[Closed] Council houses for high earners...

too right, comrade!

[img] ?w=500[/img]

Hanging's too good for 'em!

The under 25 housing benefit thing is what gets to me, I don't claim it but don't really see why I am less entitled to if I needed it...

So me working since 17 paying tax would not be able to claim if I lost my job for example, but someone who has been a student (not paying tax) who has studied until 25 then can't find a job can.

When originally conceived council housing was for anybody who wanted a good quality home and a fair landlord. The prevailing view for much of the last century until the 80s was private landlords were a bad thing and state provided renting was the answer. It wasn't (only) about means. With right to buy and the general ideological shift to home ownership council housing or whats left is now often the safety net or tenure of last resort. Because of this and a general shortage of council homes it's a bit of a straw man as there won't be many people with 60k who want to live in council house anymore or would ever get to the top of the waiting
List. Exception might be in affluent rural areas where even an income of 60k might not get you on the property ladder and you might need to rent. The continued existence of good qualiry council housing also also provides a degree of rent control on the bottom end of the private market which ultimately benefits us all by cooling rent inflation.

The under 25 housing benefit thing is what gets to me, I don't claim it but don't really see why I am less entitled to if I needed it...

Simple, the Government hate you along with the poor, disabled, old, ill, in fact anyone not mid 40s and working in the city.

but someone who has been a student (not paying tax)

With the execption of council tax, students pay the same taxes as everyone else.

isnt this just a pointless headline grabber (quelle surprise!) and only affects <20000 or so houses?
but it will hopefully free up some expensive properties and get them on the market, gotta keep stoking that housing boom!

restricting benefit for under 25s would have a much more detrimental effect on the lives of many
and yet pensions are safe.....

its almost as if gideon knows old people vote and younguns dont

It's a fair point, as is free houses and flats in London for MP's paid for by the taxpayer..
Some of whom don't even live that far from London.

Simple - at a stroke it will solve the defecit conundrum. There must be literally billions of people in that situation, surely? I mean there's hundreds and billions of poor people and they're always reproducing so it stands to reason. And people under 25 don't need houses because they can just live in the families country cottage or the pimlico pied a terre should they become bothersome.

On paper it is a very easy straight forward idea that probably makes sense. However there are some rather odd aspects to how you would implement such an idea, that make it really seem more like attention grabbing headlines.

(1) Would you base it on an individual's income or the family income?
- would it right that a couple each earning 30k might qualify for a council house but a household with one earner on 60k and a stay at home mum/dad does not? [the single earner is paying more tax anyway]
- what if two people with moderate earnings of 25k each then have a 'grown' up child living at home bringing in 15+k
- would you consider outgoings too? e.g. the family who's second pregnancy turns out to be triplets; or a child with a major disability, or perhaps an elderly 'parent' living with them may have very different costs to someone who lives alone.
- what about the 'self employed' or others who have variable incomes. A very good year? or averaged over a longer period?
- Could you get the bizzare situation where someone actually wants to avoid a payrise so they don't trigger having to move.

(2) Who is going to administer the required checks, and how will that be funded? Could that cost be better spent?

(3) Does this push high earners out of council estates 'ghettoizing' communities, for the "poorer"?

(4) Are we really going to push out someone who has lived in the same house all their life?
- what if (and at that level of earnings this is likely to be the case) they are close to retirement, and after retiring would 'requalify' for council housing?
- what if their children are now adults and want to swap round who the main name on the tenancy is to keep mum/dad in the house?

(5) What proportion of rented council housing stock is 'blocked' by high earners. I'd guess it is a very small amount.

Kimbers, I wouldn't say it was pointless if 20,000 families could be housed into affordable housing and have a little left over in their income for some of the nicer things in life like heating and better quality food.
If some 20,000 families earning £60k+ who could afford to pay more rent had to make their council property available and spend a little less on items poorer families deem to be luxuries then I can't see any harm.

