Sunday 31 October 2010
local govenment cuts
the LGA says cuts will mean the end of help forthe elderly. How hypocritical can you get! No cuts to massive pensions, 7%pay increases for councillors, no cuts in overpaid managers, but the elderly, yes we'll cut their benefits. This is down to the LGA, not the government, it's up tothe LGA what they choose to cut and this latest announcement says it all...
Saturday 30 October 2010
A blog to get started
Radio, TV, press are full of people with opinions. Often the opinions are not what people really think. They may be paid to express controversial opinions to boost readership, or they have political or business motives. According to Bing, Eric the Red gave Greenland its name to encourage settlers, so this has been going on for a long time. My opinions are a bit unusual, in that they are what I really think, but I thought I'd publish them, for anyone who was interested.
I'll start with housing.
Everyone deserves a decent home. Warm. Dry. Safe and secure. Ideally they choose a home they can afford to rent or buy from their income. If they can't afford the rent of the most basic apartment, then the state will provide them with somewhere to live using taxpayer funds,and most taxpayers would be happy with that principle. But:
1) If your circumstances improve, you should either move out to rent or buy your home privately, releasing a home for someone who has a greater need, or pay the full market rent for your home,unsubsidised by the state, to repay some of the taxpayer funds you have used in the past, so they can be used to build more houses.
2) You can't expect to live exactly where you want to. The state has an obligation to use its money wisely. Lots of people who pay their own way can't afford to live exactly where they want. If they are paying taxes to pay part of your rent, you shouldn't expect to live in more expensive housing than they do.
Does this sound ultra 'right wing'? Apparently it is.
Some people say that once you have been given subsidised state housing because of your need, you should keep it forever, even if you earn more than average, even if you are living alone in a four bedroomed house. The fact that this means there are thousands of young families waiting to be housed while you and those like you are occupying a house you could afford to give up, is regarded as an unrelated fact. A problem to be solved by increasing the taxes of those who are paying their own way in the world.
Why would someone say this? I suspect for cynical political reasons. A lot of voters get state help with housing these days. They'd be as likely to vote for housing reform,as turkeys would be to vote to make Thanksgiving a UK public holiday.
I'll start with housing.
Everyone deserves a decent home. Warm. Dry. Safe and secure. Ideally they choose a home they can afford to rent or buy from their income. If they can't afford the rent of the most basic apartment, then the state will provide them with somewhere to live using taxpayer funds,and most taxpayers would be happy with that principle. But:
1) If your circumstances improve, you should either move out to rent or buy your home privately, releasing a home for someone who has a greater need, or pay the full market rent for your home,unsubsidised by the state, to repay some of the taxpayer funds you have used in the past, so they can be used to build more houses.
2) You can't expect to live exactly where you want to. The state has an obligation to use its money wisely. Lots of people who pay their own way can't afford to live exactly where they want. If they are paying taxes to pay part of your rent, you shouldn't expect to live in more expensive housing than they do.
Does this sound ultra 'right wing'? Apparently it is.
Some people say that once you have been given subsidised state housing because of your need, you should keep it forever, even if you earn more than average, even if you are living alone in a four bedroomed house. The fact that this means there are thousands of young families waiting to be housed while you and those like you are occupying a house you could afford to give up, is regarded as an unrelated fact. A problem to be solved by increasing the taxes of those who are paying their own way in the world.
Why would someone say this? I suspect for cynical political reasons. A lot of voters get state help with housing these days. They'd be as likely to vote for housing reform,as turkeys would be to vote to make Thanksgiving a UK public holiday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)