chem1st Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 Age 65 unless they have some sort of disability or medical problem, in which case according to need. Sorry, not sure what your point is? The government stopped building houses, it started selling them off, it allowed for them to rise in value, in some cases actively encouraged housing to be demolished with the intention of creating unaffordable housing and slums (pathfinder). And all the while it upped payments to landlords at the expense of the people, especially workers, and disallowed the building of new houses. The social effect are now filtering through, there will be violence and people will die, metal health problems will sky rocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBiz Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The government stopped building houses, it started selling them off, it allowed for them to rise in value, in some cases actively encouraged housing to be demolished with the intention of creating unaffordable housing and slums (pathfinder). And all the while it upped payments to landlords at the expense of the people, especially workers, and disallowed the building of new houses. The social effect are now filtering through, there will be violence and people will die, metal health problems will sky rocket. The Government hasn't been responsible for building houses for decades, it's mainly local Government, Thatcher did allow for their sell off you're right, but didn't allow them to 'rise in value' that was what we call market forces. Time to get a reality check I think my friend, or possibly go and try and find some gainful employment? ..........sorry didn't mean to swear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 The Government hasn't been responsible for building houses for decades, it's mainly local Government, Thatcher did allow for their sell off you're right, but didn't allow them to 'rise in value' that was what we call market forces. Time to get a reality check I think my friend, or possibly go and try and find some gainful employment? ..........sorry didn't mean to swear! Housing bubble? Self cert mortgages that didn't require proof of income? Housing benefit, buy to let? Rehypothecation, bursting of financial bubble due to insane mortgage lending and CDOs? Pathfinder demolition was used to increase houseprices, and I QUOTE; John Prescott's government department may have vanished, but the wrecking ball he has set in motion is still poised to demolish thousands of homes across Northern England and the Midlands - there's far too much money involved to let this one go. The housing market renewal 'Pathfinder' programme is designed to 'stimulate demand' (i.e. get house prices up) in certain deprived areas. Residents, however are often left wondering if the kind of regeneration they need involves so many compulsory purchases and home demolitions (see 'Demolishing the Community', Corporate Watch newsletter 22) http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2574 They demolished houses in order to make them unaffordable, and increase homelessness. High houses prices may be a result of a booming economy, but forcing houseprices up does not a booming economy make. Now WE ALL must pay the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The Government hasn't been responsible for building houses for decades, it's mainly local Government, Thatcher did allow for their sell off you're right, but didn't allow them to 'rise in value' that was what we call market forces. Time to get a reality check I think my friend, or possibly go and try and find some gainful employment? ..........sorry didn't mean to swear! The government had tools which it could have used to stop the sky rocketing house pricing, legislation being a key one (not against house pricing of course, but against irresponsible lending) and interest rates being another. They chose to look the other way and even declare boom and bust over instead. Which looked great, until the market bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 The government stopped building houses, it started selling them off, it allowed for them to rise in value, in some cases actively encouraged housing to be demolished with the intention of creating unaffordable housing and slums (pathfinder). And all the while it upped payments to landlords at the expense of the people, especially workers, and disallowed the building of new houses. The social effect are now filtering through, there will be violence and people will die, metal health problems will sky rocket. I agree with all of this. Thank god we will only have this lot for another 3 years. I know Labour were not perfect but at least they were in touch with the working man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Oh and just one last thing before I go off and pay my taxes, if this govt. are adamant on bringing down the 'deficit' the solution is to tax the super rich. Not punish low to middle incomes (everyone else). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Oh and just one last thing before I go off and pay my taxes, if this govt. are adamant on bringing down the 'deficit' the solution is to tax the super rich. Not punish low to middle incomes (everyone else). The super rich already pay a huge proportion of the tax income the government receives. Try to tax them anymore and they'll think it's unfair, take their toys and leave. And their toys are companies and large bank balances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I agree with all of this. Thank god we will only have this lot for another 3 years. I know Labour were not perfect but at least they were in touch with the working man. The previous government forced local authorities to give up direct management of their properties either by giving their stock to RSLs (Housing associations) or forming Arms' Length Management Organisations (ALMOs). Those that kept their homes under direct control could not access the money needed to improve them. They did not withdraw the Right to Buy. Labour did not cap the amount people could claim in housing benefit, hence the outcry at low income families being housed in properties that working people could not afford. They did not give the money from the sales of RTBs back to councils to help them build more housing. How were they then in touch with the working majority who have, by their taxes, to pay for inflated housing benefits? If a private landlord has been able to get more rent by housing a family on Housing Benefit/Local Housing Allowance, than they can get from a working family, surely there is something wrong with the system? I don't always agree with chem1st's point of view, but his statement: 'And all the while it upped payments to landlords at the expense of the people, especially workers, and disallowed the building of new houses.' pretty much sums up how things have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 riginally Posted by chem1st The government stopped building houses, it started selling them off, it allowed for them to rise in value, in some cases actively encouraged housing to be demolished with the intention of creating unaffordable housing and slums (pathfinder). And all the while it upped payments to landlords at the expense of the people, especially workers, and disallowed the building of new houses. The social effect are now filtering through, there will be violence and people will die, metal health problems will sky rocket. I agree with all of this. Thank god we will only have this lot for another 3 years.I know Labour were not perfect but at least they were in touch with the working man. You agree with it but then would prefer the party that caused most of it to be back in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alternageek Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Regardless of whether there is a free market or not, if you can afford it you can have it. The Government have decided that if you're single without children and under 35 they won't pay for someone to have a flat to themselves. People in receipt of benefits can of course make up the difference themselves if they wish. The Governemnt have cottoned on to the fact that the welfare state should supply what is NEEDED not necessarily what the person WANTS. If you want you're own flat get a job and pay your own rent. Why should tax payers fund stand alone accommodation for young single people who are out of work when people in work can only afford to share? You get your own room for privacy what more do you want? THIS Thing is, I'll be 36 in April, and I've done the whole sharing thing back when I was in my late teens when I was a student, it was hell on Earth, couldn't get in the Bathroom in a morning, couldn't watch what you want on the telly.. Its the down side to sharing. Luxuries, like living on your own, should be given when YOU can afford them. Surely splitting utilities between 3 or 4 people is cheaper than just one person? I didnt move out of my parents home until I was 25, and even then I shared. At 34, Im still sharing since I live with my partner... Most people I shared with had their own telly in their room. Or a computer to use the iPlayer, tvcatchup, etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.