Bedroom tax

aln · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:21

Biohazard said:
I'm looking at it as a whole, and how and what he's used to justify it for in the past.

I'm cutting his argument in two by refusing to accept no society as a valid premise to take forward political and social reform.

First thing I said was it's not the argument thats wrong it's his usage of it. We're not really arguing the same point if you're allowing his usage to cloud your opinion.

I'm off to see my mam now though, so you can mull that one over yourself.

Lord-Jaffa · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:22

The fact people think actual Poverty exists in the UK on a large scale is humorous.

derk · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:25

LordSplodge said:
Fifty years ago, give or take, they started building council tower blocks and we know from lessons learnt the hard way that they don't work. Green space is important.

Interesting point, so we will build them again and all will be well?

LordSplodge · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:26

Lord-Jaffa said:
The fact people think actual Poverty exists in the UK on a large scale is humorous.

Let me guess, because you don't see the same level of poverty here as you do in Africa then poverty doesn't exist. Am I right? :rolleyes:

People who think like you are 'humorous'

Lord-Jaffa · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:26

estebanrey said:
Problem is they are tackling the problem from the wrong end. The reason housing benefit costs the country so much is because housing in this country is so expensive. The more expensive it is, the more it becomes out of reach of to the people, thus housing benefit becomes more prevalent which in turn means landlords can charge more for rent knowing the market is there and the government are obliged to cover their costs. This makes property more attractive to the half of the country more attractive pushing the price up more. It's a cyclical problem.

We need to make housing more affordable in the first place so less people need housing benefit.

Best post in the thread, exactly how I see the problem as well.

For Example a friend of mine rents a two bedroom flat (privately) for him and his child (3) and with his council tax included this comes to over £1000 a month. A thousand pounds a month just for accomodation? He works full time on £20k a year and can barely afford to survive. No wonder the high street is dying when slumlord landlords are sucking the life out of hard working people.

LordSplodge · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:27

halz said:
Interesting point, so we will build them again and all will be well?

Don't give the Government ideas.

Lord-Jaffa · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:30

LordSplodge said:
Let me guess, because you don't see the same level of poverty here as you do in Africa then poverty doesn't exist. Am I right?

People who think like you are 'humorous'

Heh. Please explain to me what Poverty is then if you are so very clever.

Is it:

Free Housing for your family?
Free Education upto 19 years of age?
Clean water?
Free Utilities?
Free world class healthcare?
Free food?
Free police and fire services?
etc etc

How exactly can anyone consider themselves in poverty when they have EVERYTHING they could possibly need to live decent lives available to them.

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:30

Lord-Jaffa said:
The fact people think actual Poverty exists in the UK on a large scale is humorous.

Quite.

A fairly good definition is as follows :

Condition where people's basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter are not being met. Poverty is generally of two types: (1) Absolute poverty is synonymous with destitution and occurs when people cannot obtain adequate resources (measured in terms of calories or nutrition) to support a minimum level of physical health. Absolute poverty means about the same everywhere, and can be eradicated as demonstrated by some countries. (2) Relative poverty occurs when people do not enjoy a certain minimum level of living standards as determined by a government (and enjoyed by the bulk of the population) that vary from country to country, sometimes within the same country. Relative poverty occurs everywhere, is said to be increasing, and may never be eradicated.

There is virtually no absolute poverty in the UK (bar the truly homeless), the second definition is by its very nature a matter of opinion.

Biohazard · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:30

aln said:
First thing I said was it's not the argument thats wrong it's his usage of it. We're not really arguing the same point if you're allowing his usage to cloud your opinion.

I'm off to see my mam now though, so you can mull that one over yourself.

I do believe firmly that the argument is too black and white to be relevant to modern day politics any longer. It should have died a century ago, and largely has except for a vocal fringe. Does division of labour still have such profound implications of pin manufacturing for example?

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:34

Lord-Jaffa said:
Best post in the thread, exactly how I see the problem as well.

For Example a friend of mine rents a two bedroom flat (privately) for him and his child (3) and with his council tax included this comes to over £1000 a month. A thousand pounds a month just for accomodation? He works full time on £20k a year and can barely afford to survive. No wonder the high street is dying when slumlord landlords are sucking the life out of hard working people.

Thing is, every government from what, the 70s?, has failed to build enough housing.

I proposed a few years back that we should have been pumping money into the real physical economy by building accomodation. Local government owned and charged at a reasonable rent. Nothing would kill buy to letters faster than enough housing being built. For starters compulsory purchase any building land thats not being built on within 6 months of the declaration, the house builders won't build from choice until they can maximise their profits.

Dolph · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:39

Biohazard said:
I'm looking at it as a whole, and how and what he's used to justify it for in the past.

I'm cutting his argument in two by refusing to accept no society as a valid premise to take forward political and social reform.

No, you are doing what you always do, building a strawman and attacking it rather than addressing the actual argument. it smacks of being unable to challenge the argument honestly.

PHP:

LordSplodge · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:40

Lord-Jaffa said:
Heh. Please explain to me what Poverty is then if you are so very clever.

Is it:

Free Housing for your family?
Free Education upto 19 years of age?
Clean water?
Free Utilities?
Free world class healthcare?
Free food?
Free police and fire services?
etc etc

How exactly can anyone consider themselves in poverty when they have EVERYTHING they could possibly need to live decent lives available to them.

