Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

V965 Right to Buy and Right to Acquire (Abolition) Bill 2016 Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this bill be passed into law?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    34.04%
    On the contrary, No
    46.81%
    Abstain
    19.15%

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    If immigration was stopped the demand would start falling because each year there would be fewer individuals demanding houses; that is mathematically true. The individuals demanding houses would slowly find a house to occupy with the other individuals making up the demand being the natural growth rate of the population.
    Good idea.
    Meanwhile, 100,000 children are homeless in the UK. But don't worry, just tell them "you'll find a house to occupy soon".
    And the 2 million families on the housing waiting list?

    "Stopping immigration" isn't a simple solution to every single problem you have. Nor is it a good idea.

    European immigrants to the UK have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, helping to relieve the fiscal burden on UK-born workers. They bridge skills gaps, make up a majority of the workers in the NHS and are more likely to have a degree.

    Instead of shouting "PESKY immigrants! They move to Britain, taking jobs, scrounging welfare benefits, straining health services, overrunning local schools and occupying our housing!" maybe you should look at the mass benefits they bring to your state.
    Mass immigration of Irish labour to post-war Britain meant that they, in all but name, rebuilt the 'country'.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Good idea.
    Meanwhile, 100,000 children are homeless in the UK. But don't worry, just tell them "you'll find a house to occupy soon".
    And the 2 million families on the housing waiting list?

    "Stopping immigration" isn't a simple solution to every single problem you have. Nor is it a good idea.

    European immigrants to the UK have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, helping to relieve the fiscal burden on UK-born workers. They bridge skills gaps, make up a majority of the workers in the NHS and are more likely to have a degree.

    Instead of shouting "PESKY immigrants! They move to Britain, taking jobs, scrounging welfare benefits, straining health services, overrunning local schools and occupying our housing!" maybe you should look at the mass benefits they bring to your state.
    Mass immigration of Irish labour to post-war Britain meant that they, in all but name, rebuilt the 'country'.
    In England 3600 slept rough in Britain in 2015, 113000 made homelessness applications, and 275000 were declared statutory homeless by approaching their local authority for homelessness assistance, however, some individuals approaching were adults wanting to move out of their parent's house, single mothers wanting their own council house, and other groups who have houses to live in but want their own house from the council, these individuals should not receive help from the local authority in finding a house; it is a myth there are 100000 children living in absolute homelessness.

    The research shows poorer immigrants do create downward pressure on wages but mathematically the immigration policies of Britain have flaws in. Not all immigrants entering Britain are good immigrants, if the immigrants who are not immigrants are kept out of the country by using a points system for all immigrants, the total net benefit would be even higher than the current net benefit of immigration. The other flaw with immigration is the immigrants will retire one day adding to the burden, meaning more immigrants will have to enter to cover the burden; this is unsustainable. The sensible policy with immigration is to issue work visas to the immigrants who will contribute, refuse entry to immigrants who will not contribute, put a time limit on the visas to make sure immigrants who contribute return home before becoming a burden, and invest in British citizens to end the skills shortage that creates the need for immigration; the fault of the left-wing is ignoring the unsustainable downsides of immigration when the right-wing suggest a sensible solution.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Affordable is up to £75,000.

    And maybe that's because children aren't taught the value of money or people arent paid enough and work 2, 3, 4 jobs just to stay above the bread line.
    Are you expecting your sole source of income for the rest of your life to be some pocket money from your parents or something?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Sorry that meant to say £445,000.



    I've not said that, I've said that the mass decrease in available social housing has forced the majority of those who would live in social housing into the private sector, meaning that demand has soared, supply has plummeted and prices have skyrocketed.

    1 in 3 English councils has not replaced a single home sold under the Right to Buy scheme since 2012, and just 8% of councils have managed to replace half their sold-off properties.

    Ipso facto, RtB needs to be scrapped and mass social housing and affordable housing building projects need to be undertaken.
    Except demand soaring has nothing to do with RtB and supply of housing has not fallen, it has increased, you are defining "affordable" to be council, which is simply not the case.

    And care to show me where the most affordable private property is £445,000 and I want a large area, not pinning it down to an expensive Street or suburb

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except demand soaring has nothing to do with RtB and supply of housing has not fallen, it has increased, you are defining "affordable" to be council, which is simply not the case.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The mass decrease in available social housing has forced the majority of those who would live in social housing into the private sector, meaning that demand has soared, supply of affordable housing has decreased and prices have skyrocketed.

