Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    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.
    Know your place! Be grateful you're not dead!

    Urghh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Know your place! Be grateful you're not dead!

    Urghh.
    Getting more like wish you actually were. What people forget is anyone can find themselves on their uppers, often through absolutely no fault of their own.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Free housing Lady_L? I was under the impression we all paid for it through taxes?

    Should we have 100 per class in schools as long as the teacher is given a microphone so everyone can hear.

    Perhaps we should get people to top and tail in NHS beds so we dont need to buy more!

    Perhaps you should get your head out your arse.
    Offline

    2
    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.
    That's a radical idea lol- with some tweaks it could be a viable proposal
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Know your place! Be grateful you're not dead!

    Urghh.
    That comment failed to respond to any of her points
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Couldn't the idea of sharing people, be restricted, based on certain criteria? For example, people without children? Children are another matter entirely, but I CERTAINLY don't see why single people, and perhaps even couples, shouldn't share. People do it at universities, people do it in the forces, people do it in hostels, people do it in shared houses. It may not be without risk, but many take such risks, as it is.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    What is a "loony left Labour Nazi"?
    The smug left-wing supporters who oppose virtually all of what the Tories are doing - but actually fail at presenting policies of their own or - or policies that are at least workable and manageable.

    The people who pretend they are defending the poor and the interests of the working class, spouting trash when they actually haven't got a clue what their talking about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    The smug left-wing supporters who oppose virtually all of what the Tories are doing - but actually fail at presenting policies of their own or - or policies that are at least workable and manageable.

    The people who pretend they are defending the poor and the interests of the working class, spouting trash when they actually haven't got a clue what their talking about.
    What makes them "nazis"?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    The smug left-wing supporters who oppose virtually all of what the Tories are doing - but actually fail at presenting policies of their own or - or policies that are at least workable and manageable.

    The people who pretend they are defending the poor and the interests of the working class, spouting trash when they actually haven't got a clue what their talking about.
    You do realise the Nazi's were quite the opposite. They did heighten pensions, and say they'll solve unemployment, but they were still incredibly right-wing
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shonaT)
    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.
    It shouldn't be too difficult to match families who have similarly aged children, given that they've already got records on how old the children are and what gender they are (for the room sharing they already want to push for). As for coming home late, that's a problem you face with neighbours in adjacent houses already, as well as drunks shouting on the street - it's not perfect, of course, but you can call the cops, and assuming they want to stay in the home (and if they applied for it, that's a safe assumption), you can threaten them to make them behave. It's also significantly better than not having a place to live.

    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    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.
    Stranger danger? You know what they look like, where they live, and so on. They're also registered at your address, and would be among the prime suspects should anything bad happen.

    You're also confusing 'preference' with 'bad vetting' - you shouldn't get to choose, nor should you have to live with someone dangerous. If you knew of their danger, then the police should too, in which case they wouldn't be put in situations where their danger could be 'unleashed'. It wouldn't be difficult to place paedophiles (well, convicted child molesters) away from children, for example.

    (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.
    Indeed, I'm surprised at how many people are reluctant to share. It's not a complete fix (we need more housing, plain and simple), but it's effective with what we have to work with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattFletcher)
    You do realise the Nazi's were quite the opposite. They did heighten pensions, and say they'll solve unemployment, but they were still incredibly right-wing
    But they did expand the government and increase it's spending.(and probably taxes too)

    After all a police state is definitely not cheap!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    It shouldn't be too difficult to match families who have similarly aged children, given that they've already got records on how old the children are and what gender they are (for the room sharing they already want to push for). As for coming home late, that's a problem you face with neighbours in adjacent houses already, as well as drunks shouting on the street - it's not perfect, of course, but you can call the cops, and assuming they want to stay in the home (and if they applied for it, that's a safe assumption), you can threaten them to make them behave. It's also significantly better than not having a place to live.


    The noise isn't the same as noise in your own house. Siblings sharing a room is fine, I have no problem with that but sharing with someone who was a stranger until the were forced to share a bedroom with them, horrible. Yes they can match the age of children but having children the same age doesn't mean you automatically have the same morals. I would lose my job for example if drugs were found in my house. I trust my family but not a stranger. I do know you would get to know them once they moved in btw.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shonaT)
    The noise isn't the same as noise in your own house. Siblings sharing a room is fine, I have no problem with that but sharing with someone who was a stranger until the were forced to share a bedroom with them, horrible. Yes they can match the age of children but having children the same age doesn't mean you automatically have the same morals. I would lose my job for example if drugs were found in my house. I trust my family but not a stranger. I do know you would get to know them once they moved in btw.
    You wouldn't share a room with a stranger. Families would have their own rooms within a house, it's just the communal areas that would be shared inter-family. I don't know what job you do, but given that the government would be involved in arranging the social housing, it'd be easier to say that you weren't responsible - as opposed to privately renting with somebody then having to prove that you had nothing to do with them.
    Offline

    0
    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 don't get it. We live in a West that is falling over financially and people who do nothing get the use of properties and we are supposed to go boo hoo and cry if they are told that the government borrowing / taxpayer is going going to fund their extra rooms?

    Where are these spending cuts? Government spending is going up not down.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shonaT)
    Getting more like wish you actually were. What people forget is anyone can find themselves on their uppers, often through absolutely no fault of their own.
    I agree, and that is why I think it is good that we have these safety nets in place. However, we should appreciate them - not complain about them. Benefits aren't rights.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shonaT)
    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?
    Obviously it would take a lot of setting up. To begin with I dare say it would cost a fair bit. However, checks can be done on people. For example, a few sheets of peoples information would help assess whether two families were suited to each other e.g. do they smoke, do they mind smokers etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    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.
    What about people who rent bedsits? Should they not rent a room from someone because they are a stranger? Everyone is a stranger before you meet them. As someone previously mentioned in the thread, most people share houses with strangers at uni...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady_L)
    I agree, and that is why I think it is good that we have these safety nets in place. However, we should appreciate them - not complain about them. Benefits aren't rights.
    I'm not complaining about benefits, I'm complaining about the suggestion that families be made to share a house with another family because to me i sounds cruel. Think about it you are made redundant or become too ill to work so you loose your income, your home and the ability to buy things for your children. How would that feel? Then think how it would feel if your privacy, your right to decide what aspects of life your children are exposed to, etc and think how much worse that would feel.

    Obviously people haven't the right to demand or expect luxury but dignity shouldn't be luxury.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shonaT)
    I'm not complaining about benefits, I'm complaining about the suggestion that families be made to share a house with another family because to me i sounds cruel. Think about it you are made redundant or become too ill to work so you loose your income, your home and the ability to buy things for your children. How would that feel? Then think how it would feel if your privacy, your right to decide what aspects of life your children are exposed to, etc and think how much worse that would feel.

    Obviously people haven't the right to demand or expect luxury but dignity shouldn't be luxury.
    It's not like they'll be sharing bedrooms...just the kitchen and such like.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady_L)
    It's not like they'll be sharing bedrooms...just the kitchen and such like.
    Keeping yourself to your bedroom is easy when you're young and single. Try keeping children cooped up in just one room it isn't easy.
 
 
 
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
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    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

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