Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Home sharing will never happen and the whole issue is avoided by building more social homes so I shall skip to that point.
    You've suggested an alternative, which I and many others would be behind. Yet as I've already said, governments won't want to do it, especially at a shaky economic time like this.

    Yes the housing market is important to the economy but just because you build a million homes and there happens to be 20 million already doesnt mean house prices will drop by 5%.
    To stop the housing crisis getting worse, you need to build homes at such a rate that their cost doesn't increase despite our increasing population. To solve the housing crisis, you need to build houses at such a rate that their cost goes down to make them affordable. Bear in mind that banks have given mortgages on the assumption that the value will rise so they don't lose money by lending the mortgage in the first place if the buyer stops payments, and the buyer is more likely to stop payments if house prices drop and look to continue dropping - they'll just wait for the price to drop to a better level for them before perhaps buying the house outright.

    Simply more of the demand for houses will be met at the bottom end of the ladder. As for bad politics all people have an equal vote at the general election and a propperty investor doesnt recieve 10000 ballets to fill out so it certainly isnt bad politics.

    It just takes balls to carry out the action... building on green belt upsets the greens, borrowing money to do this upsets the right wing, and people as a whole sit on the fence over such issues as it is so bold and they worry about the effects needlessly such as their house price.
    These two paragraphs contradict each other. It's bad politics to do stuff that will turn more people away from you than it will draw to you, especially when you don't have the luxury of having a majority in Parliament.

    The prime perpose of a home is to live in not to make money from it.
    Indeed, but so many people are doing that and want to continue making money from it (or at least, not lose their investment). And as you've said, they all have a vote.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The 'bedroom tax' doesn't affect me personally but I find the idea of forcing 2 families to share a home barbaric. I think I would kill myself if I had to share a home with my violent, abusive neighbour rather than wait for him to kill me. It's bad enough having him as a neighbour.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shonaT)
    The 'bedroom tax' doesn't affect me personally but I find the idea of forcing 2 families to share a home barbaric. I think I would kill myself if I had to share a home with my violent, abusive neighbour rather than wait for him to kill me. It's bad enough having him as a neighbour.
    Sounds like you should have reported him to the police by now. Having a violent abusive neighbour intent on killing you isn't normal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    oh shut up. taxes are not theft they are for the benefit of everyone.
    I am not everyone else, therefore I cannot speak on their behalf. But if you have to use threat of force to coerce me into surrendering my property to a third party that is theft.

    Also everyone else? I'm not sure those civilians who were killed in Iraq or Afghanistan (but it's ok, they were only collateral damage) benefited from the tax money spent on funding an immoral and even illegal war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Sounds like you should have reported him to the police by now. Having a violent abusive neighbour intent on killing you isn't normal.

    In the past year we have been woken 4 times by police raids and he has been arrester for threatening another neighbour with a sword. Then he's released again.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by paul514)
    5. People with a larger home had this home for a reason 99% of the time it will be because they had a family of this size what happens when they want to visit their parents?
    Stay in hotels like everyone else does / sleep on the sofa? I don't mean children who stay with their other parent of a weekend, I mean someone's grown up children visiting.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    "loony left Labour Nazis"?

    You seem a tad confused.
    No, I just don't like people and parties that spout off nonsense about the current government's decisions - but actually have no plans of their own on what they would do.

    The Labour Party is in a shambolic state partly because the electorate is still reeling from 13 years of let downs between 1997 and 2010 - and because they know damn well that they would have to make similar cuts - just at a slower and less aggressive pace than what the current government is doing.

    From Ed Balls' smug look of "I was right all along", the Labour Party has, to quote Gordon Brown in the 1992 election, "no mandate to govern" unless they actually have good, manageable, and workable policies. The Labour party have none of these, because they know they'd have to do a similar sort of thing.

