sharrowman Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 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. A valuable lesson many members of our royal family might learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 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." " While it is certainly right that we build more homes, I don't have think there should be any difficulty with judging people who do / want to work to be a lower priority than those who are feckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 What we need to do is gain an understanding of peoples situiations. Poor and substandard housing that does not meet the needs of the CITIZENS of the UK. 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 Not enough housing to go around, or it is being shared (via the tax-benefit system) unfairly. 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 Not enough housing has been built to meet demand, house building has plummeted and is at record low levels. The population is expanding very quickly, primarily down to immigration, not births/deaths. This is not 1968, we are not building 460000 units of housing (in both the private and council housebuilding sector) 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 Housing is overpriced. And housing benefit (a mechanism that keeps prices high) discourages people from working. 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. Consider the benefits, a person is coerced into paying a high price for housing, he has no bargaining power, housing benefit levels are the cheapest form of housing. We have to take into account peoples lifestyle choices, working is not a viable choice for many people Doesn't really matter if somebody is not working in a mansion or on the streets. When another new person enter the country, that's one more person who needs a home or is FIGHTING FOR ONE. We need enough housing for all. We need to be building more houses than we have immigrants, to provide housing for them, and to use the excess to improve the housing standards of our own people. Because a lack of building has led to a fall in housing standards of the British people, particularly the lack of council houses being built for AFFORDABLE RENT since 1979. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony 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? Have what you like if you can afford it and it doesn't affect others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod 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?They can go to a country where that culture fits in, and breed to their hearts' contents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowman Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Have what you like if you can afford it and it doesn't affect others. I can afford to do what i like regardless of whether it affects others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I can afford to do what i like regardless of whether it affects others.You're quite unique then, most of us are constrained by laws in terms of what we do affecting others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 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. It is quite true that land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies - it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. It is quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal form of unearned increment which is derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but which are positively detrimental to the general public. Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position. Land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions. People are denied access to land, to build their own housing or feed themselves, meanwhile we have large landowners who do no work upon the land, collecting rent. We have landlords who do the same with houses. We have government interference denying people the right to build their own home. There is no freemarket in housing or land, and that is where the problems lie. We subsidise the rich (in land) and penalise the poor (lack of/no land/priced out of renting the land upon which to work). The landowner gains the profits. What of the man in the street and his right to have a plot upon which to build a home of his own, where he can reside whilst he works pay his taxes (for the communal good). Housing in this country is pricing people out of work, and forcing wages down in real terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowman Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 You're quite unique then, most of us are constrained by laws in terms of what we do affecting others. Pull your plonker out conrod, earn the dollar, make your own rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 . . land . . .housing . . .rent . . taxes . . blah . .You somehow take every discussion back to housing costs. It does become tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.