PAY CUT

[carryfast]

robroy:

Carryfast:
Being a low paid public sector worker during an important part of the savings period,required for a deposit and starting a mortgage, to the point of not being able ‘to afford’ a ‘house’ I’d say that fits the definition of knowing a bit about housing affordability.

While the definition of Socialism doesn’t include co operation between family members to pay into the household budget of a privately purchased house purchased with no state help regards housing cots.

As for inheritance that is generally a gift,minus any contributions to it,not a sales transaction which as I said is one of the best ways to help future working class generations .On that note no I obviously couldn’t afford to ‘buy’ my parents’ house at any price.The relevant bit being that I didn’t think that more housing supply and/or state funded housing costs would have made any difference to my situation.Whereas the pre Callaghan and Thatcher wage regime probably would have.

So you had the luxury of being able to fall back on your parent’s home when things started to get tough, well lucky you mate.
How would you have fared if that facility was not available to you, and you were basically up that famous creek without a paddle, as well as without a home and job. Also how do you consider yourself qualified to comment, let alone criticise, those that were not as fortunate as yourself to be given an easy way out of a bad situation as you were , but only had their OWN two feet to stand on, and not only that, but also have a family to house and feed into the bargain.
You sit there at your keyboard criticising, categorising and judging people that have struggled, you don’t know the half of it mate.

So now you’re saying that living with parents because of the unaffordability of housing costs is a luxury.

The only judging and categorisation that I’m saying is that Socialist solutions won’t fix that problem.Let alone when they are combined with the Thatcherite idea of turning Socialists into so called Capitalists.Either in the form of a state funded council house sell off or a state subsidised house sale with the intention of providing a state funded profit thereby adding to the problem.When the issue is all about jobs and wages.

[robroy]

Carryfast:
So now you’re saying that living with parents because of the unaffordability of housing costs is a luxury.

The only judging and categorisation that I’m saying is that Socialist solutions won’t fix that problem.Let alone when they are combined with the Thatcherite idea of turning Socialists into so called Capitalists.Either in the form of a state funded council house sell off or a state subsidised house sale with the intention of providing a state funded profit thereby adding to the problem.When the issue is all about jobs and wages.

Well it’s a luxury compared to being on your arse in bankruptcy homeless and jobless with dependants ain’t it.
You had the ■■■■■■ cheek and audacity to lable me as a sponger which I took great offence to, only because I found myself many years ago, in the situation of relying on a council house, not a free council house but one that I worked to pay the full rent for.
You then go on to compare your situation, …a single man that could no longer pay a mortgage, but being lucky enough to use your parents as a safety net, it,s hardly a comparable set of events… is it.
As for your usual bs/rhetoric on Socialism, Thatcher, Callaghan, and Joe ■■■■ Stalin , Well when you are in deep ■■■■ and have to take necessary action (without help from Mammy & Daddy) that is the last thing on your mind. Believe it or not.

[carryfast]

robroy:

Carryfast:
So now you’re saying that living with parents because of the unaffordability of housing costs is a luxury.

The only judging and categorisation that I’m saying is that Socialist solutions won’t fix that problem.Let alone when they are combined with the Thatcherite idea of turning Socialists into so called Capitalists.Either in the form of a state funded council house sell off or a state subsidised house sale with the intention of providing a state funded profit thereby adding to the problem.When the issue is all about jobs and wages.

Well it’s a luxury compared to being on your arse in bankruptcy homeless and jobless with dependants ain’t it.
You had the [zb] cheek and audacity to lable me as a sponger which I took great offence to, only because I found myself many years ago, in the situation of relying on a council house, not a free council house but one that I worked to pay the full rent for.
You then go on to compare your situation, …a single man that could no longer pay a mortgage, but being lucky enough to use your parents as a safety net, it,s hardly a comparable set of events… is it.
As for your usual bs/rhetoric on Socialism, Thatcher, Callaghan, and Joe [zb] Stalin , Well when you are in deep [zb] and have to take necessary action (without help from Mammy & Daddy) that is the last thing on your mind. Believe it or not.

For the umpteenth time,unlike in your obviously more luxurious circumstances,I couldn’t afford a mortgage to lose to start with.

