"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 23:47, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably
punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether
they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just
funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of
their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who
are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social
housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't
enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer to
build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current
planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5 bedroom
and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match
demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.
ie, too many migrants.
There's no shortage of plots with planning permission waiting for houses
to be built on them.

I've often thought council tax should be paid on unused plots after say
the renewal of planning permission.

With ours its always paid on the land regardless
of whether there is a house on that land or not.