    The supply has decreased because people are buying them - decreasing the supply.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Are you expecting your sole source of income for the rest of your life to be some pocket money from your parents or something?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, of course not because I aim to climb up the social ladder and be earning above the mean wage. But having grown up in a working class family surrounded by other working class families I know how hard life can be and exactly what 'affordable' really is.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    it is a myth there are 100000 children living in absolute homelessness.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34346908

    The research shows poorer immigrants do create downward pressure on wages but mathematically the immigration policies of Britain have flaws in. Not all immigrants entering Britain are good immigrants, if the immigrants who are not immigrants are kept out of the country by using a points system for all immigrants, the total net benefit would be even higher than the current net benefit of immigration. . The sensible policy with immigration is to issue work visas to the immigrants who will contribute, refuse entry to immigrants who will not contribute, put a time limit on the visas to make sure immigrants who contribute return home before becoming a burden, and invest in British citizens to end the skills shortage that creates the need for immigration; the fault of the left-wing is ignoring the unsustainable downsides of immigration when the right-wing suggest a sensible solution.
    There are many bosses who choose to employ workers from other countries because they believe they can pay them less and force them to work harder. It is not exploited workers who gain from the 'race to the bottom'; it is the employers. And it is not only migrant workers who have been used in this way, agency workers and young people are also used by the bosses as a means to drive down wages.

    Job Seekers Allowance is £73.10 for over 25 year olds. That is equal to about 10% of average earnings, compared to 17% when Margaret Thatcher was in power! Many people - themselves struggling on low incomes - are angry at the people who are getting "something for nothing". And the capitalist politicians' anti-scrounger propaganda tells us that it is migrants and benefit claimants that are getting something for nothing. Meanwhile they say not a word about the real scroungers in this society - the super-rich. Since the start of the century the number of people in Britain whose net worth is at least $50 million (£31 million) has almost quadrupled to 4,660, and many of them don't even pay their taxes. The PCS union has estimated that there are about £120 billion in unpaid taxes every year in Britain, overwhelmingly by the big corporations and the rich.

    There is no question that our public services are overstretched, but this is fundamentally due to underfunding. They are unable to cope even without more people, as they are being cut to the bone. There are five million people on waiting lists for social housing - The main reason for this is the selling of council housing and the complete failure of successive governments to build new stock. As a result the supply of social housing has halved in the course of the last twenty years.

    The other flaw with immigration is the immigrants will retire one day adding to the burden, meaning more immigrants will have to enter to cover the burden; this is unsustainable
    Research by Christian Dustmann of University College London and Tommaso Frattini of the University of Milan have found that it is likely that many recent migrants will return home, to enjoy their less productive later years—when they may cost the state more in terms of health care, for instance.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    The mass decrease in available social housing has forced the majority of those who would live in social housing into the private sector, meaning that demand has soared, supply of affordable housing has decreased and prices have skyrocketed.

    The supply has decreased because people are buying them - decreasing the supply.
    I'm not quite sure how buying a house means that the house does not exist any more.

    Again, you are defining "affordable housing" as "social housing", the two terms are not interchangeable.


    (Original post by Aph)
    No, of course not because I aim to climb up the social ladder and be earning above the mean wage. But having grown up in a working class family surrounded by other working class families I know how hard life can be and exactly what 'affordable' really is.
    You'll also know with a bit of research what mortgage rates and rents are.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm not quite sure how buying a house means that the house does not exist any more.

    Again, you are defining "affordable housing" as "social housing", the two terms are not interchangeable.




    You'll also know with a bit of research what mortgage rates and rents are.
    Yes, and I also know how hard it is to get a morgage without a full time job and a decent salary.

    You could blame these people for not being ambitious enough and not wanting to succeed and be driven and ruthless enough to actually make decent enough money to get a morgage but the fact of the matter is that we need the people at the bottom. Without the cleaners, the farmers, the receptionists and all the other people that society looks down upon society couldn't function. The worse off people are the wheels and cogs of this nation and they are the people who put the 'great' into 'Great Britain'. Without them we couldn't have CEOs, bankers or big corpret tycoons. Without them we would crumble and yet they are then repaid for their great debt to society by being paid minimum wage and barely being able to afford to live.

    So yes, I know what the facts and figures are and it doesn't really matter. Not when they can't afford the morgage they need to be able to get a home.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34346908


    There are many bosses who choose to employ workers from other countries because they believe they can pay them less and force them to work harder. It is not exploited workers who gain from the 'race to the bottom'; it is the employers. And it is not only migrant workers who have been used in this way, agency workers and young people are also used by the bosses as a means to drive down wages.