The only difference then being that I don’t think that the Socialist and Thatcherite idea of yet more urbanisation and/or state handouts,to compensate for the issue of job insecurity and/or low wage employment,is the answer.While you obviously do.

[robroy]

Carryfast:

robroy:

Carryfast:
So now you’re saying that living with parents because of the unaffordability of housing costs is a luxury.

The only judging and categorisation that I’m saying is that Socialist solutions won’t fix that problem.Let alone when they are combined with the Thatcherite idea of turning Socialists into so called Capitalists.Either in the form of a state funded council house sell off or a state subsidised house sale with the intention of providing a state funded profit thereby adding to the problem.When the issue is all about jobs and wages.

Well it’s a luxury compared to being on your arse in bankruptcy homeless and jobless with dependants ain’t it.
You had the [zb] cheek and audacity to lable me as a sponger which I took great offence to, only because I found myself many years ago, in the situation of relying on a council house, not a free council house but one that I worked to pay the full rent for.
You then go on to compare your situation, …a single man that could no longer pay a mortgage, but being lucky enough to use your parents as a safety net, it,s hardly a comparable set of events… is it.
As for your usual bs/rhetoric on Socialism, Thatcher, Callaghan, and Joe [zb] Stalin , Well when you are in deep [zb] and have to take necessary action (without help from Mammy & Daddy) that is the last thing on your mind. Believe it or not.

For the umpteenth time,unlike in your obviously more luxurious circumstances,I couldn’t afford a mortgage to lose to start with.

The only difference then being that I don’t think that the Socialist and Thatcherite idea of yet more urbanisation and/or state handouts,to compensate for the issue of job insecurity and/or low wage employment,is the answer.While you obviously do.

Oh I got it wrong, I thought that you moved back with your Mam because you could not afford your mortgage. I get the picture now you never left home and ended up with a house ’ ‘on a plate’ …and that qualifies you to comment on a situation like mine? and make derogatory comments?

[freight_dog]

Carryfast:

robroy:
So you refuse to answer my hypothetical question, but instead (and true to form) deflect it, and throw around your ‘Political history according to Carryfast’ rants, which are a mixture and concoction of fact, unsubstantiated personal opinion and total drivel.

Firstly I’m guessing that you do know that you’re arguing with a reformed disillusioned ex Socialist in my case ?.

To answer your question just like the NHS ‘if’/‘when’ I ever have to resort to Socialist provision by necessity yes I’d obviously have to take it.

However the difference is ‘if’/‘when’ that provision is ever inevitably cut or removed or dished out on a face fits basis etc etc I’m long since a realist who understands that goes with the territory.In which case my complaints are now directed where they belong at the system in which it isn’t more Socialism which is the answer.But sufficient incomes which allow people to look after themselves.In which case as I said,like all the other Socialist bs,the social housing budget should be abolished,at least regards anyone currently in employment,putting the responsibility onto employers instead in the form of sufficient incomes and jobs.The difficult bit is obviously going to be how the government manage the issue of how to make,and who pays for the costs of,the changeover.However it seems obvious that changeover by definition means that it’s at least the employers’ responsibility to pay for the social costs of all those who are employed.Not the state.

On that basis when I found myself in a similar/worse situation to yourself because of Thatcher’s economic policies no I didn’t bother with asking the council for somewhere to live.I chose to stay in the parental home thereby helping to clear the mortgage faster and at least thereby providing a more secure refuge in the long term.Having also reduced my dependency on the state in the form of private income protection which did eventually make the difference between the mercy of the JSA rules in the case of being put out of the job on medical grounds.As opposed to at least a better measure of financial security.

On that note let me guess you’re going to try to re write history to show that Thatcher wasn’t helped into power in large part by the socialist housing vote looking for an even better state subsidised house offer.

Your talking absolute horse crap CF. Running around like a headless idealistic chicken. Your idea seems to be that the system is broken, creating a situation where low wages force people into this situation. That would be fine, a political argument.

However, in the next breath you’re taking generalized pops at people who have used social housing at some point. do you honestly think someone who has lost his job really may have all the armoury of options at his disposal to launch a one man ideal offensive and change the system? They may well bloody don’t and it’s the wrong person to be targeting.