    Tory voters are just as spineless too, so I don't hate Labour. The Tories are perhaps worse at the moment for exercising policies that are unfair, unworkable, and entirely misdirected from a chancellor who has no background in economics and no emotional depth. The excuse of blaming it on the last government wore thin two and a half years ago.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    If you have 2 extra rooms in a home, would you rather they stay empty or we get another family into housing? People keep forgetting about the extra people we'd manage to house, and instead focus only on the people having to share. This is a way to get more people into housing using the information already compiled for the "Bedroom Tax", i.e. how many people in various properties and how many rooms.
    No no no - you've missed the point big time with this comment. The benefit reduction isn't about trying to shove in more people into less housing - the problem is the lack of housing available for people to live in. The reduction in benefits isn't a fair way of asking people to downgrade their homes, it's actually about the lack of places where people can go.

    If there were loads of places where people can go to, it wouldn't be as bad. But the truth is it's the same with employment - too many people, not enough jobs. In this case too many people, not enough houses.

    Sadly, this vile, out of touch government is insistent that it is fair because they have no concept of British society.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    No, I just don't like people and parties that spout off nonsense about the current government's decisions - but actually have no plans of their own on what they would do.
    This. A thousand times over.

    Tories: We're going to do THIS!
    Labour: You're plan is ****! Don't vote for these guys!
    Tories: What do you suggest?
    Labour: You're plan is ****! Don't vote for these guys!

    Parties aren't going out there to prove they are right, they're just trying to prove the opposition is wrong. It's a load of *******s really.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeyd85)
    This. A thousand times over.

    Tories: We're going to do THIS!
    Labour: You're plan is ****! Don't vote for these guys!
    Tories: What do you suggest?
    Labour: You're plan is ****! Don't vote for these guys!

    Parties aren't going out there to prove they are right, they're just trying to prove the opposition is wrong. It's a load of *******s really.
    Spot on. Interestingly, the Tories have virtually sidestepped answering difficult situations by criticising Labour for getting us into this mess. The ConDem government is a complete and total shambles, giving us unfair and unworkable policies - and the public knows it.

    Cameron's "We're all in this together" will prove that the Tory party are more out of touch with us than we realise - but patience everyone, just like Labour, we will make sure we make them unelectable in 2015 for a long, long time.

    Speaking of which, where are Ed Balls' policies as shadow chancellor - or will he sit in smug vindication criticising the government, but not offering anything of his own?

    The LibDem's... Who?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's fair. I live at my dads a lot of the time (because its nearer school) but i stay at my mum's too so she needs the extra bedroom- for me and my sister to stay in. She'll probably be taxed on it anyway, and if she had less bedrooms we wouldnt be able to stay there.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    Spot on. Interestingly, the Tories have virtually sidestepped answering difficult situations by criticising Labour for getting us into this mess. The ConDem government is a complete and total shambles, giving us unfair and unworkable policies - and the public knows it.

    Cameron's "We're all in this together" will prove that the Tory party are more out of touch with us than we realise - but patience everyone, just like Labour, we will make sure we make them unelectable in 2015 for a long, long time.

    Speaking of which, where are Ed Balls' policies as shadow chancellor - or will he sit in smug vindication criticising the government, but not offering anything of his own?

    The LibDem's... Who?
    Aye. Modern politics is utterly tripe. What we need is a party of normal people who have had normal lives who don't care if they say something controversial - as long as it's the truth and represents the views of the party.

    The tories won't get voted in again. They've done too much to the poor and not enough to the rich. It doesn't matter whether this is beneficial for the country or if there's even an ounce of truth behind it. That's the way it is in the media, therefore that's the way it is for Joe Public.

    The Lib Dems have just made themselves look too weak to be considered a viable leading party. They should never have had a coalition with the Tories. It was never going to work. If you couldn't see that before the election then you're either a fool or don't care enough about politics to analyse the parties.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeyd85)
    The tories won't get voted in again. They've done too much to the poor and not enough to the rich. It doesn't matter whether this is beneficial for the country or if there's even an ounce of truth behind it. That's the way it is in the media, therefore that's the way it is for Joe Public.