Simple - at a stroke it will solve the defecit conundrum. There must be literally billions of people in that situation, surely?

So about 20,000 people can move into private accommodation or buy a house freeing up those houses for people who need them more. Win Win?

Not going to make a big difference, but I believe that social housing should be available for those who need it. The failure of [b] all [/b]governments to address that since 1980s is shocking.

Civil service code prevents me commenting on the housing benefit proposal.

Actually, probably shouldn't have mentioned social housing either. Democracy is great....

"poorer families deem to be luxuries"

fags and booze ?

oh no those are essentials - they rank higher than electric and hot water in tilly.

its 20,000 families and Im willing to bet that its almost all in london, where theres not exactly loads of quality affordable(even on 60k) housing for then to move into

its 20,000 families and Im willing to bet that its almost all in london, where theres not exactly loads of quality affordable(even on 60k) housing for then to move into

They just don't want people on less than £100k living in London.

Simple, the Government hate you along with the poor, disabled, old, ill, in fact anyone not mid 40s and working in the city.

and stupid enough not to vote for the condems

Mmmm, but don't they have tenancy agreements/contracts with local authorities and not central government, they are not in receipt of a centrally or locally adminsitered benefit (presumably) so how are you going to legally 'evict' all these people? You surely can only use it as a bar for people entering the council housing? Am i (or is George) confusing social housing with council housing? Sounds like another marginal too much hassle to be bothered with or yeild much. Plus the rents go to local authorities anyway who are not likely to return that money to the exchequer as they'll still have yo fnd the same housing, or is the money the saving from keeping other families in temporary accommodation? The more I think about this the less i know.

aw the right wingers engaging in the politics of envy 😉

With the execption of council tax, students pay the same taxes as everyone else.

Two views
1. Why should someone who was succesful have to leave the area they grew up in?Why should they not stay and be a role model for the community and show that even people from the most humblest of backgrounds can succeed in this meritocracy - surely this is the epitome of the capitalist dream/myth

2. Other more deserving, by which we mean poorer, need the housing - though of course the actual cause here is the selling of the stock and we all know who to blame for that

Ideally build some more and let whomever live there. they have obviously been there years and all it will do is force them to buy the house anyway. Is it really just designed to annoy Bob Crowe?

We have other more pressing issues and the desire to deprive the young of benefits whilst ring fencing with a triple lock the pensions { not all are that vulnerabel these days and they are the richest pensioners we will ever have IMHO shows two things
1. Tory voters are old
2. if you think voting achieves nothing then this should convince you otherwise.

Remember when we kept saying "we're all in this together", eh George…..?

[img] [/img]

Anyway… time to clobber the very poorest in society again. And punish the unemployed for being unemployed. Or the young for being young. Or the disabled for being disabled. And the poor for being…. well… you get the idea

First we remove housing benefit, then every other benefit for the under 25's. Then we work upwards from there on the age range…...

I think the correct answer is that social housing should be allocated by need, full stop.

Its as easy for someone earning 60k to need a different house as someone earning nothing - family separation, disability/illness, taking on responsibility for nephews etc. if someone dies, house lost due to coastal erosion - the list is endless

There are very good argument why overcrowding and poor housing affects health and social mobility, I also think there are a whole variety of very strong arguments why having people of different social backgrounds in one area/associated housing is good for all of them. A lot of this can be balanced in the planning process.

I reckon that there is an extensive argument over market rent that could be had, based on income, and there is certainly a discussion on under-occupation - but I don't think that any of these facts should affect the allocation.

Edit: for what its worth, I think that many of the not for profit social housing providers could use their nouse and revisit their allocation & building policies, as building some of your properties for open market rent or sale and others for social allocation would allow them to subsidise the capital expense of new social housing - build ten houses and sell half of them, and the whole thing pays for itself.