What if somebody had a young family and no parents to move back in with? Say they lost their job and had children, a family. They tried for local work but still couldn’t keep up the rent? They’ve paid taxes all their lives. What are they supposed to do? All squeeze into a one bed bedsit on principle? I think it’s perfectly reasonable they take advantage of the social housing scheme in those circumstances. They like the rest of us had been paying for it after all.

Your other argument picks on those who choose to remain in social housing when they don’t need it. That’s a separate argument and I would agree worth merit. However your vitriol seems to suggest someone, tomorrow, who finds himself in this situation should lump it and head onto the street out of principle that they can change the whole ■■■■ system in the hope these single actions will change the system and bring higher wages. Well. That’s not going to happen inside a month is it!? What a joke. The only priority when you’re facing financial crisis with a family is how you’re going to survive.

As for your answer dodge that you never moved out, you’re a success of circumstance. You CANNOT imply this makes you the better man for principle and keep credibility. Someone who was already on the housing ladder or renting who finds himself in dire straits is just another Joe with different options to your younger idealistic self.

[juddian]

See, nothing changes, those in power have moved the witchunt stick from pointing at the old (so last year darling) via the benefits culture back to working class people who happen to be the largest group (and dangerous in that they have the largest vote though fail to use it to change things), again, most of which (we know cos we are them) go through life in a series of wins and loses.

We’re doing it here, stabbing each other with the knives those who have caused ALL of this have got us using on each other, for Christ’s sake people, we’re the working class just trying to rub along together, we aint the enemy, THEY are.

We didn’t tell them to close our factories in the Thatcher years and build office blocks and shopping centres, we didn’t tell them to flood the market with cheap labour and then subsidise these cheap no jobs with tax credits etc, THEY did all of this to us, illegal wars you name it, none of them over the past 40 years are blameless for they all colluded in the mess we now find ourselves in whilst lining their own pockets handsomely.

There’s a bloody massive elephant in the room, but no one will talk about it, we have enough apologists for the government class here attacking anyone who dare mention it, my favourite troll will no doubt be along shortly to personally attack as those who want free speech crushed do without fail…see UAF and HopeNotSoap for shining examples of this.

Immigration…there’ it’s been said.

Now despite how they still try to silence any comments about this with the racist slur…in medievil times it was the witch accusation used to silence dissent…i and most of the people i know have bugger all against immigrants themselves so long as they obey the law and contribute to the country (not just take and winge), i’m married to one that came here years ago as a child, i’m half an immigrant meself if you want to nit pick and though like most here i’ve got many faults i aint a hypocrit, but our population explosion now and over the last 20 years has gone beyond all sensibilities.

There will have been roughly 12 to 18 thousand immigrants arrived in the time this thread has been running, and no matter how much hatred and bile is spouted by those who’s heads are buried in the sand (or who’s trouser pockets the benefits) those immigrants have entered the housing system one way or another, so that could be anything from 2 to 5 thousand homes will be required just for the past fortnights immigration.

Supply and demand rules, too many people equals too few houses equals silly prices, limited land available as we are a small island and already way over the population we should have.

Yes i’ve benefited over time by buying my house, it wasn’t done on a 39 hour week it was paid for by blood and tears over many years (and not ■■■■■■■ money up the wall on new cars/holidays), the point is it’s worth a lot of money now but it means sod all unless we sell up and go live in a tent, if it was worth 50% of its current value (which is probably where our housing should be if our country had natural population growth) it wouldn’t matter a jot cos it would still be the same house to live in.

[carryfast]

Freight Dog:

Carryfast:
Firstly I’m guessing that you do know that you’re arguing with a reformed disillusioned ex Socialist in my case ?.

To answer your question just like the NHS ‘if’/‘when’ I ever have to resort to Socialist provision by necessity yes I’d obviously have to take it.

However the difference is ‘if’/‘when’ that provision is ever inevitably cut or removed or dished out on a face fits basis etc etc I’m long since a realist who understands that goes with the territory.In which case my complaints are now directed where they belong at the system in which it isn’t more Socialism which is the answer.But sufficient incomes which allow people to look after themselves.In which case as I said,like all the other Socialist bs,the social housing budget should be abolished,at least regards anyone currently in employment,putting the responsibility onto employers instead in the form of sufficient incomes and jobs.The difficult bit is obviously going to be how the government manage the issue of how to make,and who pays for the costs of,the changeover.However it seems obvious that changeover by definition means that it’s at least the employers’ responsibility to pay for the social costs of all those who are employed.Not the state.