    The Lib Dems have just made themselves look too weak to be considered a viable leading party. They should never have had a coalition with the Tories. It was never going to work. If you couldn't see that before the election then you're either a fool or don't care enough about politics to analyse the parties.
    It's kind of interesting you say that actually - because I have a horrible feeling that the Tories will pull something out of their sleeves and will get in for the next election in 2015. Thatcher was massively unpopular in the very early eighties, but she won the '83 election because of the Falklands War. If it wasn't for that, she wouldn't have won it. She won again in the '87 election because by which time the economy was picking up - but the poll tax in '90 destroyed her, hence her resignation.

    Whatever people's opinions on Thatcher are, there is irrefutable proof that Thatcher saved this country. I reckon Cameron and their ilk will do something again. If the economy doesn't pick up soon, their out on their ears. But if it does, they'll use that to their advantage and may even win the next election.

    Will Labour get in in 2015? With the sympathy vote maybe. But until Labour get some bottle and present workable policies of their own, rather than criticise the government at every turn to dwindle interest in the Tory party, they will not be elected for a long, long time.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    It's kind of interesting you say that actually - because I have a horrible feeling that the Tories will pull something out of their sleeves and will get in for the next election in 2015. Thatcher was massively unpopular in the very early eighties, but she won the '83 election because of the Falklands War. If it wasn't for that, she wouldn't have won it. She won again in the '87 election because by which time the economy was picking up - but the poll tax in '90 destroyed her, hence her resignation.

    Whatever people's opinions on Thatcher are, there is irrefutable proof that Thatcher saved this country. I reckon Cameron and their ilk will do something again. If the economy doesn't pick up soon, their out on their ears. But if it does, they'll use that to their advantage and may even win the next election.

    Will Labour get in in 2015? With the sympathy vote maybe. But until Labour get some bottle and present workable policies of their own, rather than criticise the government at every turn to dwindle interest in the Tory party, they will not be elected for a long, long time.
    I'm very wary when people use the term 'irrefutable proof' when examining a social subject matter.

    In any case, I agree with you. I can see the Cons getting in again in '15.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shonaT)
    In the past year we have been woken 4 times by police raids and he has been arrester for threatening another neighbour with a sword. Then he's released again.
    That's incompetence by the police, which you ought to complain about and I very much doubt people like him are commonplace. You've outlined a case where you're likely to be afraid to leave your house when he's around, let alone share a home with him.

    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    No no no - you've missed the point big time with this comment. The benefit reduction isn't about trying to shove in more people into less housing - the problem is the lack of housing available for people to live in. The reduction in benefits isn't a fair way of asking people to downgrade their homes, it's actually about the lack of places where people can go.

    If there were loads of places where people can go to, it wouldn't be as bad. But the truth is it's the same with employment - too many people, not enough jobs. In this case too many people, not enough houses.

    Sadly, this vile, out of touch government is insistent that it is fair because they have no concept of British society.
    Indeed, hence why I suggested using the data already collected for this "Bedroom Tax" to put people who only need one room (maybe 2, depending on availability) into the homes which would be hit by the "tax". I.e. nobody has to move, and more people get housing. Plus the government doesn't need to spend as much on housing benefit. The only drawback is having to share, but tbh, that slight inconvenience is worth getting more people into homes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously my neighbour is extreme. I can however think of plenty of reasons where sharing a house with another family would be a nightmare e.g. someone regularly getting drunk in front of your children, your home sharing family wanting to party when you have to get up early for work.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Indeed, hence why I suggested using the data already collected for this "Bedroom Tax" to put people who only need one room (maybe 2, depending on availability) into the homes which would be hit by the "tax". I.e. nobody has to move, and more people get housing. Plus the government doesn't need to spend as much on housing benefit. The only drawback is having to share, but tbh, that slight inconvenience is worth getting more people into homes.
    As much as it sounds like a great idea in theory - in reality it just wouldn't work. There are too much 'stranger danger' for it to work in practice. What if I had to share my house with someone who is an ex-pedophile, for example? I certainly wouldn't want that.