    Job Seekers Allowance is £73.10 for over 25 year olds. That is equal to about 10% of average earnings, compared to 17% when Margaret Thatcher was in power! Many people - themselves struggling on low incomes - are angry at the people who are getting "something for nothing". And the capitalist politicians' anti-scrounger propaganda tells us that it is migrants and benefit claimants that are getting something for nothing. Meanwhile they say not a word about the real scroungers in this society - the super-rich. Since the start of the century the number of people in Britain whose net worth is at least $50 million (£31 million) has almost quadrupled to 4,660, and many of them don't even pay their taxes. The PCS union has estimated that there are about £120 billion in unpaid taxes every year in Britain, overwhelmingly by the big corporations and the rich.

    There is no question that our public services are overstretched, but this is fundamentally due to underfunding. They are unable to cope even without more people, as they are being cut to the bone. There are five million people on waiting lists for social housing - The main reason for this is the selling of council housing and the complete failure of successive governments to build new stock. As a result the supply of social housing has halved in the course of the last twenty years.



    Research by Christian Dustmann of University College London and Tommaso Frattini of the University of Milan have found that it is likely that many recent migrants will return home, to enjoy their less productive later years—when they may cost the state more in terms of health care, for instance.
    That is a case of extreme BBC bias, the article states 67000 families are homeless, if two adults are removed as the parents that gives 23000 child as being registered homeless, a long way from the 100000 you stated. Claiming the families are homeless is misleading, the families are not living on the streets with no where to stay, it means families are applying to the local authority for help with housing because the family does not own a house, nor does the family rent a house.

    Blaming everything on employers is ignoring the problem, immigrants enter Britain creating downward pressure on wages; a minimum wage job for a Briton is less attractive than the same job for someone from a country where the minimum wage is three times less. If Britons could freely move to a country where the minimum wage was nearing £21 per hour for menial, unskilled jobs there would be lots of demand from the apparently lazy Britons. There is a problem in Britain of Britons refusing to work but when foreigners from poor countries are introduced the question is of incentives, not Britons being lazy, nor big businesses wanting to exploit foreigners.

    The problem is individuals demanding things when retraining, applying their skills to starting their own business, or taking any job available is the answer; increasing benefits is not needed. That £120bn figure is wrong, there was discussion in August over how the author made mistakes in his workings author, however, claiming tax is owed is socialist rhetoric with no substance. The point is this, there is tax avoidance caused by the complicated tax system, however it is not clear how to close those loopholes to force big business to pay tax but leave the innocent individuals untouched. It is not surprising loopholes are used when tax experts who spend their lives dealing with tax affairs do not know the tax system inside out, the politicians certainly do not know the tax system, nor do experts; new loopholes are always being found. If there was a way to close every loophole there is a certainty the loophole would be rapidly closed but there is not a way to close all loopholes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm not quite sure how buying a house means that the house does not exist any more.

    Again, you are defining "affordable housing" as "social housing", the two terms are not interchangeable.
    .
    No I am not. The Right to Buy Scheme has caused a plummet in supply of social housing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    No I am not. The Right to Buy Scheme has caused a plummet in supply of social housing.
    Wait, so by looking solely at social housing for affordable housing you aren't stating that they are equivalent statements? Is there some field of logic I am not aware of where two equivalent statements aren't equivalent?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Wait, so by looking solely at social housing for affordable housing you aren't stating that they are equivalent statements? Is there some field of logic I am not aware of where two equivalent statements aren't equivalent?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Let me explain it more.
    The Right to Buy scheme has caused stocks of social housing to plummet, forcing thousands of people into the private sector, decreasing the supply of available affordable housing and increasing demand, forcing up house prices.

    Do you now understand?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Let me explain it more.
    The Right to Buy scheme has caused stocks of social housing to plummet, forcing thousands of people into the private sector, decreasing the supply of available affordable housing and increasing demand, forcing up house prices.

    Do you now understand?
    Except it also decreases demand...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except it also decreases demand...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Now I can't tell if you're still confused or just trying to annoy me.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Now I can't tell if you're still confused or just trying to annoy me.
    So if somebody doesn't demand something anymore demand goes up according to you? To deny right to buy decreases demand takes socialist insanity to a whole new level; next TDA will be believing in democracy

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So if somebody doesn't demand something anymore demand goes up according to you? To deny right to buy decreases demand takes socialist insanity to a whole new level; next TDA will be believing in democracy

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    When did I say that?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    When did I say that?
    All over the thread

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    All over the thread

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The abolition of Right to Buy and a mass social house building scheme will decrease demand in the private sector.

    Remember that council housing was originally meant to prevent the segregation of people by class into slums and billionaires' rows, and it was working until right to buy was introduced - now the vast majority of social housing is in deprived areas.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    Ayes to the right: 16
    Noes to the left: 22
    Abstain: 9

    The Noes have it! The Noes have it. Unlock.
    Turnout: 94%
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 11, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.