On that basis when I found myself in a similar/worse situation to yourself because of Thatcher’s economic policies no I didn’t bother with asking the council for somewhere to live.I chose to stay in the parental home thereby helping to clear the mortgage faster and at least thereby providing a more secure refuge in the long term.Having also reduced my dependency on the state in the form of private income protection which did eventually make the difference between the mercy of the JSA rules in the case of being put out of the job on medical grounds.As opposed to at least a better measure of financial security.

On that note let me guess you’re going to try to re write history to show that Thatcher wasn’t helped into power in large part by the socialist housing vote looking for an even better state subsidised house offer.

Your talking absolute horse crap CF. Running around like a headless idealistic chicken. Your idea seems to be that the system is broken, creating a situation where low wages force people into this situation. That would be fine, a political argument.

However, in the next breath you’re taking generalized pops at people who have used social housing at some point. do you honestly think someone who has lost his job really may have all the armoury of options at his disposal to launch a one man ideal offensive and change the system? They may well bloody don’t and it’s the wrong person to be targeting.

What if somebody had a young family and no parents to move back in with? Say they lost their job and had children, a family. They tried for local work but still couldn’t keep up the rent? They’ve paid taxes all their lives. What are they supposed to do? All squeeze into a one bed bedsit on principle? I think it’s perfectly reasonable they take advantage of the social housing scheme in those circumstances. They like the rest of us had been paying for it after all.

Your other argument picks on those who choose to remain in social housing when they don’t need it. That’s a separate argument and I would agree worth merit. However your vitriol seems to suggest someone, tomorrow, who finds himself in this situation should lump it and head onto the street out of principle that they can change the whole ■■■■ system in the hope these single actions will change the system and bring higher wages. Well. That’s not going to happen inside a month is it!? What a joke. The only priority when you’re facing financial crisis with a family is how you’re going to survive.

As for your answer dodge that you never moved out, you’re a success of circumstance. You CANNOT imply this makes you the better man for principle and keep credibility. Someone who was already on the housing ladder or renting who finds himself in dire straits is just another Joe with different options to your younger idealistic self.

How the zb are the largest victims of the system,in the form of those who weren’t/aren’t able to even afford to move out of the parental home and get a place of their own,supposedly a ‘success of the circumstances’ in your view.

The difference is that I know where to put the blame for that.Which is on the ‘system’ which has created the toxic combination of a socialist dependency culture on one side and housing being viewed as a profitable investment scheme/scam and in Thatcher’s case then combining the two together.All that in an unsustainable attempt to subsidise the low wage culture since Callaghan and her started the whole bs economic system that is the cause of the problem.

In addition to that we’ve got an over demand situation,mainly concentrated in the south east,because the rest of the country sees it as a dumping ground for the country’s development and immigration policies while leaving other parts of the country an under populated under developed wasteland.

As for those ‘dire circumstances’ forgive me if I don’t have much sympathy with anyone who follows the socialist line of trying to deal with the implications of low wages on a face fits each supposedly according to their needs social housing basis.Especially when many of those would rather have a state subsidised profitable house handed to them than stand together and fight for the better wages needed to get out of the cycle of dependency and lose the bs self interest motive.

On that note Juddian’s ideas are along the right lines.But the fact remains more Socialism and/or covering the South East in more houses won’t fix the problem.When it’s all about fighting for a better wage environment that allows people to look after themselves.Which in this case means why is the OP moaning and whingeing about the housing benefit system and wanting others to subsidise his guvnor’s profit margins.When he should be moaning about his wages ‘if’ he thinks they aren’t enough.

[freight_dog]

Carryfast:

Freight Dog:

Carryfast:
Firstly I’m guessing that you do know that you’re arguing with a reformed disillusioned ex Socialist in my case ?.

To answer your question just like the NHS ‘if’/‘when’ I ever have to resort to Socialist provision by necessity yes I’d obviously have to take it.