    I know we're thinking of apples and pears, but it shouldn't be necessary to carpool people into houses. It just wouldn't work.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Now, I'm not talking about the exceptions such as disabled people needing a hospital bed and so on, they clearly need the extra space and shouldn't be hit by it. However, I've heard a lot about there being loads of people on the waiting list for 1 bedroom homes as a reason why people shouldn't be forced to 'downsize', that there aren't enough properties.

    In fact, the people who complain about that are looking at it all wrong - those people wanting just one bedroom aren't competition, they're a supply. One family needs 2 bedrooms, but has 3, and another family just needs 1? Stick them together! That's an extra family in housing, and less needs to be spent on accommodation and living costs. Most of us did it at university, and we turned out okay (if in crazy debt).

    Look at it another way, if a 20 bedroom mansion came on the market for social housing, would you stick one family in there (say they're a large one with disabled people, and need 10 bedrooms), or would you stick that family and 10 more single bedroom families or 5 more two bedroom families or whatever other arrangement?

    Edit: I've called it the "Bedroom Tax" because that's the policy's most commonly used moniker, not because I agree or disagree about it being an actual tax on bedrooms, which is for another thread.

    Edit 2: Just in case some people missed it, the end result of this would be more families in housing, fewer on waiting lists, and fewer needing to move to 'downsize'. The downside is having to share, but I wouldn't have thought that would be so unpalatable on a student forum that you'd rather families stayed homeless.
    I think you idea is very appropriate for the country's current economic situation. Welfare schemes like these are not a right, but a privilege given by the state to those in need. Most countries do not offer such generous help. People on the receiving end should be grateful for any free welfare the government chooses to give them. Having to share a house that is adequately sized for two families should not be viewed as unfair in the slightest. If anything, those receiving free housing and demanding that they should not change or share is unfair.

    The government is kindly keeping these people off the streets; they should be more appreciative.

    Our country is already struggling economically, so why should the government spend more on housing when it already has available spaces for people to live in?

    If the government is providing you with a place to live, you should not view it as your own property to demand what you want of it as you please, but instead appreciate that other tax-payers are funding your accommodation.

    There is only so much in the pot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady_L)
    I think you idea is very appropriate for the country's current economic situation. Welfare schemes like these are not a right, but a privilege given by the state to those in need. Most countries do not offer such generous help. People on the receiving end should be grateful for any free welfare the government chooses to give them. Having to share a house that is adequately sized for two families should not be viewed as unfair in the slightest. If anything, those receiving free housing and demanding that they should not change or share is unfair.

    The government is kindly keeping these people off the streets; they should be more appreciative.

    Our country is already struggling economically, so why should the government spend more on housing when it already has available spaces for people to live in?

    If the government is providing you with a place to live, you should not view it as your own property to demand what you want of it as you please, but instead appreciate that other tax-payers are funding your accommodation.

    There is only so much in the pot.

    There aren't that many large houses either. We'd be talking about a couple with 2 children in a 3 bed house being forced to share with a couple or single person. What if these sharers are alcoholics what affect would that have on the children? What if the sharer regularly smokes hash would it be fair for the person in the couple to loose their job because the police found drugs in their house?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    No, I just don't like people and parties that spout off nonsense about the current government's decisions - but actually have no plans of their own on what they would do.

    The Labour Party is in a shambolic state partly because the electorate is still reeling from 13 years of let downs between 1997 and 2010 - and because they know damn well that they would have to make similar cuts - just at a slower and less aggressive pace than what the current government is doing.

    From Ed Balls' smug look of "I was right all along", the Labour Party has, to quote Gordon Brown in the 1992 election, "no mandate to govern" unless they actually have good, manageable, and workable policies. The Labour party have none of these, because they know they'd have to do a similar sort of thing.

    Tory voters are just as spineless too, so I don't hate Labour. The Tories are perhaps worse at the moment for exercising policies that are unfair, unworkable, and entirely misdirected from a chancellor who has no background in economics and no emotional depth. The excuse of blaming it on the last government wore thin two and a half years ago.
    What is a "loony left Labour Nazi"?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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 12, 2013
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.