Turn on thread page Beta

Those people in council houses with their 40" plasma tvs... watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    yea those lucky ******** living in relative poverty with no opportunities and few aspirations, let down by the education system, brought up into disadvantaged households, pregnant at a young age, trapped in an almost unbreakable cycle of destitution.
    God, I envy them.

    Don't you realise that these people are those who were starving under thatcher? Do you not realise that their sky tv pales into obscurity compared to the relative quality of your lives? Do you have any sort of sympathy for those who have been dealt terrible hands in the lottery of existence and yet are despised by everyone else? Unemployment is not fun, try it. The same is true of prisons which people now equate with holiday camps (though funnily enough not those who've been in them).
    I totally agree! Oh come off it people, shouldnt we be aiming a little higher in life then a nice tv and a multitude of credit-financed electricals? Im perfectly happy to pay tax so that people can be comfortable in their council house existence rather then have the gross inequalities between rich and poor which you see is so many other countries...okay im a great believer in the free market and the majority of Thatchers policies but having a nation where relative poverty is rife puts an uncomfortable emotional burden on living my comfortable middle class life which I would happily pay to be rid of!

    Would people seriously be happier if their taxes were lower but single mothers got little to no support, council estates became even more ghetto like in characteristic and those who chose/could not (and from an outside perspective this distinction is very very subjective) work were forced to adopt a poverty stricken subsistence lifestyle in which they were only provided with "necessities". Give them their benefit and housing allowance and stop moaning about it..if you want a plasma tv and sky+ that badly go work for it.....or give up many of the other things you take for granted and adopt a life of leisure scrounging off the state if you really think it would make you happier!

    Besides from an economic perspective.... people on lower incomes have a much much higher marginal propensity to consume hence help boost the economy more so than would be achieved by making the middle /upper classes financially better off!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blissy)
    And at this point I disagree. How can you benefit from social housing and then actively intend to deny it from others?
    I'm denying no one. I've lived in the house since I was 4 - and when we were allocated a council house, it came under the 'house for life' legislation (which they are now scrapping) so it's not like this house would ever have been any use to anyone else. Whether I buy it or not, it'll still be occupied by my parents, and myself 'for life' - so really, no one's missing out on it because it was never going to be given up.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MittenKrust)
    That can go either way since I personally have been one of those lazy British people but that was because I had no morale or support(plus depression but wont bring that into it) but had I been given access to a better place then I would try, also if more jobs were available so I would be more likely to work.

    I dont mind immigrants but what I notice is that employers seem to WANT immigrants as they are willing to complain less therefore work "harder" from what I have seen of Polish people for example is their work ethic is fantastic(I have seen Polish bus drivers, builders etc, all friendly) but out of work they have a habit of pushing in front of queues in supermarkets and banks(partly as banks have people trained in Polish) but ignorant of the massive queue of people who have been waiting for ages before them.

    Plus if I went for a job interview id want to be able to speak to the other staff and have a laugh or a drink after work, in my experience with places that have immigrant staff is they keep themselves to themselves and "pretend" they dont speak English when you try to talk to them creating a barrier so its uncomfortable for the British staff.
    i would probably class you under the medical reason for the depression in my first post anyway, im not really against people being unemployed because i know it can be really hard to get a job (i probably sounded a bit harsh before) but i don't agree with people elachin off the system getting as many benefits as possible out of the government and tax payers for years and years for no reason at all except laziness. personally i would like to be able to communicate with people in a job as well, but even just judging from the halls at my uni, unless the cleaners have been working there for about 20 years and are really old, they are all eastern european and so communicate in their native language.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ilora-Danon)
    I'm denying no one. I've lived in the house since I was 4 - and when we were allocated a council house, it came under the 'house for life' legislation (which they are now scrapping) so it's not like this house would ever have been any use to anyone else. Whether I buy it or not, it'll still be occupied by my parents, and myself 'for life' - so really, no one's missing out on it because it was never going to be given up.
    Well that's not entirely accurate.

    If you can afford to buy a house, buy a house - but don't take one out of the social housing pool.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My god this place is full of spoilt middle class brats who have never had to suffer the hardship of relying on a local authority to provide a roof over their heads.
    The reason people may have these fancy electronics is because for the last 15-20 years government have peddled cheap credit as the answer to all our woes. Most people have brought into it.
    This credit is not the same as your mummy and daddy use to buy a new car, these people cannot get credit the usual way, i.e banks etc but have to go to legalised credit sharks who advertise their products on tv in the afternoon, all the better to reach their target audience.
    We are all seeing the end to the credit generation now but don't **** people off who were only buting into the system and hope if you ever fall on bad times, unlikely i know most of you will have mummy and daddy to fall back on,
    a local authority is able to lend you a helping hand to get back on your feet.

    I hope this forum is not the view of the whole of the younger generation or this country will be gone back in time to the lower orders tugging their forelocks in thanks to the Lord of the manor.

    Or maybe you want the return of peasentry ?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blissy)
    Well that's not entirely accurate.

    If you can afford to buy a house, buy a house - but don't take one out of the social housing pool.
    But I can't afford to buy a house!! They only way I'll ever afford to pay a mortgage, is if it's a council house with the 'right to buy' label attached, which funnily enough, is the house I live in now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All at once)
    How can you give a perfect argument for repealing minimum wage law and then pronounce that right wing politics is dead?
    That is not an argument for repealing the minimum wage! It is an argument for improving adult literacy and numeracy and ensuring that fewer children fall through the net when at school.
    The minimum wage has kept those who can find work above the bread line. If you took that away (and I presume benefits also) then you would have starving people forced to compete with each other to drive wage prices down.

    Your politics is callous and inhumane.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ilora-Danon)
    But I can't afford to buy a house!! They only way I'll ever afford to pay a mortgage, is if it's a council house with the 'right to buy' label attached, which funnily enough, is the house I live in now.
    The person that you were relying to obviously doesn't get the fact that even if you bought a house for yourself, then your parents would still live in the Council house. Duh!

    For the record as soon as I finish my course I am going to buy my mum's Council house for her and me to live in.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jinglepupskye)
    The person that you were relying to obviously doesn't get the fact that even if you bought a house for yourself, then your parents would still live in the Council house. Duh!

    For the record as soon as I finish my course I am going to buy my mum's Council house for her and me to live in.
    Exactly! The house will never be tennant-less because my parents will occupy it until they're old and infirm and I have to ship 'em off to an old people's home lmao.
    So yeah - I just want my parents to be secure into their old age. And then I shall have my own home for years to come.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jinglepupskye)
    The person that you were relying to obviously doesn't get the fact that even if you bought a house for yourself, then your parents would still live in the Council house. Duh!
    Not quite.

    What I object to is the usurpation of social housing - taking it out of the 'social housing pool' altogether.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You're talking somewhat offensive crap. If someone can't afford a mortgage, by default they rent. They rent either privately or from the council. Where's the problem? My mum can't afford to buy our own house; we live in a council house. Obviously we pay rent (she works), but in the end we can't afford a mortgage. That's not to say we're living on the dole, or we're really, really poor and on minimum wage. It just means we can't afford a mortgage. We still have enough money for 'luxuries', ie a laptop or TV or whatever, just not enough money for a mortgage.Tbh, a laptop/TV doesn't compare to the price of buing your own house... I really don't understand where the trouble is here.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Cognito)
    That is not an argument for repealing the minimum wage! It is an argument for improving adult literacy and numeracy and ensuring that fewer children fall through the net when at school.
    The minimum wage has kept those who can find work above the bread line. If you took that away (and I presume benefits also) then you would have starving people forced to compete with each other to drive wage prices down.

    Your politics is callous and inhumane.
    That's funny, because in my book callous and inhumane politics is that which endorses legislation disadvantaging the worst off in the labour market.

    We're not all equal, you can improve adult literacy and numeracy all you fancy but there will always be people more skilled and less skilled than others in the employment market. Minimum wage discriminates against people with low skills. An employer can hire three men with relatively basic skills for £2 each or he can hire one man with better skills for £5.85. Legislation forces the employer to hire one man with better skills, and creates unemployment.

    Bear in mind that in the society that my callous and inhumane politics advocates these people would not be paying income tax: tax would be on expenditure, luxuries specifically. It would be voluntary, not coercive, and would be paid almost exclusively by wealthier individuals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All at once)
    That's funny, because in my book callous and inhumane politics is that which endorses legislation disadvantaging the worst off in the labour market.

    We're not all equal, you can improve adult literacy and numeracy all you fancy but there will always be people more skilled and less skilled than others in the employment market. Minimum wage discriminates against people with low skills. An employer can hire three men with relatively basic skills for £2 each or he can hire one man with better skills for £5.85. Legislation forces the employer to hire one man with better skills, and creates unemployment.

    Bear in mind that in the society that my callous and inhumane politics advocates these people would not be paying income tax: tax would be on expenditure, luxuries specifically. It would be voluntary, not coercive, and would be paid almost exclusively by wealthier individuals.
    £2 an hour! Do you honestly think someone can live in dignity on that wage? Especially when they have to pay for education and health insurance in your low tax society.

    In our system the costs of healthcare and education are on society not the individual and those who can't get work on a decent wage will be supported by benefits.
    Your idea would create an underclass that is forced to work to avoid starvation but never able to live in dignity or educate their children.

    However I would argue that cutting all tax for the lowest earning 10% may be a good idea, offset by progressive taxation on the highest earners.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    However I would argue that cutting all tax for the lowest earning 10% may be a good idea, offset by progressive taxation on the highest earners.
    What a crappy idea. The lowest earners are the ones who take the most and give the least. To make them give even less would be ridiculous. Tax should be completely flat upto at least 100k. At the end of the day you need to think of it in terms of time not money. Why should person A work 10% of their week for the state and person B work 40% of their week for the state? Especially given that person B uses far less services than person A?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    What a crappy idea. The lowest earners are the ones who take the most and give the least. To make them give even less would be ridiculous. Tax should be completely flat upto at least 100k. At the end of the day you need to think of it in terms of time not money. Why should person A work 10% of their week for the state and person B work 40% of their week for the state? Especially given that person B uses far less services than person A?
    this is hardly suprising given that the lowest earners have the least to give!

    Perhaps B should work 40% of his week for the state because that state has allowed her to live in luxury. Do you actually think that someone earning 90k a year should be in the same tax band as a junior nurse?
    Do you honestly think that earnings equate to hard work? That is the most ridiculous misconception in this whole debate. 'I've got a great job therefore I must have worked really hard for it'.
    Most of the reasons of success are arbitrary and so should be recompensed via redistribution.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Not everyone living in council houses has flashy Tvs and gadgets etc. And those that do i can almost guarantee have been brought on store credit and end up paying loads in intrest each month to get them. I dont see why you cant buy your council house. Surely if you can buy your council house you are slowly going to be pulling yourself out of poverty due to the fact that you own property.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Cognito)
    £2 an hour! Do you honestly think someone can live in dignity on that wage?
    How is living off handouts from the state more dignified than paid employment?

    Do you honestly think that productivity would not increase and create downward pressure on prices in the scenario i've just described?

    Perhaps B should work 40% of his week for the state because that state has allowed her to live in luxury.
    How very kind of the government to allow that!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    this is hardly suprising given that the lowest earners have the least to give!

    Perhaps B should work 40% of his week for the state because that state has allowed her to live in luxury. Do you actually think that someone earning 90k a year should be in the same tax band as a junior nurse?
    Do you honestly think that earnings equate to hard work? That is the most ridiculous misconception in this whole debate. 'I've got a great job therefore I must have worked really hard for it'.
    Most of the reasons of success are arbitrary and so should be recompensed via redistribution.
    No they shouldn't. It's not right that somebody could work half the time they actually work. I certainly wouldn't be happy working until wednesday night before I actually get to see any rewards for my hard work. It doesn't take into account that my dad does 80 hour weeks or anything. Everybody should pay the same but those with more get less from the system.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    What about the people who genuinely are in need??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not everyone who lives in a council house can afford a 40' plasma TV. Please don't tar us all with the same brush. My family aren't the 'chavs' everyone thinks live in a council house. At least say 'most' people, it really offends me when people class us all under the same label.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: November 12, 2008
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

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.