Learn to quote FFS.

Please learn to use the quote function. It isn't difficult, but not using it correctly makes coherent discussion more difficult.

Therefore, at present, I'll respond only to your final point

I look forward to your comments on the subsidies that the taxpayer makes to the profits of large companies by way of in-work benefits to employees. They don't "need" them. Then again, most companies who get tax breaks don't "need" them either – for fracking, for instance.

I'll pick this post of yours to quote from because if everyone continued quoting as you do then it would only be a matter of minutes before one reply filled the whole page, in any case you're only repeating yourself in each one...

Clearly there is a shortage of suitable two or one bedroom council housing because THAT is the simplest solution, if there were hundreds of smaller units available within each council area then there would be no problem for the council would simply have to offer the smaller dwelling or the reduction in benefit and the choice would be the tenants own - and no sympathy would given if they chose to stay in the larger house.

Clearly though that is not the issue and there have been plenty of reports in the press from various councils and housing associations to suggest that the availability of smaller dwellings is miniscule compared to the numbers of tenants who require them after applying the bedroom tax - this even led to Leeds City Council reclassifying hundreds of their own houses as two bed instead of three where the third bedroom was the typical "box room", a nett loss to the council but a problem solved in the long run for them with no legal costs or debt collection involved - ultimately it angered the local Tory councillors as its not quite how they envisaged the solution to work, I believe it was one of these councillors that Mintball emailed to ask if, given his quoted comment in the press, he was aware that most housing benefit recipients were IN work, he skulked off at that point and was clearly annoyed that anyone should doubt his word or question his knowledge.

Its not an under investment issue from LA's and HA's over the past couple of decades - its non-investment in social housing from all shades of government, but its only this current coalition that has highlighted this as a claw-back exercise that will do them no damage politically,

Thanks for that insightful contribution. Must have taken you a while to come up with it.

A legacy of liberalisation and under regulation of financial markets across the world.


Who says we can't afford the spending? Borrowing rates are at about the lowest rate for decades.


A 25% reduction in the deficit. Attained by making thousands of police, armed forces personnel, doctors & nurses, admin staff, civil servants etc redundant or not hiring necessary replacements from natural wastage. Leading to reductions in capability of the police, fire service & armed forces. The cancellation/non procurement of armed forces equipment for the future. And of course the understaffing of hospitals, especially A&E departments.


Since 2008
Via a fiscal stimulus to temporarily fill the demand gap.

Not me.


What's your point here and why is it relevant?



Not a big "If" at all.
Nowadays, the greatest problem with housing is that supply is falling short of demand, leading to higher purchase prices and higher rents ... social housing eases this, but only to the extent to which it is allowed.
Also, since Thatcher swept away many tenancy rights in the private sector, social housing is more secure.
And now you want to boot out those who pay their rent themselves.



And how do you propose to rent them out?
If the owners of the empty private ones wanted to rent them out, wouldn't most of them be rented-out already?



It's the DWP who says it costs more in benefits when the recipients are in the private sector, see earlier post and link.
Adding profit onto the costs must increase the rent, it's very simple.

That and the fact that not all private landlords accept DWP Benefits claimants, in or especially out of work, and especially not now that the Housing Benefit payments are rolled into Universal Benefits and paid directly to the claimant - its only served to make the matter worse (not thought through policy rears its head again).

At least it helped to make the thread readable.

Your modus operandi is to question everything and answer nothing.
Must have taken you a while to come up with that.

Do you understand what a subsidy is?

Via a fiscal stimulus to temporarily fill the demand gap.



'"

Where is supply falling short of demand? Higher purchase prices & rents? Relative to when? I think you'll find the house price boom is a thing of the past.

Took a while, but she's finally made it into the discourse.

Boot them out? Why should there be social housing apart from the most needy in society? Why should anyone who can afford not to be subsidised by the state be so?

The benefits paid out [imay[/i be higher, but there's no capital outlay & ongoing capital costs. You seem to be missing this point.

Still no one has said why money circulating between government departments is better than it stimulating the economy. e.g people need homes to rent/buy, developers will build them.

No answer to the question then?

Do you, it appears not.