that you don't agree with that does not alter anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doingalright Posted August 11, 2011 Author 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. Of course you would, as would all right minded people; Bulgarian would probably say there there poor boy, its OK, you're the victim of an unjust capitalist society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 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. The council isn't getting the best value for those properties compared to privately rented properties of a similar standard. Not that I have a problem with that, that would seem to be the point of the system, but it does mean that those residents are in effect, subsidised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 The problem with that scenario andygardner is that the council are not in any market or competition so market rates don't apply. Councils are not allowed by law to compete with private landlords so therefore nothing gets subsidised. It just means they're subsidised because of an act of parliament. Council housing is not designed for maximum financial return but as a service to the community that anyone regardless of status or finances can apply for. Something I agree with wholeheartedly, but it doesn't change the reality that council housing is subsidised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.