dpb

Shouldn't this women be in Syria , instead our spare bedroom

tony de wonderful

Hating on those in poverty, should go down well on SN.

dpb

The women's got a case to prove, and more importantly for her, a un hierarchy to climb.

SJ_Skyline

Raquel Rolnik should look a little closer to home in the Favelas.

paulr

Except when you hear some of the stories, while good in principle, it's an awful policy.

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

I found this a bit confusing.....back in the 80's when I worked in South Carolina the poverty was shocking.

Is the USA a member of the UN

Shaun

dpb

Hate to think what it might be like now, Charlestown? Moorhead city?

SJ_Skyline

I was working in Greenville last year and took a weekend drive down to Charleston. A real spectrum of wealth through to abject poverty with 5000sqft properties in one neighbourhood and then run down shacks looking more like a shanty town in another.

dsmith

"while good in principle, it's an awful policy. "

No its not. The "I'm entitled to everything I've always had for ever" culture has to change. its unaffordable in the long term. Social housing is extremely limited - it has to be used much more efficiently and shouldn't be held onto indefinitely when no longer needed.

Any policy will have individual cases that make it look bad/harsh. There will be many more that demonstrate why its needed.

windyboy

what is she doing in your spare bedroom ??

tony de wonderful

So it's no problem for one class to have vast mansions but a critical social problem that some people in relative poverty have a pokey extra room?

How is that rationalised then?

Think about what you are saying.

There are some houses near me with garages containing more square footage than these three bed ex-council house semis.

Throwing people off land has been going on since the enclosure acts.

Chip

And if the owners worked bloody hard to get them then what is wrong with that.

Dingdongler

It's either the politics of envy or part of his A level Sociology project (he got a C in his GCSE Sociology exam btw)

The UN inspector should be sacked

tony de wonderful

Poverty envy?

tony de wonderful

What about inheritance? Or people who make money from just renting?

Dingdongler

So what if they made it from inheritance? Somebody built the wealth and gave it to their kids, that is their right to choose what happens to it after their death.

'Make money from just renting'....what on earth does that mean? You make it sound as though they found the money on the street or stole it. Firstly they need to earn money (which is taxed) to buy the property and then take the risk of buying something that might drop in value and/or not rent out.

Then they need to maintain the property and pay tax on the income from that property and when they come to sell pay capital gains tax.

You don't just 'make money from renting' by snapping your fingers


TDW, you often accuse me of insulting you,but why do you insist on making such ridiculous comments? If you were thirteen years old I'd say you were naive, but at your age coming out with all this nonsense just makes me think you are either trolling or are an idiot.

For the love of god grow up and stop spouting this sh1te

cster

By paying for it would be my best guess.

JGlanzaV

iTrader: (3)

damn straight if they want the extra room they should pay for it. People cant seem to get their head round the whole concept of social housing, it is (supposed) to be based on need, if you dont need the second bedroom and someone else does you should be moved to somewhere smaller.

There are people where i live in 3 bed council houses whose kids left home 10+ years ago, and people with 3 kids in 2 bed houses. well they should swap so everyone has a property proportionate to their needs.

I worked extremely hard for what i have, and if anyone else had worked as hard as i did then they would have the same too.

Chip

I make money from renting out a property. A property I bought from the proceeds of 35 years hard graft. Of course I could have pissed it all up against the wall but I chose not to, silly me.

In buying my property I supported the building trade ,paid stamp duty, VAT when I furnished it and gave somebody a place to live who could not afford to buy a house.

tony de wonderful

It's really 100% irrelevant whether a right to charge rent is bought or stolen, either way it is economically unproductive, an overhead on the real economy. You don't seem to understand what rent is it, it is to take advantage of a state granted license to make money by not doing something, i.e., not throwing someone off your land or not knocking down the house built upon it. Rent is economically useless, except to the person who receives it, they contribute NOTHING, do NOTHING in return for receiving that rent.

Even Adam Smith - a hero of the right - proposed putting limits on 'ground rent'. He understood that rent-seeking was a wealth destroyer! The state should actively discourage it.

And back to land, yes it was all originally stolen by the Enclosure acts. Throwing 'the wrong sort' of people off land has been going on since those acts, it is nothing new. And now a few impoverished people in small houses must now be relieved of their 'entitlements' because they are 'the wrong sort' of people. It is pressing and urgent, a national emergency! The entitlement culture must end!