People are right to say this is a failure of successive Government's. Thatcher shattered the post war consensus and changed our attitudes towards housing forever. Labour took the electorally easy approach and never faced the issue head on kicking the can down the road. We should be using using the printed money and Government guarantees to build more houses. Social housing, new housing for first time buyers and co-op/mutual ownership for those who want a different option.

The whole council house thing is a Red Herring. Its meaningless in the grand scheme of things. As it will involve a minuscule amount of people. And is probably legally unworkable anyway. It was just raised as a smoke screen for the real policy here….

It seems to have worked then. Whats everyone on this thread discussing?

Its the removal of housing benefit for the under 25 that's the meat here. I think this is the thin end of the wedge. Next it'll the gradual removal of all other benefits, i.e.: jobseekers allowance to be put at a reduced level for under 25's, then gradually eroded until it no longer exists. What then? The minimum wage will no longer apply to the under 25's? Free NHS provision? They're already paying a fortune for education.

Whats happening here is that the tories have just deemed that this is the end of the post war settlement that is the welfare state. Its over! From now on, It will no longer apply to those under 25. Funnily: that never actually appeared in any manifesto.

They've just decided to do it. dismantling it brick by brick!

What effect will the removal of housing benefit have on homelessness in the under 25's? Well… I'd suggest we better get used to the idea of seeing a lot of them sleeping rough on the streets. But hey… Someones got to fund the tax cuts for high earners they want to deliver before the next election

can't see the problem in scrapping council houses for people earning in excess of £60k

It depends on what purpose you imagine council house are for. Its widely depicted as a part of our social safety net but much of our council housing was built as homes for working families and and not, as is now easy to think, as ghetto for the poor. Nearly 1 in 5 of the population live in either council houses or similarly managed homes and not because they're all in dire need. The media spotlight tends to fall on housing schemes of high unemployment and deprivation but they're not the norm and social housing on the whole houses a much more mixed community.

Pensions are not a benefit they are an entitlement paid for through compulsory National Saving, there should be no cut!

Cynically pensioners also go out and vote tory so under 25's know what they need to do to keep their benefits...

ts the removal of housing benefit for the under 25 that's the meat here.

But its hardly a new announcement, and its not a flat 'everyone under 25' either, the proposal had a long list of exceptions - in fact the cynic would comment that the list of exceptions pretty much nullify the whole thing.

edit - regards pensions, I doubt we'll see a cut, but I think that the winter payments and TV licences will be lost for better off pensioners

Do councils lose huge amounts of money on council housing?

Just because you're in a council house doesn't mean you're a 'drain' on council funds, if your rent covers the costs of the home and associated admin, repairs etc.

I can see some merit in means-tested rents for council housing, but then I suppose that's basically what housing benefit does, except the extra money goes to private landlords rather than the council just charging less rent.

And as for students not paying income tax, AFAIK there's no "I'm a student" exemption for PAYE. If you earn above the threshold then you pay income tax.

edit: ninfan- what are the exceptions for the under 25 thing?

binners - Member
The whole council house thing is a Red Herring. Its meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Exactly, but it makes great headlines especially if you incorporate pictures of arch villains like big bad Bob Crowe!!

But there has been and will be more of this headline-grabbing herrings for the simple reason that the Coalition has ring fenced the big areas of gov spending for obvious political purposes (they need votes). That leaves small (and largely) irrelevant issues that hopefully grab attention from target voters. It was ever thus.

But then...

Whats happening here is that the tories have just deemed that this is the end of the post war settlement that is the welfare state..... They've just decided to do it. dismantling it brick by brick!

...doesn't follow. In the past few days, GO has given strong hints that he wants to role back the role of the state and that austerity is a long way from over. However, he also knows that the key areas for reform remain political dynamite that will most likely blow up in his face come 2015. So rather than fundamental change we remain handcuffed by tinkering at the margin while fundmental structural issues remain unaddressed. You have to love politicians!!!!

Odd that they were nor wearing the purple ties in that photo, a rare slip.