I'm not being clever. I'm simple pointing out that there are thousands of families in poverty in the UK.

I have not idea what your odd list is all about though.

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
(2) Relative poverty occurs when people do not enjoy a certain minimum level of living standards as determined by a government (and enjoyed by the bulk of the population) that vary from country to country, sometimes within the same country. Relative poverty occurs everywhere, is said to be increasing, and may never be eradicated.

There is virtually no absolute poverty in the UK (bar the truly homeless), the second definition is by its very nature a matter of opinion.

The number of people homeless is increasing at an alarming rate and as for your point about relative poverty. It is fine to say that can be a matter of 'opinion' - unless you happen to be in that situation. It is too easy to look down on these people and judge them as having acceptable levels of living when in reality they live out horrible lives.

A lot of these people eek out lives only ever on the bottom rung of Maslow's hierarch of needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs How can they ever dream of getting self esteem or lack of prejudice when vast swathes of society sees them as freeloading scum?

scorza · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:42

Lord-Jaffa said:
Heh. Please explain to me what Poverty is then if you are so very clever.

Is it:

Free Housing for your family?
Free Education upto 19 years of age?
Clean water?
Free Utilities?
Free world class healthcare?
Free food?
Free police and fire services?
etc etc

How exactly can anyone consider themselves in poverty when they have EVERYTHING they could possibly need to live decent lives available to them.

What about hope?

Biohazard · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:43

Dolph said:
No, you are doing what you always do, building a strawman and attacking it rather than addressing the actual argument. it smacks of being unable to challenge the argument honestly.

PHP:

As pointed out by several posters, your hyperbolic use of the 'principle' is not helpful. You can make your points using justified and relevant complaints or points, not a unified approach using theft and force as false emotive narrative.

Dolph · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:55

Biohazard said:
As pointed out by several posters, your hyperbolic use of the 'principle' is not helpful. You can make your points using justified and relevant complaints or points, not a unified approach using theft and force as false emotive narrative.

I was more thinking of, for example your claims that I want to abolish the welfare state, despite having argued repeatedly for a universal entitlement offset against tax, which is actually an expansion of the current welfare state with the addition of equality of entitlement as an example a strawman.

Fundamentally, I consider removal of property by the state to be similar to removal of freedom by the state. while it is essentially unavoidable, it must be done fairly, equally and with justification only. Why is thst position so hard for you to understand and debate honestly?

PHP:

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:55

LordSplodge said:
A lot of these people

Define a lot and link a source for the relative number as a percentage of the UK.

And I mean a decent source not a party that has a vested interest in it.

My point is that its all about perception. Yes some people have a hard time.
Its societies choice to define whats acceptable or not and you will get differing views from all.

The general concensus will decide if there is a point we will not go below, big issue is that successive governments have messed with the system, its designed to buy votes now and nothing but. If you think Labour or the Tories or the Libs are any different your sadly mistaken.

(Labour try to appeal to the bottom by giving away a lot, libs follow along similar lines but trying to reward working more imo, the tories look to reverse what Labour have done to win back the middle by creating a lower tax more fend for yourself economy)

derk · 10 Mar 2013 at 14:58

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Thing is, every government from what, the 70s?, has failed to build enough housing.

Knock knock

(Government) Hello, I'm the Government

(Poor Person) Hello

(Government) Did you know that since the early 70's successive Governments have failed to build enough social housing ?

(Poor Person) ........no

(Government) Well it's true, but it's not all bad news

(Poor Person) How is that?

(Government) We are making you, the most vunerable, pay for that....have some bedroom tax [Punches poor person in the face]

bam0 · 10 Mar 2013 at 15:00

Dolph said:
Fundamentally, I consider removal of property by the state to be similar to removal of freedom by the state. while it is essentially unavoidable, it must be done fairly, equally and with justification only. Why is thst position so hard for you to understand and debate honestly?
]

You agree that taxation is required. Given that, your opinion that it is equivalent to theft is frankly irrelevant. The debate comes down to what people subjectively consider fair, equal and justified. It doesn't seem from the way you present your arguments that you realise your opinion on these matters is not objective.

Biohazard · 10 Mar 2013 at 15:07

Dolph said:
I was more thinking of, for example your claims that I want to abolish the welfare state, despite having argued repeatedly for a universal entitlement offset against tax, which is actually an expansion of the current welfare state with the addition of equality of entitlement as an example a strawman.

You have repeatedly claimed charity to be more appropriate care of disadvantaged in society, citing tax as theft more often than not at the same time. It's the strong emotive terms, like dismantling the welfare state, that you yourself perpetrate. Other times you have more nuanced arguments, I can't help that I find your points of view at times contradictory views.

Dolph said:
Fundamentally, I consider removal of property by the state to be similar to removal of freedom by the state. while it is essentially unavoidable, it must be done fairly, equally and with justification only. Why is thst position so hard for you to understand and debate honestly?

It isn't a removal of a freedom. It allows us to enjoy freedoms we wouldn't otherwise have. We aren't free in that sentiment in the first place, not unless you start at a base point of no society.

It should have course be fair, although that in itself is open to interpretation but these principles I do not contest.

dowie · 10 Mar 2013 at 15:21

scorza said:
What about hope?