I don't think anyone is attacking you personally, it's just that a lot of people have issues with the way that the benefits system works, and how people choose to use/abuse it. Remember, these people who live in heavily subsidised or free houses that are bigger than necessary are not going to be paying anything, they will just lose a portion of the benefits they receive if they are not willing to make a compromise. I fully understand your sentiment that this will adversely affect some innocent people and that is a shame, but is always inevitable where people are supported to live on the breadline. My main point was that whilst there are plenty of council house tenants who need to use the service, there are plenty of others who could realistically find the cash to move into private accommodation if they were willing to make some sacrifices. A single person living in a 3 bed council house with a 25% cut in their housing benefit payments is still doing a lot better than someone slaving away to make the private rent payments on a small private flat or apartment. Is that fair? I also ask, is it really fair or even necessary that the right to live in social housing is inherited? If it were not than I'll wager that there would be a lot less people using the service. After all, if these inheritors had their own needs assessed you can bet that a large number of them would be declined based on earnings. It's this sense of entitlement that riles people, not necessarily the system itself.
Cost of housing and availability are inextricably linked. If immigrants can find housing, and moreover can find affordable housing, then so can the locals.
These two things are unavoidably tied together in the forces of economics. Availability dictates the cost (or price to be more accurate). edit - Nexxo beat me to the punch (that was kind of scary)...
I think there is enough housing - there isn't enough council housing. Why? becuase some people are living in council houses when they shouldnt be. I can't afford to live in a £1000 a month house, which is why I share. But we don't get an empty room. and if we did, I would rip someone's arm off for offering it to me for 14% tax.
There is plenty housing in the country, just look at vast empty slum estates or areas awaiting regeneration. The problem is that every one wants to live in one corner of it and lets face it when every one is concentrated in the south east housing is only part of the equation. Over burdened transport, near constant drought etc.
That's exactly what I'm trying to put forward. While the needy need, there are some that will abuse it and I don't have time for those. Like with all systems there are work arounds, there are people who will find it and abuse it. Here's a couple of things about housing shortage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12732480 http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/abundance-of-land-shortage-of-housing http://news.sky.com/home/business/article/15577632 In Bradford they have torn down the majority of the block of flats to build homes, and not all of them are council houses, they're made by private housing association. The vast empty slums are empty because nobody wants to live there, for many reasons be it condition of the homes, violence, drugs, gangs etc.
I'm not sure what kind of answer is "nobody wants to live there" if you're in a position to worry about where you're going to live then you're probably not in a position to worry about if you want to live there... Your BBC link suggest about 800k extra houses have to be built. I wonder how many empty or recently demolished houses there are in the UK in either the "wrong place" or "nobody wants to live there"
Private renting/buying people are in the same predicament. I'd love to live in Harborne, Bourneville or Moseley or another such picturesque area of Birmingham but I simply cannot afford it. Where I live is not bad at all, but it is not my first choice. We all have to make compromises.
Tell me about it, I live on the edge of a council estate. My street and the surrounding ones are basically fine but I'd not like to venture 500m further into the estate can be quite ropey on a Saturday night. But the house is of good quality, 1930's building standards and the nutters tend not to bother my cul-de-sac. I'd much rather live in Morningside or Corstorphine and have a drive way etc but I can't afford that.
As Nexxo pointed out, that doesn't apply. He's payed council tax for roughly as long as you, he doesn't have his rent subsidised by everyone else. No, you just received the use of a functioning state. Trust me, unless were in a very very wealthy position, even earning a median salary you have been using more services than you pay for each and every year. The vast majority of people do not pay enough tax to account for the services they use, and it's likely you're not an exception to that. Right so the roads, education, healthcare, government, infrastructure,police ambulance and fire brigade, regulatory agencies, telephone lines, etc. just all paid for themselves aye? I think you're under the impression that this argument comes from self-interest, it doesn't. I object morally to the idea that some people get cheaper housing than others for absolutely no valid reason other than that they can, and they are content that other people will subsidise them. I think it's entirely lacking in morality. So essentially you're saying that you'll take the luxury of a spare bedroom untill the council take it from you, and at that point you'd be prepared to pay fully for the space you have? That's all luxury, and not something that taxpayers should really feel concerned about. Yes, I think one is too big. I'm saying you should move because you don't deserve to have an extra room which was paid for by other people, other people who can't afford an extra room themselves. You are currently being provided with a luxury which was paid for by people who can't afford anywhere near the same level of luxury for themselves, because their money is taken to pay for folks like yourselves. I have a very big problem with that.
