working for your dole......

[Schlong&Stable]

A race to the bottom against the likes of India and China isn't a race that we're likely to win.

No one is proposing a race to the bottom, are they? I certainly don't want to see the equivalent of sweatshops being set-up in the UK.

We do need a long-term plan to up-skill our labour market so that we don't HAVE minimum wage jobs. But that is something that will take decades and requires the sort of longterm planning democracies are poor at.

In the mean time we must keep as many people employed as possible by keeping minimum wages low and offsetting the cost of living with low taxes.

But you have to ask yourself... whose interests does it serve to keep house prices high? Banks, landlords, property speculators, etc. The people who vote Tory.

It benefits anyone who owns property.

If I bought my house for £150k and the price shrinks to £140k, that is £10,000 lost. If it goes to £250k, I have notionally increase my personal wealth.

I say notionally, because if I sell my house, there is a fair chance a new one is going to cost that much more anyway. But if the price increase beats inflation then it's all gravy.

 

[nick.lidgett]

What is it with some of you guys hating property owners so much?

 

[FoxEye]

It benefits anyone who owns property.

If I bought my house for £150k and the price shrinks to £140k, that is £10,000 lost. If it goes to £250k, I have notionally increase my personal wealth.

I say notionally, because if I sell my house, there is a fair chance a new one is going to cost that much more anyway. But if the price increase beats inflation then it's all gravy.

So it's good then, because although it artificially raises the barrier for entry, it benefits those who are already home-owners?

That's the kind of thinking that screws everybody over. "It was hard for me to buy my house - please keep the property market afloat so that I don't lose money."

What about the market being left to its own devices? No, that's a myth. When it benefits the banks, or those with money and property, interfering in the market is totally fair game.

 

[FishFluff]

So it's good then, because although it artificially raises the barrier for entry, it benefits those who are already home-owners?

That's the kind of thinking that screws everybody over. "It was hard for me to buy my house - please keep the property market afloat so that I don't lose money."

What about the market being left to its own devices? No, that's a myth. When it benefits the banks, or those with money and property, interfering in the market is totally fair game.

What about people who bought a house and then it drops in value? It's fine to screw those people over as long as you can now buy a house?

 

[nick.lidgett]

" it was hard for me to buy my house - please keep the property market afloat so that I don't lose money."

Whats wrong with that?

Please dont forget its also hard to keep paying for the house too, i got my house through hard work and determination and huge sacrifices i would be double angry if i lost money so some jerk with a huge sense of entitlement could get on the market

 

[Bear]

What about people who bought a house and then it drops in value? It's fine to screw those people over as long as you can now buy a house?

He obviously doesnt care about them, he only wants to kick people that are wealthier than him

 

[nick.lidgett]

Clearly the guy is deluded if he thinks all home owners are wealthy, i still owe £95k on mine, im hardly wealthy.

 

[Judgeneo]

" it was hard for me to buy my house - please keep the property market afloat so that I don't lose money."

Because houses are assets, and should fall in price occasionally according to market forces.

Even if you buy a house on a mortgage and it falls massively in value, you are still building equity faster than you would be renting.

 

[nick.lidgett]

Because houses are assets, and should fall in price occasionally according to market forces.

Even if you buy a house on a mortgage and it falls massively in value, you are still building equity faster than you would be renting.

So being stuck with a house worth considerably less than your mortgage is acceptable for you?

 

[Tunney]

In the mean time we must keep as many people employed as possible by keeping minimum wages low and offsetting the cost of living with low taxes.

Why must we keep as many people in employment as possible? I don't really understand that assumption and the logic behind it. It just doesn't make sense in a modern society.

People earning minimum wage already pay very little in the way of income tax and national insurance. The problem we face is that even those in work earning minimum wage have to top-up their income with benefits to survive. Lowering the minimum wage is going to cost this country more money not less.

 

[realBabelfish]

Putting it that way is fine.. but for this to work they need to aim at the lazy people (people not actively looking for jobs) from the ones that are looking..

