Under 25's to lose housing benefit ?

[Neil]

To turn this on it's head, what moral justification is there for public taxes to subsidise any persons housing?

These 'public taxes' you speak of. Who should they rather be spent on?

What moral justification can there be for withholding the right to housing from those in need?

Seems it's the "need" that's in question - and in fairness, I can partly see the point.

Problem is, casualties of war.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Homelessness keeps prices high?

Market forces don't really involve homelessness.

The concept of future profit is what maintains prices.

We just don't learn.

A home should be a home, not some weapon to profit.

Well we can talk about what "should" happen or be in society from lofty horses - but my comments on investment weren't purely on those looking at the house market with cyncism.

I was talking about your average Joe or Joanne who buys a home - that represents probably the most significant financial investment they'll ever make.

People don't opt to own simply to have a home - after all, to a large degree renting or leasing achieves that. They do it - even if they don't conciously recognise why they do it - as a kind of enforced saving - because otherwise most people wouldn't - and after decades of working, many - probably most - would have simply lived largely hand-to-mouth with nothing much to show towards the end of it.

That's not a weapon of profit against the 'have nots' - it just is, just like pensions.

That there are others who use the housing market more like a business - well look at the other end of the scale - look at somewhere like China.

We can talk about other cultures or countries having different perspectives and priorities, and being more family orientated, or more nomadic in location choice - but that's all just really from perspective. If people do so more in the UK, it isn't necessarily a negative thing - after all, we don't live on a terribly big rock in terms of moving around.

Property is most certainly a weapon for profit used by capitalism; most cynically manipulated and exploited to maintain the flow of money into the credit market.

Rather than diversifying in their endeavours, people slavishly tie nooses round their necks with mortgages to which they dedicate their working lives. Prices are artificially stimulated and a huge deal of people are living hand to mouth merely in order to feed the system.

Homelessness is not required to maintain the property profit system. Homelessness serves no practical purpose to the government, it is merely a side effect of the medicine being administered that makes so many believe they are doing rather well when in truth they are in massive debt to a system that would happily turf them out of 'their' homes at a whim.

 

[greenstiles]

Up until 2009 i was paying £40 a week for a two bedroom two story house in Wales. I could work part time if needed and still live.

I'm not now ! £465 a month for a two bed maisonette...and that's good for round here, usually at that price you get 1 bedroom, what a rip off........how the hell single working people pay their rent i don't know.

 

[rosstheboss]

Not all under 25s will lose housing benefits. Stop just reading the headlines, there is normally some quite informative text underneath.

If you want to know what f*cked the housing market and made it more and more unaffordable, look no further than the previous Labour government who allowed banks to lend vast amounts of money in mortgages to people who couldn't afford it. The only answer is to have a crash in house prices but that would never happen would it.

Quick examples - my parents bought their house in 1973ish for £30k, with normal inflation it should be worth roughly £100k now, instead it is worth £800k ish

The house that we are landlords of was originally bought in the mid 90s for £49k, it was sold and later rebought by my wife after her divorce in 2006 for £212k, it is now worth £250k ish

Have wages gone up at the same rate as house prices? Of course not (unless you are a footballer)

I'm no great Cameron fan, but I'm yet to hear any solid reliable policies from anyone else that is nothing more than vague "we wouldn't do it like that" shoe staring crap.

 

[greenstiles]

Why blame just labour, the tories are in now.......have they lowered the prices !
Seriously though it wasn't labour cos banks were lending money left right and centre world wide, banks are to blame for the lending spree.

 

[Neil]

Homelessness keeps prices high?

Market forces don't really involve homelessness.

The concept of future profit is what maintains prices.

We just don't learn.

A home should be a home, not some weapon to profit.

Well we can talk about what "should" happen or be in society from lofty horses - but my comments on investment weren't purely on those looking at the house market with cyncism.

I was talking about your average Joe or Joanne who buys a home - that represents probably the most significant financial investment they'll ever make.

People don't opt to own simply to have a home - after all, to a large degree renting or leasing achieves that. They do it - even if they don't conciously recognise why they do it - as a kind of enforced saving - because otherwise most people wouldn't - and after decades of working, many - probably most - would have simply lived largely hand-to-mouth with nothing much to show towards the end of it.

That's not a weapon of profit against the 'have nots' - it just is, just like pensions.

That there are others who use the housing market more like a business - well look at the other end of the scale - look at somewhere like China.

We can talk about other cultures or countries having different perspectives and priorities, and being more family orientated, or more nomadic in location choice - but that's all just really from perspective. If people do so more in the UK, it isn't necessarily a negative thing - after all, we don't live on a terribly big rock in terms of moving around.

Property is most certainly a weapon for profit used by capitalism; most cynically manipulated and exploited to maintain the flow of money into the credit market.

Perhaps some aspects of capitalism - or perhaps more accurately, some users of the system - but far from all people who choose to be property owners.

Rather than diversifying in their endeavours, people slavishly tie nooses round their necks with mortgages to which they dedicate their working lives. Prices are artificially stimulated and a huge deal of people are living hand to mouth merely in order to feed the system.

You cast that as an entirely negative aspect.

As I said, it ignores key aspects of peoples sociology and psychology - that in general, without some form of almost enforced saving (be it to acquire property by mortgage, or provide funds for their retirement years with pensions) people, by and large, don't.