So where is the saving from this policy? Is it from temp accommodation (i.e. booting people higher earners out) or are they planning on increasing rents to higher earners?

So where is the saving from this policy?

They don't care about savings, they just want to pursue their warped ideology of persecuting anyone they don't like.

So where is the saving from this policy?

Exactly. The economics of pretty much none of their policies stack up. There aren't many savings to be had once you've finished making the entire public sector redundant. The big change is not on what amount of our money is being spent. The difference is into who's pockets all the money is going. G4S. Serco. Capita. etc

Pensions are not a benefit they are an entitlement paid for through compulsory National Saving, there should be no cut!

No, pensions are a pyramid selling scam.

and the word Compulsary, employee/employer contributions are simply income tax given a name that isn't tax.

Remember we are all in it together.

Or, if we assume the mess we are in is the result of political decisions, what was the age group of the voters and politicians who got us here? Was it the under 25's who voted for thatcher and the selling off of council homes? Was it the under 25's who voted for Blair and his wars? Was it the under 25's who ran Lehmans into the ground?

Maybe the generation who made the mess should start cleaning it up????

So where is the saving from this policy?
They don't care about savings, they just want to pursue their warped ideology of persecuting anyone they don't like.

Do does "they" include Ed Balls. Like the Tories before him he seems happy to commit to the current government's spending plans either that or he has fallen for the same trap????

Judging by the last 36 hours, Cleggy is the main opposition at the moment and we know how much we can trust him.

The dismantling of the welfare state was begun by the people that created it (The Labour Party) in 1950. National Insurance, which was supposed to service an individuals welfare needs (e.g health) was 'raided' to pay for an increase in armaments production for the Korean War.

Aneurin Bevan resigned from the Labour government in protest over this.

Successive governments have tinkered with the welfare state ever since until today it bears no relation to the original concept that people voted for (and probably still would) in 1945.

Link this to the massively changed country that we live in now (service rather than manufacturing based economy etc.) and it's hardly surprising that the arguments for and against a particular suggestion (in this case the 'right' to a council house) are so polarised and often misleading.

It's hardly news that the Tories believe that the answer lies in a smaller state, but an incoming Labour government would not be taking us back to the utopia of the immediate post war welfare state either.

Just because you're in a council house doesn't mean you're a 'drain' on council funds, if your rent covers the costs of the home and associated admin, repairs etc.

Well it costs quite a bit to buy/build a property so that's why there's a shortage - end up paying for people to stay in short-term private accommodation. So free up the council houses for those that really need it. If you're on £60k you can commute from a cheaper are if that's the issue. I used to work near some fantastically located council accommodation near Southwark Bridge, hopefully they're all lived in by key worker types, if so they have some lovely cars.

We must overhaul the welfare system if we are to protect it. Council housing should be means tested annually. The only issue I have with fixed figures like £60k is it doesn't take into account regional variations in house prices and rents.

I posted a thread a while back about "Joan's £500k" this was a retired nurse (so very worthy) who had never married but lived in a three bedroomed council house - is that a suitable use of such a relatively large property. When she died she had £500k in the bank, should she be in a subsidised council property ?

The saving fro this policy comes from releasing council houses from those that don't need them and thus saving housing benefit paying rent to private landlords from those who cannot get a council house but need one.

ninfan- what are the exceptions for the under 25 thing?

Well, the policy as originally reported (and I note that GO said he would 'look at', which is more in keeping with the earlier announcement)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-young-people-under-25-would-not-be-able-to-claim-employment-or-housing-benefits-under-tory-government-8853560.html

Tied the policy to NEETS - so would not apply to those under 25's in work, education or training.

"I used to work near some fantastically located council accommodation near Southwark Bridge, hopefully they're all lived in by key worker types, if so they have some lovely cars. "

and your absolutely certain they are all still council.....

i live in an ex council house.

it hasnt been council since 1993.

