Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

How do you define poor?

It's all fairly arbitrary but I guess "living on less money than I think I could" would be a rough start.

Are those in Housing Association properties poor?

AFAIK, yes

Are those having to pay exhorbitant rents in parts of London and other Cities that equate to over 60% of their income poor?

No. They have the option to downsize or move somewhere cheaper if they want to pay less for a house.

Living somewhere desirable like London or the South East comes at a price. In the same way someone who chooses to spend all of their money on a car or their clothes isn't poor.

What is the "step forward" in your opinion?

Each time someone uses the right to buy it's one more house no longer being funded by you and me.

 

[the dza]

Each time someone uses the right to buy it's one more house no longer being funded by you and me.

Surely the discount is funded by the tax-payer? And then of course, the knock on effects of less property available to rent = higher rents = higher housing benefit bill.

 

[scaramanga]

Surely the discount is funded by the tax-payer? And then of course, the knock on effects of less property available to rent = higher rents = higher housing benefit bill.

It's a sunk cost for taxpayers.

The discount will be funded by forcing councils to replace high value properties with lower value ones (also good for the rest of us as we don't really want council tenants in amongst our houses).

Makes no difference to the housing stock as each house taken out of the system is matched by a family that no longer needs to rent.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Each time someone uses the right to buy it's one more house no longer being funded by you and me.

Scara, on your last point, i just want to get your landscape clear: do you believe in ANY form of social housing?
Also, do you believe that Government should receive/take ANY tax from the populace?
If the answer to the last question is yes, what would you consider to be acceptable government expenditure of those taxes (not as in amounts of money, more the kind of projects that you would find acceptable)?

 

[scaramanga]

Scara, on your last point, i just want to get your landscape clear: do you believe in ANY form of social housing?
Also, do you believe that Government should receive/take ANY tax from the populace?
If the answer to the last question is yes, what would you consider to be acceptable government expenditure of those taxes (not as in amounts of money, more the kind of projects that you would find acceptable)?

I think we have to house those who cannot afford their own houses but I think there's a problem with people who become better off still getting a cheap rent. If you can afford the right to buy then it shouldn't be optional.

Regarding taxation, I think all governments should begin on the basis that taxation is inherently wrong and go from there. Obviously some taxation is needed for things that cannot be charged to an individual - streetlighting, defence, roads, etc. And at the very base level there's a societal benefit to basic public health/education. But even then I don't believe the government should always be the provider - wherever possible that should be left to the more efficient private sector. I think there should be savings for taxpayers whenever they save the country money - my family only uses the NHS for emergencies and my son will never use a state school so I should be getting a tax break.

I guess more than anything I believe in value for money. I get that from the private sector, I don't get it from my exorbitant tax bill. I also believe in the "Give a man a fish..." method that I mentioned above. I'd rather give those who need state help a one-off opportunity to join the rest of us in contributing than to give them hand outs forever.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

A more succinct and accurate philosophy is "Taxation is theft"

The exact quote, is "all property is theft."

 

[monkeybarry]

I'm a middle class private renter and have absolutely no intention of buying a house, I don't feel I'm in competition with everyone else, the govt can help other people and forget out me for a while, that's fine

if people want to buy a council house and this makes it easier, good for them, it's the most expensive thing you ever buy (probably) I'm sure it's very stressful, especially first time around

I might feel the same if private renting had security and longevity attached to it. Instead its just a cash cow with restrictions on basic living, like decorating, having a pet, and knowing that if there is a sudden market boom you will out in 2months.
This has a knock effect of estate agents promoting moving as they can make some £ from new tenants.
It has all the bad traits of high demand, low supply, without any of the good as we are talking about an essential, not a product of choice.

