It's expensive and disruptive?
David Cameron suggets abolishing housing benefit for under 25's
- Thread starter Things change I've changed
- Start date
It's expensive and disruptive?
That's how I see it.
Think of it like free speech, it has it's good & bad side, the downside to having a system to look after the needy is that it will be exploited by a minority.
It's ethically void to punish the innocent just to stop a few lazy people getting cheap housing.
It's not particularly good for children to change environments and it means that families might have to be broken up.
I would have thought that if you lived in a part of the country where there are no surrounding employment areas you'd have no choice.
oh i don't know, maybe family, culture, disruption, wanting to live where they know, little things like that
How about we force move you off to the shetlands because there might be work there for a tory loving ****
rent controls are a horrible solution to a supply problem.
Right.
But when people try to blame it on BTL landlords my face goes into my palm. They're just profiting from government policy. The government needs to bring in some effective social housing. Student type accommodation, something like that rather than removing normal properties from the market and removing any desire to improve their circumstances.
So then you move
And you break up families and disrupt children?
Also as already pointed out, it costs money and some probably can't afford to move to more expensive areas if they can only earn minimum wage.
How about we try something different, like listening to the research.
We know exactly what causes this behaviour.
Yes, it happens. What do you mean 'break up families'? I was under the impression your immediate family would move with you where there's work and a better quality of life. Or do you think that spending your life on the dole sound like a better idea? Children are more resilient than we give them credit for and will adapt quickly.
I realize it's probably a harsh measure for those that don't want to leave their town/city, but life's not fair. It's a trade off you make.
and what would that be? here's a hint, don't quote the scientific abortion that is the spirit level
oh i don't know, maybe family, culture, disruption, wanting to live where they know, little things like that
How about we force move you off to the shetlands because there might be work there for a tory loving ****
your desire to obligate others to pay for lifestyle choices shows what a thoroughly unpleasant, controlling individual you are.
Please provide the evidence that refutes it, are you saying that data collected by Richard Wilkinson & the myriad or organisations is all wrong?and what would that be? here's a hint, don't quote the scientific abortion that is the spirit level
We already know that the risk of negative social judgements increased cortisol production by 10 times, resulting in stress/negative behaviour.
It doesn't take much to link that upto relative poverty.
For failed underclass families breaking them up may very well be a good thing. Doing nothing is a bad thing, and paying them to stay as they are is a worse thing.
If central Europeans can come to the UK and take on a minimum wage job then young British adults can either keep living with their parents or bite the bullet and do the same. They're not entitled to have their own house on benefits because they refuse to move away from where they grew up.
Edit : Although as I've said a few times you can't have this, which is a stick, without having the carrot which the Tories won't talk about.
I will get flamed for this i'm sure. I am fairly near London (because thats where the work is), go up there every day for work (large commuting costs on the train), get stung on 40% tax for a medium (less than 60k) income, pay a large amount of tax and national insurance for a fairly comfortable lifestyle (fairly large mortgage and bills) and unless I want to live in a dustbin I have to work, but on the other hand, if i lived in an area with no jobs, would it be acceptable to refuse to move to where jobs were and just live on benefits (as I am healthy and able to work)?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,444
- Location
- The Orion Spur
I'm not blaming it on BTL landlords, it's the governments fault, I just think that the government should be more competitive with social housing, help drive down rental prices and provide cheaper accommodation in more areas with more job opportunities (which would normally mean higher rent), a lot of peoples standard of living is ultimately based on how much rent they pay.
I honestly think mass social housing could be a good source of revenue for the government provided that they are used primarily for workers.
Last edited:
Pretty much the point I made earlier, I don't see how it is in anyway fair that the people on housing benefits get an apartment/house, usually in the location they want like inner zones of London, while the millions of hard working youth have to rent a room and reside in cheaper neighborhoods.
As a society we have a moral duty to ensure people have a roof over their heads, do not starve to death and are taken care of medically. Student dorms with provided meals seems the most appropriate solution. Especially if the tax money saved is used to to improve education and training schemes for such people, increase employment opertunities.
how is being poor and being born in a poor area with no jobs a "lifestyle choice" what the hell are you smoking??
probably smoking the same stuff as cameron
What I mean by breaking up families is that some grandparents might not be able to see their grandchildren as the family has moved. Also their might be other reasons why some people have to stay in the area such as looking after elderly grandparents.
Not everybody can move, some people have to remain in the local area so dolph was entirely wrong in thinking that everyone in the UK in poverty is in that position by choice.