It's gross. By student income standards it is still quite a bundle, I suppose. However JPClyde says that I've got the calculations wrong. Not unlikely, benefits are a bit complicated and I struggle to get my head around the different rules and exemptions.
How do you know that people aren't paying enough and who are you to people should pay more, the government set out how much tax we pay and it gets taken out of our wages, then we pay council tax and any other taxes there are we have to pay. The fire and police comes under council tax. My taxes I have paid has covered my usage of the other services even the ones I never use and others do, but it doesn't upset me as I know my taxes have helped towards the country. It's not in self interest? You just said "I object" also as I said nobody is bothered about how much someone is being paid or has to pay unless it's more or less then themselves for the same criteria. Everyone in this country has a right to live where ever they want, if they prefer a council home or a private home it's upto them, not you or me. So your saying the years I have paid my taxes and rents haven't been enough and someone else has been still paying for my home? First off, the taxes paid for my services, and the rent I paid to the council went back into the governments treasury, which gets used how the government seems fit which includes housing, Second the rent you pay for your private property goes into the landlords pocket. The taxes that I and you have paid has helped make my mother better, would you take that away because someone else is paying to be private. The landlord more than likely bought the home from the council, or from someone who did which they invest in and your their return. Which means private property has been subsidised in some period. There are very few landlords now-a-days that buy land and build from scratch. With council as you keep going on about being subsidised, yes the government do take taxes and build cheap affordable homes so that nobody has to live below the standard of living. The council built the property (for instance 1970s) 40 years ago, they have already made their money back and change with rents from people that are able to pay theirs like I was. Of course, I will pay anything that I have to so my mother can keep her home. You think having an extra room is a luxury, which as I said earlier wasn't there were three of us here not so long ago. No that is free, I have contributed to the government so people like my mother can live in an home she feels safe. Their money isn't taken to pay for people like us, you would still have to pay it if there wasn't people like us. Simple if they can't afford then move I have in the past when I couldn't afford the rent but I'm single, people with a family can't just easily move.
I didn't say they weren't paying enough in the sense of avoiding tax, I said they weren't putting in as much as they get out of the system, which is true. The vast majority of people don't. Your riposte to this is sort of a non-starter, because I was simply explaining that even if your argument about having paid tax was in the slightest bid a valid way of getting a house, you were using more than you were paying the whole time you were paying that tax. Except they didn't, they just mitigated the expense of you existing. Same as most people's do. Your tax paid hasn't covered what you have used at all, let alone what other people use. Note: This is all untrue if you're in the top 3-5% of earners, that is, if you've been earning over about 60-70k per year gross, on average, for the majority of time you've been earning. Can you conceive of the fact that I might object to something because I consider it morally wrong, not just because it has a direct impact upon me? Is that so? Where does that right stem from then? What gives someone the right to live in a house subsidised by everyone else? But of course. Had you never realised this? First off, the taxes you paid nowhere near paid for your services used, and that's ignoring the fact that you were using a council flat, so they covered an even smaller part of what you used. I'm not quite sure what it matters where my rent goes, because it comes from me. I pay my rent with my money, I don't make others pay my rent. No, I wouldn't. I think the NHS is fantastic, but the NHS is equitable. Council accommodation is anything but. You say this but you're going to need numbers for that and all of the other claims you made here before I believe them to be true. Right, but now there isn't, so it's a luxury now. You haven't contributed nearly enough, I'm afraid. Chances are no-one in this thread has. Wrong again I'm afraid. Your average family paying all their taxes is paying about £50-80 a month toward council housing. That's families living in 2 bedroom flats So basically what you're saying is if they don't want to pay the full price they can just resort to making everyone else pay for their housing too so that they don't have to? That appears a bit like saying "Well no-one pays their taxes