The argument is more simple than that, you begrudge some people the benefit they have received on the basis that they are poor and don’t deserve it, but have no problem with the undeserving rich receiving such benefits.
If you think the rich aren’t getting Government "benefits! because of who they know, then you really aren’t paying attention are you.
Do you know how many people David Cameron has ennobled?
He handed out 117 peerages in less than a year.
But I am sure that this “benefit from Government, acting on behalf of a nation, who can choose to give it to whoever they see fit” is entirely different.
No I said almost the opposite: the available benefit in question (allocation of cheap housing) should go to the most deserving - the POOREST. I don’t think the rich(er) should recieve social housing, that’s the point I was making.
I didn’t say anything about whether David Cameron should hand out peerages or whatever because that wasn’t the question, or even mentioned previously - that was you shooting off at a wild tangent. As it goes, I suspect we largely agree on such things.
I don’t know why you seem intent on painting anyone who disagrees with you as some kind of rich tory boy, sitting on a family pile.
I know it was a bit harsh of me, but it is just telling of this country that we heard about David Cameron doing this back in April…not a squit about it since, he attacks the poor, in more ways than one, no-one defends them, he gives his rich friends peerages and no-one condemns him.
It is just tiresome for me that people think it is ok to strip those in social homes of their rights, simply on the basis that they are no longer the dirt poorest in our nation any more, well done you have managed to dig yourself out of one of the deepest and darkest economic holes in our country…your reward? Well now we are taking your home away…while at the other end of the scale those with wealth are raking it in without deserving it and very little said or done about it.
I didn’t think it was harsh, I thought it was irrelevant.
If you want to know what people think about David Cameron being a tosser, why not try asking that instead. You’ll almost certainly find people agreeing with you more
I would like to think that was a given, what I don’t understand is how people can agree with that, yet also agree that stripping rights away from those in social homes is also ok.
This sentence for me sums it up:
well done you have managed to dig yourself out of one of the deepest and darkest economic holes in our country…your reward? Well now we are taking your home away.
Bob Crow should have got a social home just like everyone else on the list, if that is not the case that is something to look into, but if it is the case, then why should he be stripped of his home, for whatever reason.
Yes social home ownership is a privilege, just like freedom, but that doesn’t mean you can take it away arbitrarily just because you don’t like the fact that he has a large wage and a council house.
Using the argument that it is a limited resource is irritating, mostly because it is only a limited resource due to policy considerations.
Change the policy and then it will no longer be a limited resource and your argument fades away.
Let me give you a parallel argument that I have seen bandied about on this board.
“Young women purposely make themselves pregnant so that they can get social homes.”
Whether you believe it or not is your decision, I am just using this as an example. What is it that upsets people about that? The fact that people are engineering a situation, then using that situation to justify a requirement.
Yet, when we had right-to-buy, councils were not allowed to use any of the money that they took for selling off council homes. They were not allowed to use that money to replace the council homes, by either building more or buying empty property for renovation to put back into the housing stock.
It is a situation that has been engineered to create a shortfall, to create a situation where we have an ever decreasing resource.
Now we use that engineered situation to justify a requirement.
How is it any different? Why aren’t you as annoyed by the engineering situation as you are when poor women purposely become pregnant, as the claim goes.
We allow this by our acquiescence and our defence of the indefensible.
When you have a home you should have a right to keep it, regardless of what happens elsewhere or around you.
If people with a mortgage were losing their homes, despite keeping up with their payments, due to the economic crisis…perhaps their bank collapses, people would be up in arms. How dare you take a home, that they don’t own, because of things that are happening around them.
Yet when you rent it from a council, rather than pay a mortgage, all of a sudden it is ok to strip people of their homes.
If you have a mortgage, you don’t own your home. The deeds to your home are with the bank, the bank owns your home. It owns your home to the day you pay the last payment on your mortgage, and then the home becomes yours.
Something we have not discussed in this thread at all is this.
Housing is not merely a commodity. We have not at all discussed the idea that there is sentimental value in a home. Where your child was born, where it learnt to walk and talk etc etc.
We discussed, briefly, that many larger homes are not filled because people live in them after their children have left, but we didn’t really discuss why that happens, why people choose to live in a larger house after their children have left. I believe this is because people have memories invested in their homes and don’t want to give that away.
The idea that housing is merely some bricks and mortar fails to describe the full truth about what a home is.
Well done, you have managed to dig yourself out of one of the deepest and darkest economic holes in our country. You can now afford to rent a normal place, your old place will now be given to someone who is still in that deep dark economic hole and needs it more than you. Simple.
When I took out a mortgage, I signed an agreement with the bank, governed by a specific set of laws, where once I finish paying off the loan I will fully own the house. If the bank collapses, that is actually covered in the law (any entity taking over the banks assets would be governed by the same law). If all banks collapse, I go out and get a general purpose machine gun and stop paying anyone (it then becomes mine by right of calibre).
If I was renting from a private landlord, I would not ever expect to accrue any rights to the property I am renting. I am merely paying money every month to live in the rented accommodation.
In the same way, when you rent from a council, you get a very cheap heavily subsidised rental designed for people on low incomes, but you do not accrue any rights to the property. If you no longer fulfil the qualification for very cheap heavily subsidised rental (e.g. you no longer have a low income), you move to non-subsidised rental accommodation or to a mortgage with the hope of owing your own property one day.