However the difference is ‘if’/‘when’ that provision is ever inevitably cut or removed or dished out on a face fits basis etc etc I’m long since a realist who understands that goes with the territory.In which case my complaints are now directed where they belong at the system in which it isn’t more Socialism which is the answer.But sufficient incomes which allow people to look after themselves.In which case as I said,like all the other Socialist bs,the social housing budget should be abolished,at least regards anyone currently in employment,putting the responsibility onto employers instead in the form of sufficient incomes and jobs.The difficult bit is obviously going to be how the government manage the issue of how to make,and who pays for the costs of,the changeover.However it seems obvious that changeover by definition means that it’s at least the employers’ responsibility to pay for the social costs of all those who are employed.Not the state.

On that basis when I found myself in a similar/worse situation to yourself because of Thatcher’s economic policies no I didn’t bother with asking the council for somewhere to live.I chose to stay in the parental home thereby helping to clear the mortgage faster and at least thereby providing a more secure refuge in the long term.Having also reduced my dependency on the state in the form of private income protection which did eventually make the difference between the mercy of the JSA rules in the case of being put out of the job on medical grounds.As opposed to at least a better measure of financial security.

On that note let me guess you’re going to try to re write history to show that Thatcher wasn’t helped into power in large part by the socialist housing vote looking for an even better state subsidised house offer.

Your talking absolute horse crap CF. Running around like a headless idealistic chicken. Your idea seems to be that the system is broken, creating a situation where low wages force people into this situation. That would be fine, a political argument.

However, in the next breath you’re taking generalized pops at people who have used social housing at some point. do you honestly think someone who has lost his job really may have all the armoury of options at his disposal to launch a one man ideal offensive and change the system? They may well bloody don’t and it’s the wrong person to be targeting.

What if somebody had a young family and no parents to move back in with? Say they lost their job and had children, a family. They tried for local work but still couldn’t keep up the rent? They’ve paid taxes all their lives. What are they supposed to do? All squeeze into a one bed bedsit on principle? I think it’s perfectly reasonable they take advantage of the social housing scheme in those circumstances. They like the rest of us had been paying for it after all.

Your other argument picks on those who choose to remain in social housing when they don’t need it. That’s a separate argument and I would agree worth merit. However your vitriol seems to suggest someone, tomorrow, who finds himself in this situation should lump it and head onto the street out of principle that they can change the whole ■■■■ system in the hope these single actions will change the system and bring higher wages. Well. That’s not going to happen inside a month is it!? What a joke. The only priority when you’re facing financial crisis with a family is how you’re going to survive.

As for your answer dodge that you never moved out, you’re a success of circumstance. You CANNOT imply this makes you the better man for principle and keep credibility. Someone who was already on the housing ladder or renting who finds himself in dire straits is just another Joe with different options to your younger idealistic self.

How the zb are the largest victims of the system,in the form of those who weren’t/aren’t able to even afford to move out of the parental home and get a place of their own,supposedly a ‘success of the circumstances’ in your view.

The difference is that I know where to put the blame for that.Which is on the ‘system’ which has created the toxic combination of a socialist dependency culture on one side and housing being viewed as a profitable investment scheme/scam and in Thatcher’s case then combining the two together.All that in an unsustainable attempt to subsidise the low wage culture since Callaghan and her started the whole bs economic system that is the cause of the problem.

In addition to that we’ve got an over demand situation,mainly concentrated in the south east,because the rest of the country sees it as a dumping ground for the country’s development and immigration policies while leaving other parts of the country an under populated under developed wasteland.

As for those ‘dire circumstances’ forgive me if I don’t have much sympathy with anyone who follows the socialist line of trying to deal with the implications of low wages on a face fits each supposedly according to their needs social housing basis.Especially when many of those would rather have a state subsidised profitable house handed to them than stand together and fight for the better wages needed to get out of the cycle of dependency and lose the bs self interest motive.

On that note Juddian’s ideas are along the right lines.But the fact remains more Socialism and/or covering the South East in more houses won’t fix the problem.When it’s all about fighting for a better wage environment that allows people to look after themselves.Which in this case means why is the OP moaning and whingeing about the housing benefit system and wanting others to subsidise his guvnor’s profit margins.When he should be moaning about his wages ‘if’ he thinks they aren’t enough.

