And what\’s wrong with that?

Ministers were accused last night of deliberately driving poor people out of wealthy inner cities as London councils revealed they were preparing a mass exodus of low-income families from the capital because of coalition benefit cuts.

Why should poor people be subsidised to live in expensive property?

Subsidised to live somewhere, sure, but there are parts of London where the housing subsidy alone to a family will be more than median household income for the country as a whole.

It\’s still £20k a year as the upper limit. Seriously, why should the taxpayers be putting their hands that deep in their pockets?

12 thoughts on “And what\’s wrong with that?”

  1. John Cruddas called it social engineering of the worst kind. WTF? Social engineering is taking my money, by complusion of law, and giving it to people on benefits so they can live in Knightsbridge.

  2. This is the best thing any government has done for years. Ok it might be the politics of envy but why should others be given MY money to live where I can not afford to live.

  3. Can anyone tell me which other cities in which countries subsidise low income folk to live in their high housing cost inner cores?

  4. £20k is an outrage. The idea people can keep living in the same neighbourhood that Eliza Doolittle (their great gran) did (Westbauwrne Grauove?) through intertia is bonkers.

    On the other hand it equally ghastly forcing people out to Harlow.

    Whatever the State touches, it turns to mushroom bedding.

  5. *sigh*

    It’s because the dissolution of communities creates massive social problems. When grandparents and general villages-to-raise-a-child are about, the fact that individual parents are poor, single and/or rubbish (three separate factors, before anyone jumps on me) don’t really matter.

    When that isn’t the case, it’s incredibly tough to raise kids without either a committed traditional nuclear family (which, the postwar experience showed us, isn’t realistic for half the population), or Swedish or Israeli style communalism.

    Finally, the GBP20k figures are total bullshit. That’s *what landlords charge whatever the DSS is called this week*, not *the value of housing that the tenants receive*. See: government contracts for everything.

  6. Sorry, missed out the “and so they get feral, mug you, and you have to pay gbp20k a year for them to go to prison instead” bit; obvious to me, perhaps not to others.

  7. “Finally, the GBP20k figures are total bullshit.”

    Yes, it’s what landlords are getting. Once the we-pay-anything-because-its-not-our-money tenants are gone then maybe they will start charging realistic market rents rather than the twisted market that the government has created by paying virtually any price.

  8. John B,

    Do you have an expanded version of this argument somewhere, because in this comment it appears to be a random collection of unconnected statements that don’t actually form an argument.

  9. It’s because the dissolution of communities creates massive social problems. When grandparents and general villages-to-raise-a-child are about, the fact that individual parents are poor, single and/or rubbish (three separate factors, before anyone jumps on me) don’t really matter.

    By this logic, the first generation of white people in NZ and Australia should have been a massive social disaster.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *