That is absolute rubbish.
http://www.homeswapper.co.uk/

 

I would have thought with all the property moguls on here there would be much rejoicing of having folk on disability being pushed into the private sector.

Rather a disabled person with a guaranteed income then someone employed that might lose their job and do a runner?

 

I'm asking for some clarity. The real people being subsidised are those who own state grated monopoly rights which entitle then to receive rent (the very essence of something for nothing). To say the benefits claimants are being given money is only trivially true, the money is de facto going to the owning class ultimately.

Adam Smith was no socialist but was very much against rent seeking economic behavior.

 

everyone also forgets that in the end, the goverment gets at least £100 of every passenger familys money back in VAT plus various other forms of taxation

 

Seriously mate, as Warren said this o'level debating society stuff. Perhaps this sort of nonsense is how Sociology students waste their time but most grown ups have no time for it.

 

Suit yourself. People like you would have said the same to the slavery reformers.

 

And off goes the Sociology student on yet another unrelated tangent

 

I fail to see how reducing a benefit has become known as a tax. Things like this will always hit some unfortunate people but I know of 4 or 5 three or four bedroom council houses in my old village that have only a couple in them. Like it or not it is not a good use of TAX PAYERS money to house a couple in a large house when there are families housed in B&B's.

The council housing stock is there for a social need and should always used to the most efficient.

 

Yes but Tony de Sociologist will be along in a moment to tell you that there are millionaires living in large houses with more bedrooms than they need. They are the real problem.

Then he'll waffle on about feudal land systems

 

Has anyone read the article. There just aren't enough smaller houses to move into. If you choose 100 people living in oversize housing, and they all agree to move, there is only enough spare smaller homes for four of them.
In principle, it's a fair policy. It's perfectly acceptable if a one child family asks for a three bedroom house, for the council to say, no, a two bed will be enough. Perfectly acceptable. However, as the report says, there is a shortage of smaller homes.

 

Houses maybe, flats no.

 

That isn't what the policy is doing though. It's just imposing a financial penalty.

 

Yes, that is the policy in practice.

 

Which could then go towards the cost of providing the affordable home stock required.

 

Not really. Under occupation was never a policy in the first place.