Well if you’re going to take it out of context. Perhaps success of circumstances wasn’t the correct term. I mean to say relatively, fortunate in circumstances you had a roof over your head compared to a family who find themselves in trouble perhaps without that fortune (dead or estranged parents) to have shelter provided for them.

I don’t apologise I was pretty ■■■■■■ with jet lag when I wrote it. In fact I’m still pretty ■■■■■■ with jet lag and in a foul mood. Your attitude on this tangle with robroy winds me right up. Stow your crap about socialism. Get with the program. Would you honestly go up to a young family in South Wales (not talking about coal mining before you start) who’s sole income earner has just lost his Job and tell them not to take social housing out of “anti socialist principles”? That they should make themselves homeless to make a stance for better wages?!!! You’re not living in the real world. You want to get off google and off your sofa and get out into the globe and see how people live and survive. Maybe park that that over used mouth of yours for a second and listen and watch.

[newmercman]

Conor:

waddy640:
What exactly did Labour do to help the working man during their 13 year reign.

Introduced the National Minimum Wage with an annual incremental rise, Working tax credits, Child tax credits, set the Bank of England free to set interest rates so we would no longer end up in a situation like we did in the 80’s and 1992 with the government ramping up the interest rate 5% in a single morning, scrapped the fuel duty escalator… Would you like me to go on?

And don’t forget they locked us into to Europe without a get out clause, the human rights act, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mass immigration… the list is endless.

Labour are no different to any other party, they all dance to the tune of their paymasters.

[newmercman]

desypete:
now the french boys do stand up and fight, there drivers block roads and all sorts if they have had enough

what do we do ? moan and still vote for the same crap, drivers in this country are like turkeys who would keep voting for xmas but complain about it

to the op
why dont you put in to buy your rented place it would work out cheaper with a discount you would have than renting by a good few bob

you have rented to years so why not get some of that money back and buy it ? no need to take a pay cut

Yes that is true, but have you noticed that the French are often on strike?

They suffer from the same ■■■■ as everyone else, continually getting [zb]ed over by the banks, big business and their puppet politicians.

[newmercman]

Just a thought as I’m curious, what is the point of buying a house in the first place?

If interest rates rise then the repayments go up, if the market crashes you end up in negative equity, unless you sell up and downsize you don’t see any return on the investment.

In reality all you are doing is leaving a legacy to your kids when you leave this mortal coil and they sell up and cash in, which they inevitably put a chunk of into their own house and the cycle continues.

It’s just another trick we all fall for, we get a better job, so we buy more expensive stuff, in reality we’re no better off in anything other than a materialistic way. Look at some of the comments about council houses.

I grew up on a council estate, my dad was a lorry driver and my mum was a cook in a cafe, as the years went on they bought a house, my dad came off the road and went into management, finally becoming a director of a contract hire company, my mum left the cafe and worked as a cashier in a bank, eventually making manageress. Their salaries probably quadrupled, but their standard of living didn’t, although they wore nicer clothes, drove better cars, went to more exotic holiday destinations and obviously bought a bigger house in a better neighborhood.

They still worked as hard, if not harder, their only gain was possessions and a rise in status. My wife and I are in a similar position now, I’m doing OK as an owner operator and the wife is an accountant for a small airline. Do we jump on the merry go round and, for want of a better word, improve our life with possessions, or do we downsize and work less so that we can improve the quality of our lives?

It’s not a simple decision as we’re all conditioned to believe that the more monetary value a thing has, the better it will be, but a Timex watch tells the same time as a Rolex and a council house does the same job as a mansion, a ten year old Mondeo does the same job as an Aston Martin etc etc etc.

[v40lly]

topmixer11:

AlphaOmega:
Why should I be subsidising your housing costs when you get paid more than I do? Why don’t you just get a normal house?

you absolute bellend people like you make me [zb] sick zb off

Why■■?

[carryfast]

Freight Dog:

Carryfast:
How the zb are the largest victims of the system,in the form of those who weren’t/aren’t able to even afford to move out of the parental home and get a place of their own,supposedly a ‘success of the circumstances’ in your view.

The difference is that I know where to put the blame for that.Which is on the ‘system’ which has created the toxic combination of a socialist dependency culture on one side and housing being viewed as a profitable investment scheme/scam and in Thatcher’s case then combining the two together.All that in an unsustainable attempt to subsidise the low wage culture since Callaghan and her started the whole bs economic system that is the cause of the problem.

