Conrod Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 where else in the rest of the world can you refuse to work and still get free housing?And, more amazing still, have hordes of Guardian-reading misguided do-gooders fighting for your right to do so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowman Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 "where else in the rest of the world can you refuse to work and still get free housing? " In royal palaces the world over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 What we need to do is gain an understanding of peoples situiations. We also have to address the issue of overcrowding. definition of overcrowding When there are more people living in a house, than the house can sustain. For example, a 3 bedroomed house is designed for 4 persons (assuming 2 adults in one bedroom and 2 kids in seperate bedrooms), you have 8 people living in a 2 bedroomed house The issue That housing is overcrowded The problem We have to understand why are there so many people living in a home? how did those people get there? if its a case of the parents having too many children, then we need to set aside courses so that parents can be taught about sex, and the resulting offspring The problems facing people If as a parent you have chosen to have 6 children, then you need at least a 4 bedroomed house, otherwise we have a problem of overcrowding. Studys have shown that the more bedrooms tends to indicate a greater cost of ownership or renting. The issue of working is that unless you are single, working for the minimum wage is not viable, and as a consequence you cannot take a job Why not cut benefits? This question has been addressed in the past, and a cap has been suggested of 25k (35k after tax income), the trouble with cutting the benefits back to 35k per annum is that you are punishing the children, and also punishing people whose lifestyle is not to work. We have to take into account peoples lifestyle choices, working is not a viable choice for many people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 . .. The issue of working is that unless you are single, working for the minimum wage is not viable, and as a consequence you cannot take a jobOr, as it should be, you can't have a family until you're earning plenty more than minimum wage and can afford to raise them. . . .. . We have to take into account peoples lifestyle choices, working is not a viable choice for many people If it comes down to 'lifestyle choice', it should be work or starve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Ah, but not just working families, it applies to those who want to work. It helps if we read the context of the proposal. Suddenly it seems quite reasonable. Feckless? Then you don't get priority. I find the most interesting comment in the article to be: "Campbell Robb, chief executive of housing charity Shelter said: "What we really need is to build more truly affordable homes for families across the country so we do not find ourselves in this difficult position of having to judge who is most worthy of this scarce resource." " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Or, as it should be, you can't have a family until you're earning plenty more than minimum wage and can afford to raise them. If it comes down to 'lifestyle choice', it should be work or starve. Let's up the rent on food, let's make food artificially expensive! Let's set an artificial price that is too high! £6/hour labour and £20 loaf of bread. Let's really punish the working man. If people can't afford to feed themselves and their children, they shouldn't be able to have them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 . If it comes down to 'lifestyle choice', it should be work or starve. Thats not a choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Thats not a choiceOf course it is. They can choose to work, or choose not to work, but know that one chocie will bring rewards, the other will bring hunger. People should not have a 'lifestyle choice' to sponge off others if they are fit for work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 . . . . . If people can't afford to feed themselves and their children, they shouldn't be able to have them! I ignored the other nonsense, but yes to the line above. Society doesn't need under-achievers to have hordes of kids, who will just fill the dole queues and have more under-achievers. Natural selection is being completely buggered because we reward the weak and stupid by making it easier for them to breed than the bright and talented. That should be turned right round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 But conrod, what about people for whom their culture means they need to have large familys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.