"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 21 December 2015 12:38:46 UTC, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Monday, 21 December 2015 00:49:09 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
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.

Typical ****ing socialist.
Thinks tax more and give to the idle proles.
By idle proles I assume you mean elderly people who require but cannot
get some social care which is where a great part of council tax is spent.

There's no doubt people are gonna have to work until they're older.

They wouldn't have to with more of the right sort of immigrants.

Maybe taper off their work.

Some have always done that.

Bringing in migrants is only a temporary solution
unless you pack them off when they get old.

Bull**** when they have more kids than the locals do.

And plenty of the locals leave for other
places in the EU too as they get older.

Even then they put up the cost of housing, take up NHS etc etc

And keep paying taxes when the locals have retired etc.

So they actually form no part of the solution.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage, bigot boy.