Homelessness is not required to maintain the property profit system. Homelessness serves no practical purpose to the government,

I'm not trying to claim anything about homelessness - merely dispel some of the obvious cheap shots often made about "normal" people tending towards home ownership in England.

it is merely a side effect of the medicine being administered that makes so many believe they are doing rather well when in truth they are in massive debt to a system that would happily turf them out of 'their' homes at a whim.

As a generalism - looking at things with a reasonably long view, home ownership tends to serve many in society quite well - because without it, the hand-to-mouth aspect of most alternatives, tends to leave most with nothing at the end of it, without there being some collateral.

Do you own property?

 

[greenstiles]

Yup my folks bought a brand new house in 72 £14,000 + £12,000 for old house it's now worth £1,000,000 they moved way back totherwise ££££

 

[highlandsflyer]

Homelessness keeps prices high?

Market forces don't really involve homelessness.

The concept of future profit is what maintains prices.

We just don't learn.

A home should be a home, not some weapon to profit.

Well we can talk about what "should" happen or be in society from lofty horses - but my comments on investment weren't purely on those looking at the house market with cyncism.

I was talking about your average Joe or Joanne who buys a home - that represents probably the most significant financial investment they'll ever make.

People don't opt to own simply to have a home - after all, to a large degree renting or leasing achieves that. They do it - even if they don't conciously recognise why they do it - as a kind of enforced saving - because otherwise most people wouldn't - and after decades of working, many - probably most - would have simply lived largely hand-to-mouth with nothing much to show towards the end of it.

That's not a weapon of profit against the 'have nots' - it just is, just like pensions.

That there are others who use the housing market more like a business - well look at the other end of the scale - look at somewhere like China.

We can talk about other cultures or countries having different perspectives and priorities, and being more family orientated, or more nomadic in location choice - but that's all just really from perspective. If people do so more in the UK, it isn't necessarily a negative thing - after all, we don't live on a terribly big rock in terms of moving around.

Property is most certainly a weapon for profit used by capitalism; most cynically manipulated and exploited to maintain the flow of money into the credit market.

Perhaps some aspects of capitalism - or perhaps more accurately, some users of the system - but far from all people who choose to be property owners.

Rather than diversifying in their endeavours, people slavishly tie nooses round their necks with mortgages to which they dedicate their working lives. Prices are artificially stimulated and a huge deal of people are living hand to mouth merely in order to feed the system.

You cast that as an entirely negative aspect.

As I said, it ignores key aspects of peoples sociology and psychology - that in general, without some form of almost enforced saving (be it to acquire property by mortgage, or provide funds for their retirement years with pensions) people, by and large, don't.

Homelessness is not required to maintain the property profit system. Homelessness serves no practical purpose to the government,

I'm not trying to claim anything about homelessness - merely dispel some of the obvious cheap shots often made about "normal" people tending towards home ownership in England.

it is merely a side effect of the medicine being administered that makes so many believe they are doing rather well when in truth they are in massive debt to a system that would happily turf them out of 'their' homes at a whim.

As a generalism - looking at things with a reasonably long view, home ownership tends to serve many in society quite well - because without it, the hand-to-mouth aspect of most alternatives, tends to leave most with nothing at the end of it, without there being some collateral.

Do you own property?

A ‘home’ is a commodity now more than ever before. The status of a dwelling as a family home, to be “passed through the generations”, has massively diminished over the past few decades.

Capitalism determined this trend, and dictates it must continue.

The level of property related indebtedness in Britain resulted from propaganda and the organised abuse of the credit system.

That cannot be a good thing for this society, yet it is continuing, with those who govern complicit in that.

The erosion of communities has accelerated in tandem with home ownership over these past few decades. No co-incidence.

The relatively enormous resources people are putting into property could often be better directed at developing small businesses.

The tunnel vision imposed by the prima facie profitability of property ownership stifles other avenues of entrepreneurship.

Have you bought and sold property?

 

[FluffyChicken]

I own a house* as it's cheaper to pay the mortgage than pay rent and I have something I can sell if need it value fluctuates with others in the area so if the investment goes down, it goes down with the rest of them or up of course. I also cannot have my rent suddenly increased at a whim, or at least there is warning.
for me it is cheaper to own, it's not just chucking a large amount of money into somebody else pocket.

A ‘home’ is a commodity now more than ever before. The status of a dwelling as a family home, to be “passed through the generations”, has massively diminished over the past few decades.
Probably the 'home' has dwindled as people and people I know tend not to stay in one area as jobs dictate your money and you have to go where the jobs are.
I'm trying the not going where the jobs are and I have to work in jobs way below my skill level and earning potential. Note owning my home does allow me to do this, I would have to move if I rented.

 

[dyna-ti]

Cost of the Olympics-£13 billion
But theres talk this would be more like £20 billion.

They say it will earn the UK billions but £20b is a massive amount anyway,i would I have thought you would need to earn 3x that to make it worthwhile. :?
Simply put i know we cannot afford to run such a competition so why are we doing it?

This Olympics are probably the real reason behind looking for these savings. :? makes me think of feudal overlords taxing the people like we used to see in the old Robin Hood films :?