chem1st Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 You're obsessed with the LHA rate, but most rental prices are above this because the market price is above it. Consider alcohol duty, do you see people selling (duty paid) alcohol for below the price of the duty. Consider tobacco duty, do you see people selling (duty paid) baccy for below the price of duty. Consider housing benefit, do you see people renting out houses for below this? Seldom do you see any of the above. These things distort the market. Housing benefit is essentially a tax on non-homeowners/tenants that provides a subsidy to homeowners/landlords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 How is your generation getting larger? Are we importing people of your age? Yes. What generation are you talking about anyway. I don't know anyone but you and a few other posters who are angry at the situation. Priced out generation. Priced out of work, housing and tesco value basamati rice. If it helps I'm generation Y (after X), and my parents (who also aren't angry) would be baby boomers. You'd be the generation that allowed the government to ruin our country. Destroy the living standard of the workers, to benefit but a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 If he can't afford it, he should sell it. He had moved in with his partner, and because his own home was in negative equity, he couldn't sell. So he was paying £400 monthly mortgage payments, but he didn't have the money to improve it to a standard to let. Where does it say he couldn't afford it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Consider alcohol duty, do you see people selling (duty paid) alcohol for below the price of the duty. Consider tobacco duty, do you see people selling (duty paid) baccy for below the price of duty. No you don't. Because the duty is a cost to them and they wish to make a profit. Consider housing benefit, do you see people renting out houses for below this? No you don't, because the natural market rate is higher than the LHA, although it would form a floor anyway as you suggest. It would only matter if the LHA were higher than the natural rate though. Seldom do you see any of the above. These things distort the market. Housing benefit is essentially a tax on non-homeowners/tenants that provides a subsidy to homeowners/landlords. Only in your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Yes. Priced out generation. Priced out of work, housing and tesco value basamati rice. So you didn't mean a generation at all? You'd be the generation that allowed the government to ruin our country. Destroy the living standard of the workers, to benefit but a few. Right... Having been able to vote 4 times me and my generation are somehow responsible for the behaviour of a government that I didn't vote for 2.5 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I've been able to vote in every election since 1967, but I don't feel in any way responsible for the state of the country. All I've ever done was work as hard as possible, along with my OH, to give our children the best we could. Like me and their dad, they never expected a free ride, they have never gone on about 'their rights' unlike some members of the public I've dealt with in my working life. When we moved to S Yorks 40+ years ago, if we'd been able to get a council house, we would have been extremely grateful. However, the very parochial urban district council only let 'locals' on to their housing list. (League of Gentlemen? ). After several years of living in substandard private rented housing (like most of my generation had to do at some point) we scraped a deposit for a house. We couldn't afford carpets, and many other items, but it was a start. Both our grown up kids (40s) have lived in shared accommodation, when they were studying and when they started work. As they have both moved around a bit for work (one has stayed away) they were never going to get social housing! They both recognised that we'd not had it easy, and that they would have to work hard for anything they aspired to. Many of their generation have done the same, and been no worse for the experience. The option to share houses is still there for young single people, and if they are so desperate for council housing, they can build up waiting time whilst living reasonably economically. All types of housing tenure have their place in UK society IMO. Bad private landlords should be legislated against, as should bad social landlords. The government and local councils need to be innovative with empties to increase the number of available homes. But people also need to be realistic about their opportunities. Many of the younger people who want a council house, would probably have got one in an earlier generation, because their parents would have bought privately instead of exercising their right to buy. Or their grandparents might have downsized from a family sized council house to save on their rent in the days before housing benefit covered the full cost of a council house for a single person. I wonder how our grandchildren will fare? They are both under 5, so in another 15-20 years will be looking for somewhere to live. We may have come full circle again, and have thousands of council houses standing empty, just as they were in 2000! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 http://www.planningresource.co.uk/bulletin/planningdaily/article/1108041/homes-opposition-revealed-despite-housing-need-recognition/ New decent homes are desperately needed, yet only 11% of the UK is urbanised. We are such a selfish bunch of people and forget that many of the flats and houses we live in now will have been designated green belt at one time. Its not just MP's and bankers contributing to the demise of this country, its all these nimbys and fashionable eco freaks. It will be such a wonderful place to live when every inch as been built over. NOT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I am not selfish. I think wildlife has just as much right to a home as we have. We should prevent population growth on our island! well we have a lot of people not working, and we import a lot of people to fill empty jobs. So seems a solution right there already....but then you might say people on benefits without jobs cannot afford to work because they would earn less, which comes back somewhat to high house prices and high rental prices given this is the major monthly outgoing for people (unless you bought your house cheap 10 -15 years ago). Bring that down and people would be able to afford to work, and we would not need to import workers who can afford to work for low wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Web Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 It will be such a wonderful place to live when every inch as been built over. NOT Just how much fresh air do we actually need? Lets supposing we had a mass building programme and the UK was now 12% urbanised, is this 1% increased urbanisation really going to be that detrimental to the environment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Just how much fresh air do we actually need? Lets supposing we had a mass building programme and the UK was now 12% urbanised, is this 1% increased urbanisation really going to be that detrimental to the environment? It'd actually be about an actual 8% increase.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.