Bedroom tax on council tenants

[chem1st 10]

Of course, you will find that in reality, it doesn't actually work like that at all. (whether or not it worked like that in the past is a debate for another time)

 

Very few young people in council housing/housing association housing. My block of flats is full of older men. I am the youngest tenant. Would be nice to have a better mix in the block. Some younger people for example, but with the lack of housing these people are unable to access housing, they lack space.

 

Access to space is very important. For mental well being and also physical well being.

 

A spare room is something that can be used to start a business.

[Grappler 12]

You can purchase a 'medallion' in New York, so that you can drive a cab.

 

Some are owned by individuals and many are owned by companies. They are a barrier to entrance and impoverish both customers and new drivers.

 

There is a monopoly upon these medallions, and there is a barrier to enter the taxi market. In a free-market, more people would become taxi drivers and take advantage of high fares, fares would be pushed down. This does not happen.

 

A medallion costs $704 000.

 

You would argue that there is no monopoly upon medallions. When there clearly is. Much like there is a monopoly on land and housing in the UK.

 

Good grief, no wonder they had to stop making that old Danny DeVito comedy, "Taxi"

 

On a more serious note, and I am genuinely asking the question, when the council sold off the council houses to people who wanted to buy and own their own, what did they do with all the money? It obviously did not get spent on maintaining roads, so where did it go?

[a_weishaupt 10]

Very few young people in council housing/housing association housing. My block of flats is full of older men.

 

Exactly the problem.

 

Presumably some of these people had jobs and COULD have bettered themselves and found better accommodation. Something more befitting an older person.

 

They chose, as you have, not to.

 

Society is to blame, NOT the council.

[Doris Night 10]

Its my opinion that social housing should be available for anyone who wants it. The government should start a mass building program to boost the economy.. Owner Occupation is out of the reach of more people now and private sector rents are too high for low earners, ensuring they have to apply for benefits. This is silly why not just provide homes at lower rents...

[steely 10]

It is not wrong if it is done in a manner that those who need the extra rooms remain unaffected by it.

 

If someone needs a room for kids they may have a few times a month, fine they should be unaffected.

 

if someone needs extra room for genuine health reasons, they should be unaffected.

 

If someone wants a three bedroom house but has no actual need for it, they should pay or move.

 

I agree with this why should my taxes pay for someone who wants to live in a home with spare bedrooms when they dont need them - I would much rather they were spent on services for everyone to enjoy.

[Plain Talker 11]

Good grief, no wonder they had to stop making that old Danny DeVito comedy, "Taxi"

 

On a more serious note, and I am genuinely asking the question, when the council sold off the council houses to people who wanted to buy and own their own, what did they do with all the money? It obviously did not get spent on maintaining roads, so where did it go?

 

The government refused local authorities permission to use any of the money from RTB sales in replacing housing that was lost from the social housing stock.

 

Not actually sure what it was spent on...

[Grappler 12]

Its my opinion that social housing should be available for anyone who wants it. The government should start a mass building program to boost the economy.. Owner Occupation is out of the reach of more people now and private sector rents are too high for low earners, ensuring they have to apply for benefits. This is silly why not just provide homes at lower rents...

 

So, back to my earlier question, which I genuinely would like an answer to; when the council sold off council houses to people who wanted to buy them, where did that money go?

[Grappler 12]

The government refused local authorities permission to use any of the money from RTB sales in replacing housing that was lost from the social housing stock.

 

Not actually sure what it was spent on...

 

Must have been typing at the same time, hence me asking the question again, above.

 

So the government of the day refused local authorities the right to replace housing? In that case surely good old working class hero, Tony Blair, put that right when he was in office? no? What about Gordon Brown?

 

Doesn't matter anyway, because Sheffield City Council would have kept that money to one side, to use for........??????

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

Good idea!

 

Will it be charged at an hourly rate levied against those who let rooms by the hour?

[Cyclone 10]

You can purchase a 'medallion' in New York, so that you can drive a cab.

 

Some are owned by individuals and many are owned by companies. They are a barrier to entrance and impoverish both customers and new drivers.

 

There is a monopoly upon these medallions, and there is a barrier to enter the taxi market. In a free-market, more people would become taxi drivers and take advantage of high fares, fares would be pushed down. This does not happen.

 

A medallion costs $704 000.

 

You would argue that there is no monopoly upon medallions. When there clearly is. Much like there is a monopoly on land and housing in the UK.

 

Unless all the medalions (or most) are owned by a single legal entity then there is no monopoly.

Why do you persist in not understanding what monopoly means?

The fact that driving a taxi is regulated and that there is a high barrier to entry does not in any way mean that there is a monopoly.

[Cyclone 10]

Er, no unless you can point out where I supposedly said that to him?

Here

 

You aren't entitled to a house, nobody should give you one, get out and work for a living and the things you want in life.

And you chip in.

Does that also apply to the old, infirm, mentally ill or disabled?

 

Perhaps if you look at the context of what I've posted instead of replying to it as if it were in a vacuum there would be no confusion...

What did you think that "you" meant?

 

 

Which was not stated by me so have a read again. I said "Although you may not be entitled to a house the law states that it is the responsibility of SCC to house you.."

 

Instead of being a pedantic/semantic pain and trying to twist words to suit yourself why don't you try reading and answering the actual posts instead.

 

Is it the responsibility of SCC to house me? No, is it the responsibility of SCC to house you, probably not.

But then I wasn't arguing against this point you made, you are effectively strawmanning, I said that the state is not obliged to provide everyone with a house and you respond with some strawman about an obligation to house everyone.

 

Maybe you should clarify what responsibilities of the council to house people are, I don't believe that it is a responsibility to house everyone, which is what you're claiming.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Cyclone

[chem1st 10]

Unless all the medalions (or most) are owned by a single legal entity then there is no monopoly.

Why do you persist in not understanding what monopoly means?

The fact that driving a taxi is regulated and that there is a high barrier to entry does not in any way mean that there is a monopoly.

 

A monopoly does not have to be a single legal entity. A group unrecognised by law can have a monopoly.

 

Medallions are monopolised and as such the price of medallions are artificially inflated in value. This leads to an artificial scarcity of taxi drivers (although there are illegal taxis that have sprung up to meet demand).

 

The same thing happens to UK land. Land is monopolised and housing is monopolised to some degree. Planning permission can be seen as the 'medallion', leading to an artificial scarcity of housing. The black market meets the demand and illegal housing has sprung up to meet demand.

 

Sheds in beds.

 

Squatters.

 

In NYC you can get a medallion and rent it out, live off of the rental income, like a parasite.

Much like you can do the same with property and land in the UK.

 

A high barrier to entry results from the monopoly.

 

I am surprised that you cannot understand this Cyclone. The solution is to break the monopoly and break the resulting barriers to entry, to ensure a freemarket.

 

Breaking these monopolies will lead to cheaper taxis in NYC and cheaper housing in the UK.