Eight radical solutions to the housing crisis.

[chem1st]

Yes, the system needs reforming so that going out to work never reduces your income (by a staged withdrawal of benefits).

Fortunately that reform is in progress at the moment.

 

 

Benefits are voluntarily given by the state to people in need of help.

They haven't always existed, they might not always exist, the laws that surround them could all be changed because the state makes the law.

 

It's charity.

 

It's not charity, you pay into the system, the system pays out. Maybe you need to read up on the history of the whole system. Benefits have been around for 100 years +

 

Hell the dole in 1931 after the cut from 18s to 15s3d, would be equivalent to £200 today adjusted for GDP PPP inflation.

 

If the state removes benefits it will soon cease to exist and a new state shall replace it. People will contribute into a communal pot that pays out to it's members.

 

Charity can be withdrawn in an instant just because the giver feels like it, benefits cannot.

[Prospective]

Same theme, is it not? At least 10 billion a year given away to other nations in bribes. How many homes could that build? how many would gain employment and a trade? I mean come on.

 

Plus missing one year of bribes will not change anything.

[chem1st]

What is it now?

 

The maximum in Sheffield (for a new claim) is £150 a week.

 

Some people do get more, at least for the time being.

[Tony]

It's not charity, you pay into the system, the system pays out. Maybe you need to read up on the history of the whole system. Benefits have been around for 100 years +

It's you that needs to read up because it doesn't even begin to work how you describe. The Exchequer pays benefits from general taxation, not from 'what you pay in'.

 

Let's be straight, if it worked like that most people who receive benefits wouldn't be eligible to receive much in the way of benefits.

 

How would you feel if you weren't eligible to any benefits because you receive more in benefits than you pay in tax?

[Prospective]

If there were jobs people would be in work, plus more people in work claim HB and CTB THAN THOSE OUT OF WORK!

 

Its noted you ignore this Tony:roll:

[ampersand]

Because the law was voluntarily set.

 

If I make a personal rule that I must give £2 a week to a homeless person, it's charity even though there's a rule that tells me I must do it.

Since it's the state that's doing the giving and the state that makes the law, the law in this case is the equivalent of a rule I've set for myself.

 

Yes, the law is voluntarily set, but the payment derived from it becomes compulsory - you may change the law any time you want, but whilst it is in force the payment is not a voluntary act

[Tony]

Its noted you ignore this Tony:roll:

You'd best point me to the rule that says I have to read and have an opinion on every post.

 

Seriously Prospective, you are wrong. Foreign aid might sometimes stick in the craw but there is no direct correlation between it and local housing provision.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if you have an agenda that is as yet unspoken. Does 'localism' only work for white people for you?

[Cyclone]

Yes, the law is voluntarily set, but the payment derived from it becomes compulsory - you may change the law any time you want, but whilst it is in force the payment is not a voluntary act

 

That's no more true than if I make a personal rule as in my example.

[Cyclone]

If housing benefits do keep going up, then it costs more to rent housing.

This would imply that they have been going up when in fact they've just been reduced (or are in the process of being so).

[chem1st]

That's no more true than if I make a personal rule as in my example.

 

You choose to make the personal rule.