In addition to that we’ve got an over demand situation,mainly concentrated in the south east,because the rest of the country sees it as a dumping ground for the country’s development and immigration policies while leaving other parts of the country an under populated under developed wasteland.

As for those ‘dire circumstances’ forgive me if I don’t have much sympathy with anyone who follows the socialist line of trying to deal with the implications of low wages on a face fits each supposedly according to their needs social housing basis.Especially when many of those would rather have a state subsidised profitable house handed to them than stand together and fight for the better wages needed to get out of the cycle of dependency and lose the bs self interest motive.

On that note Juddian’s ideas are along the right lines.But the fact remains more Socialism and/or covering the South East in more houses won’t fix the problem.When it’s all about fighting for a better wage environment that allows people to look after themselves.Which in this case means why is the OP moaning and whingeing about the housing benefit system and wanting others to subsidise his guvnor’s profit margins.When he should be moaning about his wages ‘if’ he thinks they aren’t enough.

Well if you’re going to take it out of context. Perhaps success of circumstances wasn’t the correct term. I mean to say relatively, fortunate in circumstances you had a roof over your head compared to a family who find themselves in trouble perhaps without that fortune (dead or estranged parents) to have shelter provided for them.

I don’t apologise I was pretty [zb] with jet lag when I wrote it. In fact I’m still pretty [zb] with jet lag and in a foul mood. Your attitude on this tangle with robroy winds me right up. Stow your crap about socialism. Get with the program. Would you honestly go up to a young family in South Wales (not talking about coal mining before you start) who’s sole income earner has just lost his Job and tell them not to take social housing out of “anti socialist principles”? That they should make themselves homeless to make a stance for better wages?!!! You’re not living in the real world. You want to get off google and off your sofa and get out into the globe and see how people live and survive. Maybe park that that over used mouth of yours for a second and listen and watch.

We’re actually talking about very much living parents at the time in question and still luckily one to date.The justified expectation in a modern industrialised Capitalist economy was that I’d find a place of my own when I started work or at least after working around 10 years to save up a deposit and get a mortgage.Which of course never happened.Not because we hadn’t already covered the place in more than enough houses.It was all about the idea of subsidising low wage employment with state handouts for the selected few in exchange for the Thatcherite vote.

While it seems ironic that you’d refer to the redundant miner.Bearing in mind the wage restraint policy of Callaghan etc and then Thatcher’s ideas that kept him dependent on state funded housing.As opposed to the environment of militancy which was all about making employers responsible for the housing costs of their workforce in the form of jobs and wages.Which,assuming we’re talking about a so called Capitalist system,would obviously include sufficient provision of decent incomes protection cover as opposed to reliance on the state.

While none of your answers have anything whatsoever to do with the OP’s issues.Which are simply the argument of who should be responsible for his housing costs.His employer or the state.Assuming that this is ‘supposedly’ a Capitalist not a Socialist economy that answer ‘should be’ obvious.

[war1974]

i still cant see what the whole issue is with ‘social’ housing, me and my partner applied waited 7 years for a house to be offered we met the ‘criteria’ and pay full whack rather than some sponging dole waller who not only would get the house, but would pay sweet FA towards it, and no doubt not look after it.

[batmann]

Plenty of £40k campers, boats, jetskies, S Class Mercs etc parked outside council houses in my town… I would of used that extra disposable cash from subsidised rents for a deposit on a mortgage…

[batmann]

newmercman:
Just a thought as I’m curious, what is the point of buying a house in the first place?

If interest rates rise then the repayments go up, if the market crashes you end up in negative equity, unless you sell up and downsize you don’t see any return on the investment.

In reality all you are doing is leaving a legacy to your kids when you leave this mortal coil and they sell up and cash in, which they inevitably put a chunk of into their own house and the cycle continues.

It’s just another trick we all fall for, we get a better job, so we buy more expensive stuff, in reality we’re no better off in anything other than a materialistic way. Look at some of the comments about council houses.

