Cyclone Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 you said this in page one "Not unless the home owner is having their house purchase subsidised by the state". so what percent should we charge homeowners who bought houses through taxpayers help, who underoccupy their homes? and my answer to the second part of your quote "the argument for it is less strong than the argument for charging people who live in social housing extra for spare capacity" have you any figures to back up your claim ? btw dont come screaming on here when the condems get to tax homeowners for something similiar :hihi: Any figures to back up a claim about the strength of an argument? I've no idea what kind of figures you might think exist, it's an opinion on the economic argument put forward by whoever I was quoting. Re:schemes to help pay interest, maybe they should be adjusted to only pay the interest for the part of the house that is appropriately sized. This certainly doesn't apply to the majority of home owners though does it. ---------- Post added 13-02-2013 at 18:25 ---------- they dont do they ? but i can see what your doing you and a few others on here knock tenants in under occupying houses but move the goalposts and find any excuse if something similiar were to happen to you :hihi: well done We already pay plenty of tax, and don't begrudge it too much. Even the portion of it that goes to keep the social housing tenants in subsidised housing. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that they live in an appropriately sized house and that since we already buy our houses and pay our tax no additional tax is appropriate for a home owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 13, 2013 Author Share Posted February 13, 2013 We already pay plenty of tax, and don't begrudge it too much. Even the portion of it that goes to keep the social housing tenants in subsidised housing. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that they live in an appropriately sized house and that since we already buy our houses and pay our tax no additional tax is appropriate for a home owner. i agree that people should live in a suitable sized house but that should be their choice and not the gov. the gov are using lack of housing as a cash cow to increase their coffers because they know that their isnt enough suitable housing to accomodate them so make them pay out of their benefits. but hey i bet that makes you feel good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 OK I'll bite ( does that make me right wing and a bully? ) ) why should I,as a homeowner getting no state benefits at all, pay extra for any unused bedrooms in my house..? Did you start the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Did you start the thread? Why not answer his question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Why not answer his question? Because I wasn't addressing him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 i agree that people should live in a suitable sized house but that should be their choice and not the gov. I don't see why it shouldn't be the governments choice when the government is paying for the house. the gov are using lack of housing as a cash cow to increase their coffers because they know that their isnt enough suitable housing to accomodate them so make them pay out of their benefits. but hey i bet that makes you feel good As long as people are willing to move then they shouldn't be charged, a lack of suitable housing should be the governments problem, not theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 14, 2013 Author Share Posted February 14, 2013 I don't see why it shouldn't be the governments choice when the government is paying for the house. As long as people are willing to move then they shouldn't be charged, a lack of suitable housing should be the governments problem, not theirs. so if enough people moved into suitable accomadation and used up all that was there, should the people still be charged through no fault of their own? also it seems to many (on here) that this is a good idea from the gov pity these same people cant see the same when it comes to the mansion tax that was quickly swept under the carpet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 No they shouldn't, wasn't that what I just said. How do you know what people feel about the "mansion tax"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 14, 2013 Author Share Posted February 14, 2013 No they shouldn't, wasn't that what I just said. How do you know what people feel about the "mansion tax"? read here http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1072987&highlight=mansion+tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 And you've cross referenced the views of the people posting on there with the views of the people posting in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.