Of course 'the right sort' of people don't have 'entitlements', they have 'rights'. The right to charge rent because your family charged rent, the right to extract wealth from people with less rights because your family had those rights. The 'right' to make people pay you to live on land which was stolen in the first place. As Cameron might say "it is good and proper".

tony de wonderful

You haven't given someone a place to live unless you created the land (are you God). What you are doing is not kicked them out. This is the basis of rent.

The land doesn't need you to own it. Land doesn't need you so people can find shelter on it.

You are an overhead, a wealth extractor.

tony de wonderful

Why is the target of your envy restricted to the poor and impoverished and not to the powerful? Cameron didn't earn his wealth for example. Why is that ok?

cster

You are better than this mate.

JGlanzaV

iTrader: (3)

I never said it was okay, that isnt the debate we are having, the only man to ever enter parliament with honest intentions was guy fawkes.

I dont envy anyone.

Social housing is precisely that, a scheme designed for people in need, if you NEED a house then you should have one, but what is wrong is the old people whos children who have left home etc in 3 bed houses, that have no NEED for a 3 bed house, a flat or similar would do them, but they wont give it up.

not just restricted to old people, anyone who has spare rooms should be made to move to smaller accomodation so people who need more room can have the space they need, and if the people with too much room refuse to give it up then they should be made to move, or pay for it.

You mention the rights, and entitlements of the upper classes, you seem to miss that an awful lot of people in social housing believe it is a "right or "ntitlement" to have a large and nice house. That is not what social housing is, It is a roof over your head, you should think yourself lucky you are not out on the streets, and the most important factor It is NOT theirs. So if you are told to downsize or pay for the room you dont need then you could always go find your own house?

tony de wonderful

A major challenge of modernity was to deal with the roving bands of delinquents, transients, homeless, etc., as feudalism was ending/collapsing. Foucault calls these the multiplicities. Yet here we are proposing that the de fault condition of people should be 'on the street'. A place to dwell is a 'luxury'.

You couldn't make up such stupidity.

The same Daily Mail idiots who hate on Travellers out of the other side of their mouths.

JGlanzaV

iTrader: (3)

If you are referring to me as a "daily mail idiot" then you are mistaken. Travellers arent contributing or scrounging from the state or expecting handouts, i dont see the issue until they become theives etc.

And i also never said people should be on the street, if you read what i said, i said people should be in a space appropriate to their needs, not what they think their "rights" and "entitlements" are

SJ_Skyline

Tony's been reading Engels again.

hodgy0_2

What I think TDW is talking about it the nature of wealth, and most importantly wealth creation (and also by extension poverty )

And far from referencing Engels he references Adam Smith

Off course we have a historical precedence for this, it was called the industrial revolution – one of its biggest successes was breaking the stranglehold on wealth and wealth creation by the feudal landlords – whose main source of wealth was, yes you guessed it – rent

And they had a pretty disastrous record of wealth creation for the country as a wholet great for them btw -- and we see the living results of this in land ownership statistics)

So address the argument that renting is not wealth creation in a way to convince not Engels, but Adam Smith

JGlanzaV

iTrader: (3)

Wealth creation is human nature, everyone wants more money, cars, jewelery, etc. It is all about status.

So everything people do is to make money, wether it be working, rental, property etc.

Rent in its self may not be useful for the "economy" but the people who can afford second and 3rd houses etc generally have alot of money and have paid ALOT in taxes over the years anyway. The items they purchase are more expensive and command a higher VAT input, they have been taxed on earnings, earnings from their companies, vat and all kinds of other taxes.

Personally I will create as much wealth as I can to do what I want to do with and I want to pay as little tax on that wealth as legally possible. As I am sure everyone else wants to do.

Type20Paul

I have a property I rent. It has a mortgage on it. This gives the bank some more profit. This is good for the economy. The rent gives me more money to spend on things...which are taxed...which is good for the economy. So why is it so wrong that I worked hard to be in a position to be able to be renting a property? And if renting is such an evil, what's the alternative solution? There are many people for whom renting is ideal - I work for an oil company and we have lots of people who move around regularly for whom it would be ridiculous to buy a property each time. Renting is the ideal thing for them. It has also been shown that for some people renting a property may work out cheaper in the long term than buying with a mortgage.

We live in a civilised society that has an obligation to look after the less fortunate members of society and so there will always be the need for social housing. But this must be given out appropriately and if this means someone who's children have left home has to make way for a young family who have just had children then that's the way it is. If you rely on subsidy or financial aid then you cannot expect to be calling the shots. That's not the way life works.