I grew up on a council estate, my dad was a lorry driver and my mum was a cook in a cafe, as the years went on they bought a house, my dad came off the road and went into management, finally becoming a director of a contract hire company, my mum left the cafe and worked as a cashier in a bank, eventually making manageress. Their salaries probably quadrupled, but their standard of living didn’t, although they wore nicer clothes, drove better cars, went to more exotic holiday destinations and obviously bought a bigger house in a better neighborhood.

They still worked as hard, if not harder, their only gain was possessions and a rise in status. My wife and I are in a similar position now, I’m doing OK as an owner operator and the wife is an accountant for a small airline. Do we jump on the merry go round and, for want of a better word, improve our life with possessions, or do we downsize and work less so that we can improve the quality of our lives?

It’s not a simple decision as we’re all conditioned to believe that the more monetary value a thing has, the better it will be, but a Timex watch tells the same time as a Rolex and a council house does the same job as a mansion, a ten year old Mondeo does the same job as an Aston Martin etc etc etc.

This is the old fashioned baby boomer view of property being an investment. This is old news and certainly isn’t the case anymore. If you view your house purchase as an investment that will appreciate in value and counteract inflation when buying in the current climate, well houses wouldn’t sell! On the other hand If you view a house purchase as a place to live…

[war1974]

so you have your own home as its what you wanted to buy, others are happy not having 25 years of debt. and despite the cars etc are possibly easier to get on tick than a mortgage especially in the current climate.

this is the problem to me too many people too busy being bothered about what someone else has, you have a home which you see as an investment they have nice cars. and like I have said before the rent isn’t ‘subsidised’ if you work full time.

[eagerbeaver]

I think newmercman makes a very pertinent point. The constant ’ fight ’ to improve. At what cost??

We are all guilty at some point or other, of losing sight of what really matters.

[terry_t]

newmercman:
Just a thought as I’m curious, what is the point of buying a house in the first place?

If interest rates rise then the repayments go up, if the market crashes you end up in negative equity, unless you sell up and downsize you don’t see any return on the investment.

In reality all you are doing is leaving a legacy to your kids when you leave this mortal coil and they sell up and cash in, which they inevitably put a chunk of into their own house and the cycle continues.

It’s just another trick we all fall for, we get a better job, so we buy more expensive stuff, in reality we’re no better off in anything other than a materialistic way. Look at some of the comments about council houses.

I grew up on a council estate, my dad was a lorry driver and my mum was a cook in a cafe, as the years went on they bought a house, my dad came off the road and went into management, finally becoming a director of a contract hire company, my mum left the cafe and worked as a cashier in a bank, eventually making manageress. Their salaries probably quadrupled, but their standard of living didn’t, although they wore nicer clothes, drove better cars, went to more exotic holiday destinations and obviously bought a bigger house in a better neighborhood.

They still worked as hard, if not harder, their only gain was possessions and a rise in status. My wife and I are in a similar position now, I’m doing OK as an owner operator and the wife is an accountant for a small airline. Do we jump on the merry go round and, for want of a better word, improve our life with possessions, or do we downsize and work less so that we can improve the quality of our lives?

It’s not a simple decision as we’re all conditioned to believe that the more monetary value a thing has, the better it will be, but a Timex watch tells the same time as a Rolex and a council house does the same job as a mansion, a ten year old Mondeo does the same job as an Aston Martin etc etc etc.

I agree with what you say about the material things, that’s spot on.

But buying a house can work out cheaper in the long run. My parents bought their house in 1988 and the mortgage was about £190 per month. Our next door neighbour in a house identical to ours is paying more than double that in rent to the council. My parents were all paid up by their mid 50s and now live rent or mortgage free and will do until they kick the bucket. After which, I’ll cop for the house. My neighbours will be paying rent until god knows when and then leave their kids nothing.

[carryfast]

war1974:
so you have your own home as its what you wanted to buy, others are happy not having 25 years of debt. and despite the cars etc are possibly easier to get on tick than a mortgage especially in the current climate.

this is the problem to me too many people too busy being bothered about what someone else has, you have a home which you see as an investment they have nice cars. and like I have said before the rent isn’t ‘subsidised’ if you work full time.

If the cost isn’t ‘subsidised’ by the state then exactly what is the OP whingeing about.He ‘says’ he will lose housing ‘benefit’ because his wages go over the threshold.When the fact is his wages ‘should’ cover the ‘total’ amount that he’s moaning about.