My friend (while on the dole) was put on a 4 day long "skills course".. To attend (and keep his dole money) he had to cancel (re-arrange) an interview.. The Job centre wouldn't take no for an answer..

They need to distinguish the Lazy from the un-lucky..

reminds me of a guy i was at college with. both doing advanced GNVQs in IT (part time as we were mature students) and mid way through 2nd year dole office forced him to leave the course to do a 3 week basic IT skills course. where is the logic there? absolutely ridiculous.

 

[HaloUK]

I think this is a fantastic idea. Get the layabouts off backside and force them to do some work. Good!

 

[Schlong&Stable]

So it's good then, because although it artificially raises the barrier for entry, it benefits those who are already home-owners?

That's the kind of thinking that screws everybody over. "It was hard for me to buy my house - please keep the property market afloat so that I don't lose money."

What about the market being left to its own devices? No, that's a myth. When it benefits the banks, or those with money and property, interfering in the market is totally fair game.

I never said it was "good" so I can only assume that question is rhetorical.

The housing market cannot be controlled in the manner you seem to think; prices are ALWAYS going to go up, because our population is growing but the amount of land we can build on is not.

At best, you can slow the rate of increase by increasing supply.. but this in itself creates problems. Easy credit creates bubbles. We lose green land. So forth and so forth.

Radical thinking is needed to address the issue, and part of that is people accepting that they do not have a right to or need for a traditional house and garden etc.

Why must we keep as many people in employment as possible? I don't really understand that assumption and the logic behind it. It just doesn't make sense in a modern society.

People earning minimum wage already pay very little in the way of income tax and national insurance. The problem we face is that even those in work earning minimum wage have to top-up their income with benefits to survive. Lowering the minimum wage is going to cost this country more money not less.

Who is arguing to lower the minimum wage? I am arguing against increasing it.

 

[Judgeneo]

So being stuck with a house worth considerably less than your mortgage is acceptable for you?

Compared to renting? Yes.

 

[nick.lidgett]

Compared to renting? Yes.

Ok so do you rent yourself or are you a home owner?

 

[nick.lidgett]

reminds me of a guy i was at college with. both doing advanced GNVQs in IT (part time as we were mature students) and mid way through 2nd year dole office forced him to leave the course to do a 3 week basic IT skills course. where is the logic there? absolutely ridiculous.

Sounds like a lie to me

 

[Deleted member 66701]

A race to the bottom against the likes of India and China isn't a race that we're likely to win.

Neither is a race we should be wanting to compete in!

 

[FoxEye]

So being stuck with a house worth considerably less than your mortgage is acceptable for you?

If it weren't for the banks & govt keeping prices artificially high, you might not have needed such a massive mortgage.

We're not dealing with traditional supply and demand - if we were, prices would have fallen by now. Instead prices are being kept high - deliberately - and now Cameron is wanting more people to be able to get 95% mortgages.

Cameron is wanting future generations to be up to their eyes in debt (to the banks, no less), in order to prevent a natural decline in house prices.

I'm not saying that we should "screw over home owners". I'm saying we should stop interfering in the market, aka "screwing over new comers to the market".

Is it right that house prices should have gone from 3-4x salary to 11x minimum? Is it right that Cameron should be making it easier for people to get a 95% mortgage?

Why does this government want us all locked in debt, trying to afford houses which are increasingly way beyond our means? For all of us? Who benefits from this market?

Well, the banks, mainly. I'm guessing the govt must have some interest in the banks making all this extra money.

 

[wordy]

I think this is a fantastic idea. Get the layabouts off backside and force them to do some work. Good!

If there's work to do why not force them to take the jobs, pay them properly and give them rights like the rest of us?

All they are doing is creating a cut price labour market that will put those already doing jobs like pick up litter/cleaning graffiti at risk of losing them as local authorities are told to keep cutting budgets.

 

[yashiro]

This will end up costing more. For the majority of people on the dole they are not 'cheating' or on the fiddle. All this new government stupidity will do is force people to pay travel costs that in turn the government will have to re-imburse.