So me working since 17 paying tax would not be able to claim if I lost my job for example, but someone who has been a student (not paying tax) who has studied until 25 then can't find a job can.

I think the point is that the average working under 25 (especialy down south) is probably living in a shared house, or even with their parents still, whether at uni or or working. So there's a "benifit trap" (I hate that term), composed of lower minimum wages, and student loans, which would put someone on benifits in a better position than most other young people.

Figures plucked from my memory when I was at uni 2004-2008, so may not be accurate:

JSA: £80/week = £4100/year
Student loan = £4100/year
Minimum wage = £8700 (£4.20*40*52)

Give the unemployed young housing benifit and you'd make them probably twice as well off as those studying full time and on a par with those working, both significantly better off than those in Uni who had to pay it all back when they got a job!

Side note, you're a net drain on the tax system untill earnings hit arround £50k IIRC, as tax goes up with earnigns (20, 40, 50% rates), so you actualy have to earn a lot more than the average before the "I pay tax therefore should get more out" argument holds any water.

There's a much simpler solution really, all council house and social housing rents to be at market value, if you're on a low income then your housing benefit effectively reduces your rent. People who started off needing social housing when young who've worked hard can stay in the house they've made a home of but pay properly. The big change is the money from the market rents needs to be ploughed back into new social housing to renew and expand the stock.

As for cutting housing benefit for those under 25, in most cases it should be contribution based, i.e. pay two years of taxes and you're eligible, pay in nothing and you're not(obviously there will be exceptions to the eligibility criteria).

I posted a thread a while back about "Joan's £500k" this was a retired nurse (so very worthy) who had never married but lived in a three bedroomed council house - is that a suitable use of such a relatively large property.

I give you

[img] [/img]

Maybe the queen should downsize as she is not using this appropriately?

How many politicians are using the houses they live in to the full capability? if there is a housing shortage and the market is obviously not working to its full capapbility we need to have a think about freeing up all houses, getting rid of underoccupancy. Is it right that old people should be squatting to 3 and 4 bed semis when there are families struggling in 2 bed terraces?

There's a much simpler solution really, all council house and social housing rents to be at market value, if you're on a low income then your housing benefit effectively reduces your rent. People who started off needing social housing when young who've worked hard can stay in the house they've made a home of but pay properly. The big change is the money from the market rents needs to be ploughed back into new social housing to renew and expand the stock.

No there is an even easier solution, nationalise all housing and award houses on the basis of need.....

No there is an even easier solution, nationalise all housing and award houses on the basis of need.....

Binners - the savings "may be" sightly more (?) than Ed's proposals. (Feeling compelled to respond, I assume) "Mr Balls on Monday flaunted his plan to remove winter fuel payments from rich pensioners as a sign of fiscal rectitude". From the FT which also showed that winter fuel accounts for a massive £2b out of the £160bn plus welfare budget. Tinkering on both sides, but probably little savings.

It tinkering is synonymous with ideology, then ideology is nothing to be feared.

thisisnotaspoon - Member
How is that 'easy'?

...to dismiss?

How is that 'easy'?

its as easy as every other "solution"

Is it right that the economy is so influenced by investment in non productive assets? Would the economy be in a better place if no one paid rent or mortgage? But "had" to invest the money in productive assets such as business, industry?

Why is housing a non-productive asset?

Why should someone "have" to invest in industry or business? Who's decision should that be?

Junkyard - lazarus

aw the right wingers engaging in the politics of envy

With the execption of council tax, students pay the same taxes as everyone else.

And of course Income tax !! - unless this has changed

It's not changed for at least a decade, students pay income tax, though most are in a position that they don't earn enough to even hit the lower threshold.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/students/doi_pay_tax_on_pt_job_9_2.htm

It's almost like you have a chip on your shoulder.

[b]mrmo[/b]
No there is an even easier solution, nationalise all housing and award houses on the basis of need.....