because they're so high, so you're an idiot if you pay them, you might as well just not - and don't be angry if others don't, because you could just not pay them too". What stops me is that I'd feel like a terrible person if I lived in a council flat, because I can manage in private accommodation - I may have to spend more of my money, I may only have a tiny flat, but I'm not making others pay so I can have a nicer life. Why should they? So live in a private flat. The concept of council houses as long term public housing which you've spent years getting how you liked is both morally and financially bankrupt as an idea. As an aside, The Economist did a study a few years back. They were curious why the devil those who were in the lowest income brackets ever vote Tory (and they do) when it's immediately obvious to most that voting labour will bring them more services for less tax. The result was very interesting. Those in the lowest income bracket tended to feel that those in the bracket below (no income) were leeching all of their money, and that they didn't really receive any services from the government. They found that there exists a fairly good correlation between how much tax people pay and how aware they are of they myriad of services they utilise on a daily basis. Hence, sometimes very low earners thought - "I don't get anything from the government, why would I vote for a more left wing party?" - I just note this because more than a single person in this thread has made out as if they receive no services from the government, when in actuality we all use a huge number of services from the government every single day.
JPClyde. This arguement is going on and on, but council housing is subsidised. The council (ie we as taxpayers) own it. The council do not have bundles of money, they like the rest of government are in debt. THey pay interest on the debt. They could sell the houses to cancel their debt, or rent at the going rate. They do not, I doubt the rent you pay fully covers the interest on the value of the house AND all maintenance. You cannot escape the fact it is subsidised, it costs less than what it is worth. Unlike other posters I do not think people who choose to live in council houses are immoral - why would you pay more? If you were that worried about living off other people you could live in a council house and donate the savings to charity. The system is wrong, not people
As an example, someone earning £20,000 a year pays £336.47 in tax and NI contributions each month. If that person claims benefits or benefits in kind equalling or exceeding the amount of contribution they make then they are in fact living off the state. I would suggest that most people in council accommodation enjoying the benefits of paying four times less on rent are in fact at best breaking even - i.e. not actually contributing anything to the national purse. Which for the disabled or the pensioner is fair enough, but for the healthy, working age adult is inexcusable unless absolutely necessary. A pound is a pound, and it matters not that you pay it in the form of tax if you then claim it back as a benefit.
Care to share? Today: I woke up, i took a shower, I put my clothes on, I walked to work, I worked, I walked home, I had a shower, and I've just eaten my tea. I don't get where these hidden services are? The refuse was supposed to be collected today - it hasn't been, that is a trend recently, that is something I do pay for (council tax) and I seldom see the proper return!
Had you tripped and broken a limb on your way to or from work, the cost of the NHS services you would have used would have run into the high thousands if not more. Likely more than your total annual contribution.
I know they are subsidised, I was trying to say that, as I was a tax payer I paid for my homes as well as the rent I was paying. You could say the same about private, the only problem is that private landlords could increase their rents because of interest rates and maintenance. You've said what I've been trying to say for like ever, the system is wrong but why punish the poor.
You woke up after having a relatively safe night free of burglary because law enforcement keeps a lid on crime. You then took a shower in clean water provided by a utility company regulated by Offwat, which drained into sewers built by the council. You got dressed and then walked to work on council funded roads, to a job that complies with government health and safety and employee rights regulations. If you get ill, you receive statutory sick pay. You then walked home over council built roads, patrolled by tax funded police, to enjoy a meal that is safe to eat because its producer is regulated by government food agency standards. Need I go on? Because I could.
As a taxpayer you have contributed. Someone else whose had the exeact same life as you but lives in a private house has paid just as mucha as you towards your own house. Do you agree the system is unfair then? I dont know how I would make it fair myself though - in every system it will be unequal.