 

[Baleforce]

I might feel the same if private renting had security and longevity attached to it. Instead its just a cash cow with restrictions on basic living, like decorating, having a pet, and knowing that if there is a sudden market boom you will out in 2months.
This has a knock effect of estate agents promoting moving as they can make some £ from new tenants.
It has all the bad traits of high demand, low supply, without any of the good as we are talking about an essential, not a product of choice.

it works both ways though, I have flexibility as well, it's a lot easier to move to a different house when the year is up than if I had to sell and buy, I also know exactly what the house is going to cost me, if a boiler breaks down or the oven packs in its not my problem

in my experience they don't tend to mind you decorating or having pets if you are responsible, we have a dog and the only stipulation was that we clean the carpets regularly and repair any damage, we haven't done so in the current property but we did do some decorating in the kids room's in the last house, if you are going to be there for a year a new carpet and a coat of paint is reasonable, you take all the furniture and curtains with you anyway

we can afford to rent a nicer house than we can afford to buy

 

[scaramanga]

it works both ways though, I have flexibility as well, it's a lot easier to move to a different house when the year is up than if I had to sell and buy, I also know exactly what the house is going to cost me, if a boiler breaks down or the oven packs in its not my problem

in my experience they don't tend to mind you decorating or having pets if you are responsible, we have a dog and the only stipulation was that we clean the carpets regularly and repair any damage, we haven't done so in the current property but we did do some decorating in the kids room's in the last house, if you are going to be there for a year a new carpet and a coat of paint is reasonable, you take all the furniture and curtains with you anyway

we can afford to rent a nicer house than we can afford to buy

Wasn't there also some legislation passed recently stipulating that if repairs were needed, tenants have the option of completing those repairs and getting a market rate paid to them by the landlord?

 

[Baleforce]

i'm not sure to be honest, that sounds like a sensible solution though, and would probably expedite things

i'm sure there are nefarious letting agents out there, if you find a fair one things can be pleasantly smooth though, we are on our fourth house with the current agent which again works both ways, yes he gets an extra fee every time we move (he did waive one as we moved out early at the landlords request) but he has also convinced a staunchly anti pet landlord that we are a responsible family and can be trusted to take care of the property

 

[glorygloryeze]

I think we have to house those who cannot afford their own houses but I think there's a problem with people who become better off still getting a cheap rent. If you can afford the right to buy then it shouldn't be optional.

Regarding taxation, I think all governments should begin on the basis that taxation is inherently wrong and go from there. Obviously some taxation is needed for things that cannot be charged to an individual - streetlighting, defence, roads, etc. And at the very base level there's a societal benefit to basic public health/education. But even then I don't believe the government should always be the provider - wherever possible that should be left to the more efficient private sector. I think there should be savings for taxpayers whenever they save the country money - my family only uses the NHS for emergencies and my son will never use a state school so I should be getting a tax break.

I guess more than anything I believe in value for money. I get that from the private sector, I don't get it from my exorbitant tax bill. I also believe in the "Give a man a fish..." method that I mentioned above. I'd rather give those who need state help a one-off opportunity to join the rest of us in contributing than to give them hand outs forever.

Your first point is interesting. I guess market forces often dictate who can/cannot afford theoir own houses not to mention location. Whether right-to-buy is affordable, and therefore mandatory, then comes down to market forces and means testing. In itself getting better off whilst having cheap rent could be seen as profiteering for the state, and therefore us. However, what is affordable one year based on means testing can be unaffordable a year down the line and potentially lead to homelessness in the extreme scenario, if a family is unlucky and faces unforseen circumsatnces (e.g. sudden death of main breadwinner, illness/incapacity etc). As long as these people do then have somewhere to turn to for help (local council housing etc) to stop them and their family literally being on the street then i'm ok with that.
Your taxation point - when you say your family only uses the NHS in emergencies, do you mean that you and your family are usually always very fit and healthy, or do you mean you have private healthcare for routine checks etc and only go to the NHS when you need A&E?
In terms of state hand-outs: are here ANY groups of the community/society who you would accept will likely need to receive state help all their lives AND should receive said state help?

 

[glorygloryeze]

i'm not sure to be honest, that sounds like a sensible solution though, and would probably expedite things

i'm sure there are nefarious letting agents out there, if you find a fair one things can be pleasantly smooth though, we are on our fourth house with the current agent which again works both ways, yes he gets an extra fee every time we move (he did waive one as we moved out early at the landlords request) but he has also convinced a staunchly anti pet landlord that we are a responsible family and can be trusted to take care of the property

Interesting. How old are your children and how many times have you moved in the last 5 years?

