People Begging for a House Price Crash

But only if you are on benefits.

Many working people are forced to make the choice to move away, just why should people on benefit be special?

tim

Reply to
tim....
Loading thread data ...

No it's not LA area. It's based upon a "Broad Market Area".

As an example, the area of "Portsmouth" includes the LA's of Fareham,Gosport, Havant and East Hants (Petersfield).

Because there are large "slum" Estates in Portsmouth and Havant and prices in Gosport are low because of its difficult accessibility there is probably nowhere in the "up market" area of East Hants that an HB claimant can afford.

(Note that I'm not suggesting that this is right or wrong, just telling you how it is)

tim

Reply to
tim....

It looks like inflation may be the only "cure".

Reply to
Andy Pandy

Particularly those who live some places in Devon and Cornwall who find that when it's time to their leave their parent's house there is no way they can afford a house in the same area, where pehaps their family have lived for generations.

It's the same with having kids. For the vast majority of the working population, having children is a major expense which severely dents their standard of living, not only the cost of feeding, clothing etc but more significantly the cost of childcare and/or the drop in income if one of them gives up work/reduces hours.

For those out of work it's a different equation - they can actually become better off as they won't lose any income as a result of having children, and they can often gain benefits even in excess of the cost. This is particularly true for young single women as the contrast between benefits available to a single childless person under 25 and a single parent are huge, far more than the cost of bringing up a child.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

Seems to me that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still a gigantic problem where Lehman is no problem at all.

Which is now bankrupt and which in "conservatorship"?

FoFP

Reply to
M Holmes

I must have been socially cleansed then, because I had to move 12 miles away.

This is what you might do before you get on benefits.

Well I was talking more of people in private homes. But even when funded with HB, people can choose a 3-bedroom home over a 2-bedroom one, if the letting income would more than cover the extra. You can make useful extra money, stay living in a nicer area, and provide shelter for someone else too.

(I lived in a 3-bedroom house for years while letting up to 4 rooms. My brother also did the same sort of thing to help pay a mortgage he could never have afforded by himself. He now lives in a £500K house).

Reply to
BartC

In message , tim.... writes

It rather depends on how they came to need benefits in the first place. "Single parent" often means "mum who was deserted by father". It could be a "hard working family" where the main breadwinner is struck down by incapacity.

Re-location is not easy unless you are going to a new employer who funds the removal. (Does that still happen)?

Those cases don't reach the front page of the Daily Mail.

Reply to
Gordon H

AFAIK there's no evidence that genetics plays a significant role.

It doesn't matter the reason the parents are not working. Whether it's the rare case that they "don't see the point in working" or the more common cases where the parents are unable to work, despite wanting to.

Well you're wrong and quoting out of context. I am just glad I live near enough to the good school to able to get my children in there.

I don't agree that this is a valid analogy.

CVA often gives a poorer picture for schools in "good" areas since children already arrive there as high achievers and low numbers of FSMs will mean they can't boost the CVA score. You need to look at all the figures (and more) to determine the "best" school.

Pure results are still very useful as long as you consider the reasons.

But if you live too far away from a school with a better rating you are unlikely to get your children in there.

As I said before I am just glad I can get my children in to a good school.

... because it attempts to adjust for the area.

No. It works both ways.

The CVA does not tell everything. In a "poor" school teachers may only be used to getting kids to scrape through GCSEs and may not be able to help more able children achieve their potential. This certainly happened to a close relative of mine.

Not in my experience. The schools I know need to allocate more time than the LA will fund so have to fund the difference out of the general budgets. And, of course, only statemented children get any extra money and there are usually children at school action/plus levels who also need extra help. This situation will get worse, IMHO, since the cutbacks will almost certainly mean that it will take longer to get a statement for a child who needs it.

Reply to
Mark

Iff you earn enough.

But they aren't eligable for HB so may have to move out.

But in many areas the allowable rent is not enough to even cover a home of adequate size.

Reply to
Mark

This sounds like where I live. I'm sure there are many areas just like this.

Reply to
Mark

Having looked further into this I suspect that East Hants is one of the worst affected.

The whole of the LA contains similar, relatively expensive, property types but for HB purposes is split between 5 different BMAs.

At the boundary of one of these you can move, one station up the mainline, from Liss (Portsmouth BMA) to Liphook (Guildford BMA) and the HB limit rises by 50%.

tim

Reply to
tim....

What complete bullshit. There is masses of evidence that genetics plays a very significant role in personality and intelligence.

Of course it matters. The child will pick up on the reason why the parent isn't working. How many out of work families do you actually know?

You really are incredibly ignorant if you think that's "rare". Try getting out into the real world instead of believing Gruniad type bullshit. I do unofficial voluntry work helping people with benefits etc, the attitude of "it's not worth working" is extremely prevalent, and anyone who understands the tax credits and benefits system can see exactly why. Why do you think most of the jobs created in the last few years have gone to foreigners?

OK, here it is in context:

It still sounds like "I'm glad I don't have to mix with oiks".

Why not?

Er, yes, so they have a head start. It's what the schools *add* that needs measuring, just like a fund manager should be rated on what he

*adds* to the fund.

No they're not. They say nothing about how well the school has done without the context of how bright/motivated the children are and how well they did in their previous school.

