"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 19:48:41 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 17:01, harry wrote:
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.

You obviously don't have a clue about supply and demand.

ie, too many migrants.

You mean they cause the shortage? You do understand what a "shortage" is?

You really are brain dead.
A shortage means the demand exceeds supply.
So to resolve the situation you increase supply or reduce demand.
Is that not easy to understand?

The only reason our population is rising is due to immigrants.

Yes.

So to avoid concreting over the countryside,

That isn't going to happen with the current level of immigration.

we need to reduce immigrants.

Wrong, as always.

This costs nothing.

Wrong again. Once the population keeps aging,
and there are no more immigrants, eventually
there aren't enough still working to support the
senile old farts like you that aren't working any
longer and that ends up costing a hell of a lot
as the senile geriatrics like you start costing a
hell of a lot for their health care, with no one
to pay for that.