Housing is a productive asset - you live in it, it facilitates you being able to eat and sleep and thus be prepared for work. Housing is also very productive in terms of tax generation, the income from stamp duty now exceeds that from petrol and diesel fuel duty and VAT.

Binners & maccruiskeen +1

Its a strange situation, the 50 or so council houses in our village have some fairly well off people in them, I can think of 2/3 which have "poor" families in.
Yet the £400,000 house out the back is rented out to a family with 3 kids neither parents work and I believe the rent is £850 pcm paid for by housing benefit.
They have a better car than my wife who works, strange world !!!!
BTW I dont work but dont sign on, maybe I should and get into this benefits system, fair I suppose as in 42 years I've only had £123 in benefits.

THM - I don't think any more of Ed Balls 'savings' are any more credible than Osbournes. Its all just ideological playing to their own particular audience.

The one I think is going to be the daddy though. In the gap between proposed savings and what it actually costs to deliver, is IDS's Universal Credit welfare system. Its clearly dissolved into a completely unworkable shambles already. But he can't back down now. So onwards he'll plough, spaffing billions of taxpayers money as he just keeps on digging

This looks like its got real potential. I reckon it could be up there with the NHS records computer fiasco. Or possibly even worse due to the more compressed timescale. It certainly won't be saving anything.

But it'll make the life of frightful poor people immeasurably worse, so job done!

But it'll make the life of frightful poor people immeasurably worse, so job done!

I think their plan is that the poor either starve to death or top themselves, which is where the real savings come from.

20000*400*4*12=384m (using maximum value for housing benefit i could find ont tinterweb

384m p.a.- admin costs - lag in booting out 'high earners'-housing benefit you'd have to pay anyway(slghtly wooden dollars)-maintenence cost of social housing provision=2-300m???

Not peanuts i guess but winter fuel allowance is 10X more

The under 25 housing benefit thing proabably shakes out at about 6-700m saving. Lets be generous and say a billion for the pair. Where's the other 11bn?

Council housing was not mean for the poor - it was provided as affordable housing.

Need determined by who and how ?

backhanders,

Housing and the associated benefits bill is a joke, but where are the plans to deal with it? If we accept that there are not enough houses, build more, if we say that there are enough houses but they are not in the right place, move businesses to where people are. If you want to cut the government costs, why not relocate from expensive London to cheap Stoke or Ebbw Vale?

It is easy to pick on the poor and the young, try a spare bedroom tax on the wealthy, bearing in mind very very few people ever actually go from the gutter to the top, you are born with money and make more, or you are born in the gutter and stay there. So what "right" do they have to "their" money?

Under 25s are also a red herring - v small part of total benefits and housing.

Maybe it's a Clive Woodard 1% thing!!!!!

Binners, in which case why do these threads always develop around the idea that there is only one party that is (1) driven by an -ology and/or (2) guilty of policy mistakes and crap execution? It doesn't follow. Even the lib Dems have proved themselves to be power-hungry pragmatists.

So what "right" do they have to "their" money?

Council housing was not mean for the poor - it was provided as affordable housing.

Ahh but now they're in the private housing market they get the benefit of becoming the squeezed middle and can now pour scorn on the poor as the reason for all their ills.

Council housing was not mean for the poor - it was provided as affordable housing.

What should happen now then? Lots of building?

Even the lib Dems have proved themselves to be[s] power-hungry pragmatists.[/s] [b]Tories at heart.[/b]

FIFY

Well it costs quite a bit to buy/build a property so that's why there's a shortage - end up paying for people to stay in short-term private accommodation.

No, the reason there's a shortage is Right to Buy sold off houses far too cheaply, and the funds went to central government rather than councils.

Rents for existing council houses more than cover maintenance so it's completely untrue to say that tenants are a drain on resources.

What should happen now then? Lots of building?

I think its more likely IDS had Workhouses in mind 😉

What should happen now then? Lots of building?

yes.

currently a huge amount of tax money is paid to private landlords for substandard properties.