Yes, and?

With less oiks.

It measure the value added by the school.

There is a tendancy to focus resources on those in the middle so the school meets silly targets (like the number getting 5 GCSEs), so those at the bottom who have no chance and those at the top who'll pass anyway are ignored. But hopefully that's changing... it's not the case now at our kids' school.

Yes but judging from all the above your experience does seem very strange.

Well I know for a fact my kids' education was helped a great deal by SSA's which were there specifically for named statemented kids. Especially my daughter's who had several SSA's in her class. We are friends with a couple of SSAs at different schools and they say exactly the same.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

Could you cite one contemporary source that survives peer review? I can't think of any. Pick up any half-decent sociology (Bilton, Haralambos, Giddens etc) book for evidence opposed.

Questionable from at least two points of view. What jobs have 'been created'? And I suspect you'd find (if you asked) that most people do want to work. It's called a poverty *trap* for pretty obvious reasons. Look on the JRF site for some reasonably rigorous evidence.

It's pretty basic Andy.

Rob

Reply to
Rob

There are several cited in these referenced wiki articles:

formatting link
formatting link
Not that environment etc doesn't play a role, but genetics clearly does play a "very significant role".

It's not a hard concept. New jobs, one that didn't exist before.

Er, like I said, I do voluntary work helping people with benefits etc. This is exactly the sort of thing I discuss with them, the comment "it's not worth working" is very common, and I can see their point.

So what is your experience of people on benefits?

Er, yes, the poverty trap is problem FFS. That's *why* it's not worth working, because getting a job often makes little difference to income.

Yes. There is a poverty trap. This results in many people conculding that "it's not worth working". And they are often right (at least on a short term view).

Reply to
Andy Pandy

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Isn't that rather a selfish reason not to work?

I assume your voluntary work is unpaid? If so, then is it worth you doing that voluntary work? After all, it "makes little difference to income"! So, why do you do it?

Reply to
Tim

Are you suggesting people should feel morally obliged to act in the taxpayers' best interest and not their own? Do you have an ISA or a pension? Do you try to save tax where you can? Would you refuse to do overtime if you were taxed at 95% on it?

The whole problem with the debate about benefit levels, rules and withdrawal rates etc is that it's usually overshadowed by those arguing about the morality of benefit claimants (thick Mail readers suggesting those out of work are all scroungers and thick Gruniad readers suggesting they all really want to work even if it makes them no better off).

Rather than (as would be the case with discussion on taxation) discussing the incentives the system creates or removes without any suggestion that people would or should feel any moral obligation to act in the taxpayers' best interests rather than their own.

Because I enjoy it. I like discussing financial issues which is why I post to uk.finance. Look at usenet, it's full of people helping others in their area of expertise/interest, I do it in uk.finance, and others help me in other groups like uk.d-i-y and cars groups. It's the same in real life. Also I often get favours in return, even if it's just a pint (once I got a plumbing leak fixed for free by someone I'd helped with his tax credits).

Reply to
Andy Pandy

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Yes, of course. Why should they get a free ride at others' expense, if they are able to pay their own way?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

If I was able to do the work, and needed the money to eat & pay for accomodation etc, then NO I wouldn't refuse it. You see, I have never claimed any benefits in my entire life - why should other people pay to support me when I am able to work & pay myself?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

So, it's not just you giving without receiving, then! But when taxpayers help those who choose not to work, without them helping society themselves by doing some productive work, isn't that rather selfish?

Reply to
Tim

So does the same apply to healthcare, schools etc? Should people who can afford to pay for their operation feel morally obliged to do so rather than having it done "at other's expense" on the NHS?

So you don't use any state provided services then? Never go your local NHS funded doctor?

That's a moral judgement. Some would say that a millionaire who makes full use of every tax loophole is selfish. SFW? If the system rewards the "selfish" then the "selfish" will take advantage - the solution is to ensure that those who make the "unselfish" decisions are rewarded not punished. For instance by closing tax loopholes, rewarding those who work rather than claim benefits etc. Rather than a pointless attempt to sit in moral judgement, like the usual pointless brain dead arguments between left wing idiots and right wing idiots as to whether claiming benefits when you can work or avoiding tax which you can afford makes you an evil person.

The tax credit system attempted to do this but failed because of the interaction with other benefits. The new universal credit is step in the right direction - we'll see how it pans out. As I've said before the ideal solution would be to abolish all means testing (which rewards the "selfish"), have a flat tax rate with no allowance and pay everyone a "citizen's income".

Reply to
Andy Pandy

You could try the review of the entire subject done by The American Psychologists Association which was done in response to the furore over The Bell Curve. Nobody except some leftie sociologists who prefer dogma to science any longer disputes that there's a very substantial genetic component in individual intelligence.

The evidence on personality is less marked, though this is more than likely because the field has only just come to a consensus on the axes by which perosnality can usefully be measured.

FoFP

Reply to
M Holmes

In message , Andy Pandy writes

If only everyone was a middle of the road idiot like you and me, the world would be a better place. ;-)

Many people have said it before, and I like the idea, but no Party dare put it in its manifesto, it would require strict adherence to no tax loopholes, and that would make the RWIs angry, and the LWIs wouldn't trust it because they wouldn't understand it.

Reply to
Gordon H

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.