 

[Baleforce]

2 and 4, moved 4 times

once to ease my commute, once for a bigger house, once because the landlords wanted to sell

 

[scaramanga]

Your first point is interesting. I guess market forces often dictate who can/cannot afford theoir own houses not to mention location. Whether right-to-buy is affordable, and therefore mandatory, then comes down to market forces and means testing. In itself getting better off whilst having cheap rent could be seen as profiteering for the state, and therefore us. However, what is affordable one year based on means testing can be unaffordable a year down the line and potentially lead to homelessness in the extreme scenario, if a family is unlucky and faces unforseen circumsatnces (e.g. sudden death of main breadwinner, illness/incapacity etc). As long as these people do then have somewhere to turn to for help (local council housing etc) to stop them and their family literally being on the street then i'm ok with that.

I think you and I pretty much agree here. I believe there should be a lot more housing available and that there should be enough social housing to cover everyone who needs it (not wants though - NEEDS!).

I'm not much of an environmentalist though and I realise that my opinions are virtually unelectable but I would happily pave most of the country. That said, I'm a complete NIMBY about this and wouldn't want a load of new houses (especially not social housing) near where I live.

Your taxation point - when you say your family only uses the NHS in emergencies, do you mean that you and your family are usually always very fit and healthy, or do you mean you have private healthcare for routine checks etc and only go to the NHS when you need A&E?

I have private health insurance for me and my family as part of my contract. It makes sense for employers to pay the small amount this costs for key staff as I have seen it pay for itself many times over.

In terms of state hand-outs: are here ANY groups of the community/society who you would accept will likely need to receive state help all their lives AND should receive said state help?

There are some but I don't think it's an easy line to draw.

For example, there are people on disability benefits that are capable of some work, just sometimes not the work that they want or have done in the past. If there is an overall benefit to retraining at the taxpayer's expense then this would be acceptable if it were provided by the private sector and paid on results. Our company used to employ a handful of people from the Shaw Trust who were limited physically but their lack of flexibility was balanced by a subsidised wage. For some reason that subsidy stopped so we were no longer in a position to be involved but that was a very good scheme.

I think there are very few genuine reasons why someone cannot contribute at all for the entirety of their lives. When there is a genuine reason then obviously society needs to step in but I think the genuine need for money to be taken from the hard working is massively overstated.

 

[glorygloryeze]

2 and 4, moved 4 times

once to ease my commute, once for a bigger house, once because the landlords wanted to sell

Ok thanks.
As i said above you have quite a Bohemian attitude to renting vs home ownership which is refreshing though goes against the very British psyche of "my home is my castle" - which obviously feeds partly into the quite frankly insane housing market, especially in the South.

Would your attitude to renting and the possibility of having to move at a time not in your keeping change when your kids start school (assuming your 4 yo hasn't already?)
Also, were these moves relatively local?

 

[Baleforce]

all the moves are very local, when the eldest starts school that obviously limits the distance we can travel but as we need a car to get the youngest to the nursery anyway and then to the station (or in my wife's case work) we have a decent range

we are more concerned with the environment they grow up in than anything else

obviously our situation is not suitable for everyone, i'm not suggesting it is, just that I don't expect every housing policy to suit or cater for me, i'm not being disadvantaged by someone else getting a leg up and I don't feel that I have a right to anything

 

[glorygloryeze]

all the moves are very local, when the eldest starts school that obviously limits the distance we can travel but as we need a car to get the youngest to the nursery anyway and then to the station (or in my wife's case work) we have a decent range

we are more concerned with the environment they grow up in than anything else

obviously our situation is not suitable for everyone, i'm not suggesting it is, just that I don't expect every housing policy to suit or cater for me, i'm not being disadvantaged by someone else getting a leg up and I don't feel that I have a right to anything

Thanks. Appreciate your reply which is very interesting

 

[NWND]

all the moves are very local, when the eldest starts school that obviously limits the distance we can travel but as we need a car to get the youngest to the nursery anyway and then to the station (or in my wife's case work) we have a decent range

we are more concerned with the environment they grow up in than anything else

obviously our situation is not suitable for everyone, i'm not suggesting it is, just that I don't expect every housing policy to suit or cater for me, i'm not being disadvantaged by someone else getting a leg up and I don't feel that I have a right to anything

This touches on another one of my beliefs. Being in government really is a bit of a sh** sandwich. Just looking at this thread and how opposed people's views on life can be, it's no wonder that there's never been a truly popular government in my lifetime. People do have to think about this when they cry about X not getting the funding they think it should. Obviously, giving more money to X means money taken away from Y and when you mention tax rises to many people you'd get a four-letter response.