The clue is in the question. Hard as it may be to believe, perhaps they earned it. What right does anyone else have to take it away?

and how many have earnt it and how many inherited it? There is precious little social mobility, if you are born with money you are in a better position than someone who wasn't.

So no inherited wealth? I wouldn't like that sort of society and I'm not going to get much.

and how many have earnt it and how many inherited it?

if you are born with money you are in a better position than someone who wasn't.

Pure inheritance is v low - approx 5%

and how many rely on assistance from parents? Which is IMO more an issue than inheritance.

For example how many first time buyers need help from parents?

If you want stability which is helpful if your trying to raise kids and get them through school knowing where your going to be living does help.

And no I don't have an answer, but to attack any one segment of society without actually offering a solution what does that achieve?

If you want the brightest in the best jobs, is having parts of society buying privilege actually a good thing?

True, but that doesn't answer the question. What right do you have to take their money away if they have worked to earn it?

Despite right wing dogma, hard work and financial sucsess are not inextricably linked, opportunity and luck are far more important.

No, the reason there's a shortage is Right to Buy sold off houses far too cheaply,

Hmm - i reckon an extra five million people might not have helped 😉

opportunity and luck are far more important.

Or rather the education level of your parents.

We can also look at the way America now segregates itself by education. The greatest predictor of a child's academic success, even more than economic class, is still their parents' education level.

see http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/occupy-kindergarten-the-rich-poor-divide-starts-with-education/252914/

Hmm - i reckon an extra five million people might not have helped

We didn't struggle so much in the 1950s and 60s, despite a rising population at that time.

Despite right wing dogma, hard work and financial sucsess are not inextricably linked

Are you suggesting that the likes of Dave and Gideon, or Boris, aren't the PM and chancellor, or Mayor of London purely by merit of their dazzling intelligence, relentless hard work and almost god-like vision?

Next you'll be suggesting some bonkers conspiracy like the offspring of all the that 5% with their oodles of inherited wealth all attend the same school, then all go on to the same course at the same university, and on they trudge down a well trodden path to take their rightful place running the country?

Pfft! Thats insane 😉

[img] [/img]

No, the reason there's a shortage is Right to Buy sold off houses far too cheaply,

I believe it is still considered one of the cheapest ways for a party to buy an election (they spent someone else's money rather than their own)......

There no way my neighbour would give up their council house, last year they had a pellet boiler put in, solar panels and a new fence provided. They leave lights on all night as the panels give free electricity, windows open on freezing days, both have 4x4s bought cash and are always out. For them to buy a 3 bed in the next village as there isn't anything that small in our village unless ex council would cost £400k+, to be honest I'd not want them to move as they're good neighbours.

Off course there is not absolute link between hard work and financial reward - to borrow a phrase, that's insane and for lot of reasons. Ditto there is no absolute link between financial reward and any other factor be it luck, opportunity, parents education etc. But equally it's absurd to suggest that financial reward comes without hard work.

Still not an answer as to why people should not have a right to their money especially if they earned it, which was posed as a solution to the problem under discussion.

If you had dazzling intelligence and god-like (God/Gods exist?) vision why on earth would you want to be a politician. That really is insane.

Still not an answer as to why people should not have a right to their money especially if they earned it, which was posed as a solution to the problem under discussion.

if it solves the question under discussion that shirley that is enough of a justification?

So would stealing.....so no, not sufficient justification IMO. Why not just take "their" house of them, it would save the aggro of collecting the money and building new ones.

But equally it's absurd to suggest that financial reward comes without hard work.

Have you heard of the Royal Family or Paris Hilton?

THM have you heard of [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax ]Taxation?[/url]

And remind me what percentage of the working pop they represent? That's as silly as a politician picking on one benefit scrounger and then making a wider point.

(Leaving aside the issue of whether Liz and Phil work hard!!!!)

Yes, I pay it why?