ricgem2002 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 How are they not one family? Grandmother - Daughter - Granddaughter - Daughter - Granddaughter Looks like 1 family to me. it might be one family but that family is divided into 3 sections living in 3 separate properties gained by being elegible for said property Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 If their parents house has room, and they are living as single parents then that sounds entirely reasonable, given the shortage of housing. but what if their isnt a spare room :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 But their not one family, they're 3 separate families. A job or income doesn't define you as a family, your relationship and children do. Are you suggesting if I dont have a brother or sister I should be means tested on the status of a relative twice removed? They was one family with each teenage daughter having a baby as a means to get an house, imagine the state of the country if everyone acted so irresponsibly, we shouldn't be rewarding that kind of irresponsible behaviour especially when there is a limited supply of social housing. The mother quite clearly doesn’t need a free three bedroom house when she is the only person living in it, there are many hard working families in much greater need of affordable housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Have you told your friend this ? what was their view? Yes. ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 If their parents house has room, and they are living as single parents then that sounds entirely reasonable, given the shortage of housing. Couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 it might be one family but that family is divided into 3 sections living in 3 separate properties gained by being elegible for said property Gained by choosing to have a baby they couldn't afford, and then allowing the rest of us to support them, a safety net is one thing but this is just taking the mick. Is there any wonder that people try to avoid funding this through high taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Gained by choosing to have a baby they couldn't afford, and then allowing the rest of us to support them, a safety net is one thing but this is just taking the mick. Is there any wonder that people try to avoid funding this through high taxes? again we only have your word for this so i will take this with a pinch of salt . i also think that because your kids work and cant afford to buy(theres 1000s out there) you somehow think they should be a priority because they work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictine Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Nobody ever said that though, you just made it up as the only possible alternative to buying a council house at a discount. The vast majority of people don't have that option, they have to save a deposit and they have to buy a house privately. Social housing is supposed to be a safety net, not a savings scheme and easy route to owning a house. Well wasn't it you who said that if you lived in a council property you wouldn't buy it? Of course not. Do you give money away in the street as well? For many working people, i.e. not all people in council property are unemployed, buying a council property is the only way on to the property ladder because it is not easy to pay rent and save up a deposit for a private home as well, in fact it is nearly impossible in this day and age. As for you other comments in what amounts to rounding up poor people and sticking them in one building, it is best left unsaid... In terms of shortage of housing, you might want to look towards the millions of single old pensioners living in 3+ bedroom houses. What do you suggest with that, round them all up and force them to live with their children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 again we only have your word for this so i will take this with a pinch of salt . i also think that because your kids work and cant afford to buy(theres 1000s out there) you somehow think they should be a priority because they work You can take it a pinch of whatever you like, and again my kids wouldn't be a priority but there are many families that have a much greater need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 You can take it a pinch of whatever you like, and again my kids wouldn't be a priority but there are many families that have a much greater need. yes families with children whether they be unemployed or working will allways be a priority over someone single with no kids whether they are working or not . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.