So I do have to hand it to those who choose to put their head on the block in order to serve the people of this country. They may be vastly rewarded for it, but it's not something i'd want to do.

 

[Baleforce]

I generally agree @NWND, i'm not sure they are vastly rewarded though, I expect the required skills would earn a lot more in the private sector

 

[glorygloryeze]

I think you and I pretty much agree here. I believe there should be a lot more housing available and that there should be enough social housing to cover everyone who needs it (not wants though - NEEDS!).

I'm not much of an environmentalist though and I realise that my opinions are virtually unelectable but I would happily pave most of the country. That said, I'm a complete NIMBY about this and wouldn't want a load of new houses (especially not social housing) near where I live.


I have private health insurance for me and my family as part of my contract. It makes sense for employers to pay the small amount this costs for key staff as I have seen it pay for itself many times over.


There are some but I don't think it's an easy line to draw.

For example, there are people on disability benefits that are capable of some work, just sometimes not the work that they want or have done in the past. If there is an overall benefit to retraining at the taxpayer's expense then this would be acceptable if it were provided by the private sector and paid on results. Our company used to employ a handful of people from the Shaw Trust who were limited physically but their lack of flexibility was balanced by a subsidised wage. For some reason that subsidy stopped so we were no longer in a position to be involved but that was a very good scheme.

I think there are very few genuine reasons why someone cannot contribute at all for the entirety of their lives. When there is a genuine reason then obviously society needs to step in but I think the genuine need for money to be taken from the hard working is massively overstated.

Interesting.

Re Social Housing. I certainly agree there needs to be more, it would keep the cost of renting much more reasonable long-term as well imv. I do worry that in the long term the housing stock that was in government/Public hands then goes into private ownership and the amount of social housing stock goes down leading to more of what we have now (high demand for social housing partly leading to high cost of housing generally and exhorbitant rents for those who cannot afford them and should be able to access social housing). I think the short-term gain of allowing some families to take ownership and responsibility for their own homes (which of course frees up local goverment spending on their upkeep as well as allows government to pocket a one-off windfall) is likely to lead to more housing stock lost from the social housing system that could be used to house those that NEED it as you say. Unless newer homes are being built for social housing purpose at a fraction of the cost that is being generated in the right-to-buy scheme it looks likely to cost us all a lot more in the long-run.

Private Healthcare: When you say you've seen it pay for itself in your workplace can you explain what you mean by that? (I don't have private healthcare myself so i don't know enough to know exactly what you mean by this).
Also, what are the emergencies that occur that means your family has to use NHS instead of the private healthcare you already pay for?

Getting back to an earlier post of your Re Taxation, exempting oneself from the 'system' and asking for a tax break:
In your scenario yours say that your son will never use the state school system and hence you think you should be due a tax refund/break.
How far do you think is fair/reasonable/practical with regards to this?
For example, if somebody is completely into an 'Eco-lifestyle' and doesn't believe in the use of cars and hence the road system, can they in your opinion say they need a tax refund that equates to what they would have contributed to the building and maintenance of the road system? Can they say that seeing as they live a fully self-sufficient lifestyle requiring no car use and no road use that they should receive a partial tax rebate based on what is spend by governments on roads? Also what if an extreme hippy believes that all wars are wrong and that they don't believe their government should take their taxes and spend some of it on the army/defence? In fact, what if they were very much against the Iraq war (the 2003 one) and that they wanted a tax rebate on what was spent on it over the years as they did not believe it was a good use of their taxes and they were against the government having an army anyway?

You brought up and interesting point about tax and spend and what is good use of the income taken in taxes and i'm just trying to get a feel for where the lines can be drawn, in your opinion.