Jump to content


Housing crisis - moving people into smaller properties not an option!

Recommended Posts

I agree on the "If they can afford it." The problem is that mortgage lenders have allowed many people to have mortgages that in reality they couldn't afford.

What does this really mean. Clearly they could afford them in the short term...

 

 

 

Why should someone with a large asset be given extra help from the public purse just because they signed up to a mortgage that they couldn't afford.

Because they'll end up claiming money anyway once that asset has been repossessed and they are homeless.

So long as the help they get is no more than they would receive when the mortgage is foreclosed then it makes sense to offer it immediately.

 

The social housing stock should be radically increased to help cope with the increase in lost jobs as many more people will sadly be losing them.

How does it help to allow people to loose their houses, but require the state to spend huge amounts then providing housing for those people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Mecky and Chem1st

 

LVT and CI is the only way sensible fair way forward.

 

http://www.coalitionforeconomicjustice.com/

 

Won't happen, like I said yesterday, no amount of bleating from angry Daily Fail readers will ever get rid of benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich, you're making yourself look stupid, the Daily Mail is right wing and is opposed to the ideas of both LVT and CI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if someone has worked all their lives, raised a family, that have now left, they have to give up their home to a family of, say 4 adults, who may well be on benefit, that seems fair...

"Worked all life" and "raised a family" are irrelevancies; as is "may well be on benefit".

What matters is under-occupation of a scarce public sector house needed for more occupants than at present.

No-one's being made homeless by this proposal, you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a two bedroom flat then two people need to share it. If it is three bedrooms then three people need to share it. And so on. Pretty simple really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have a two bedroom flat then two people need to share it. If it is three bedrooms then three people need to share it. And so on. Pretty simple really.

 

Why ?

 

Would it not make more sense to errect a sign at Dover and heathrow saying "sorry - we're full" ??

 

Most of this countrys problems boil down to the fact we have too many people and not enough space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that's what the government is pushing for.

 

Everyone. We all know this is just an excuse to push the most vulnerable in society around. So what about people who have bought their own house and it's too big for them, e.g. a single person with more than one bedroom? Does that or does that not contribute to the so claimed housing shortage? I propose home owners pay a tax of £10k per annum for each bedroom that remains unused and that includes guest rooms.

 

The problem isn't a shortage of rooms to rent but a shortage of unspoilt no/low income people willing to share their rental accommodation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have a two bedroom flat then two people need to share it. If it is three bedrooms then three people need to share it. And so on. Pretty simple really.

 

Wonder if the queen take on a few tenants. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why ?

 

Would it not make more sense to errect a sign at Dover and heathrow saying "sorry - we're full" ??

 

Most of this countrys problems boil down to the fact we have too many people and not enough space.

 

I wouldn't disagree that mass immigration is a problem and controlling it is therefore part of the solution. However, I was responding to the OP claiming that there are not enough one and two bedroom rental properties for those on benefits (who are 'over-accommodated') to move into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
]"Worked all life" and "raised a family" are irrelevancies; as is "may well be on benefit".[/b]What matters is under-occupation of a scarce public sector house needed for more occupants than at present.

No-one's being made homeless by this proposal, you know.

 

Maybe to you, but not to me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that's what the government is pushing for.

 

Everyone. We all know this is just an excuse to push the most vulnerable in society around. So what about people who have bought their own house and it's too big for them, e.g. a single person with more than one bedroom? Does that or does that not contribute to the so claimed housing shortage? I propose home owners pay a tax of £10k per annum for each bedroom that remains unused and that includes guest rooms.

 

I have a house that is too big for me. I am trying to sell it. I pay council tax and water rates totalling £160 a month, plus the mortgage and other bills. I would be expected to pay £20k because I have two small bedrooms not being used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like something a Communist country would do. I wondered how long it would be before an Englishman's home was no longer his castle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.