So it seems , if you earn a good income , you should not live in subsidised housing
So if you have a good income should you use , subsidised , transport , bus train etc or pay full fair

Just a thought

So your saying that rail fares are subsidised ?

I thought the travelling public were subsidising the rail companies

_________________
Lets be careful out there !

Depends, those with a bit of drive and want for success in life will strive to own their own property.
Those without that same drive will not.
Am not saying that all people who live in social housing lack drive, indeed far from it.

The ponzi scheme which has become the UK housing market in the last 20 years has forever locked some persons out due to pure affordability issues.

When the average wage of the average citizen is what around £26,000 a year and the average price of a 3 bedroom semi in say Hayes or Northolt is between £280,00 and £320,000 you can see there are certainly going to be affordability issues.

If the banks were to lend sensibly at 3.5 rimes annual income that gives the average citizen on average wage £91,000 mortgage affordability.

Add another 20% on for saved deposit and you have a grand total of £109,200. This is what the average person on average wage can afford to buy property

What sort of property does that buy you in London and the home counties.

It doesn't take the brains of a top economist to work out that the two positions (high house prices a average earnings) are not compatible.

House prices need to fall period, almost every negative factor in the UK economy today and the lack of spending power to drive it is because of over inflated house values.

Could it be that all subsidies, whether housing, transport, or whatever, are part of the problem because they create an artificial and unbalanced market place?

Subsidies increase the need for taxation, which adds to the imbalance in the whole economy. Without subsidies free-market vendors would have to complete in a genuine market place where they took into account the ability of would-be customers to pay for their products/services. Subsidies require a non-productive State-sector bureaucracy to administer them – an additional burden on the taxpayer and the whole economy. Subsidies tend to discourage personal responsibility and encourage the 'rights' culture. And worst of all, subsidies provide politicians with the opportunity to buy votes with other people's money.

The help to buy scheme announced in last weeks budget it yet another of these subsidies. We as taxpayers are being asked to underwrite loans to those who would otherwise fail normal lending criteria at High Street lenders.

Of course the reasons the banks won't lend is because after most of them had their fingers badly burnt in the 2008 crash by lending silly multiples to practically anyone with a heartbeat they have returned to normality and are lending in traditional multiples, 3.5 earnings ect.

In this context we should be thankful that some semblance of acumen has returned to the banks.

As I have pointed out above the gap between what it available mortgage wise and sellers expectations in prices is currently insurmountable, hence the stalemate and lack of movement in the housing markets.

Every measure this Government has taken since coming to office (including this one) is to maintain high values in asset prices when the market realistically says they are not worth that value.

The reasons the Government does this is in the main to win votes as a serious and prolonged asset market correction would hurt a lot of people. The second reason is of course the banks balance sheets. If assets values fall then the banks will have to mark to value affecting their balance sheets and overall liquidity, in some of the worse cases it would tip them back over the edge although of course a few now come with notional unlimited guarantees.

This latest measure has every chance of inflating the market again (as banks did through the noughties with their rash approach to risk with lending multiples) but this time leaving UK PLC holding the baby.

Worth pointing out as well that in order to finance mortgage payments today both parents of a family are expected to work to overcome the affordability issues but even with the calculation I have highlighted above @ 2 times average wage this still leaves the average family of 2 adults and 2 kids well short of affordability.

So both parents go out to work, indeed they have to to. The kids are left to their own ends ect when back from school and otherwise in holidays.

Prior to the House Price Inflation (HPI) period 1 parent used to stop at home the other was the main breadwinner, 1 was able to keep a close eye on family matters and manage the family unit well.

Could it be this which has contributed to the breakdown of the family unit over the last couple of decades?

For you ladies who want to allege this a sexist comment consider this. If successive governments had not driven a freedom for women agenda (equality over pay and conditions ect) over these last thirty years or so many would not have ventured into the workplace or perhaps only so much as a part time job for extra income. If that had been the case then the affordability factor of HPI would never have been present and would have to some extent dampened the market.

Did successive Governments do this to encourage women to enter the workplace with a motive in mind or was the consequences purely accidental?

Nothing whatsoever wrong with equality for women in everything and I wholeheartedly support all of it but I do wonder if we have exchanged this for less cohesion in family units?

I am convinced the whole purpose behind the women's lib movement, aided by successive governments, was the planned breakdown of the traditional family. The stable family unit is the fundamental building block of any stable society; break the family unit and society at large breaks. A broken society provides governments with more reasons to exercise power and control. There are so many other factors that are working towards a broken society; such as open door immigration and all the stresses that places on society and utilities, the destruction of any creative and manufacturing industries, a wrecked economy, ever-rising taxation, an unjust justice system, politically engineered inflation and currency devaluation. The whole green agenda is intended to hinder and eventually break society – as are the resulting artificial hikes in the cost of energy intended to break families and industries. Every political policy from the LibLabCon appears to have the destruction of Britain as its aim - which is why the same LibLabCons are so committed to the EU.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/southwark-seizes-300-council-homes-from-cheating-tenants-8558101.html



Another shining example of our "multicultural success story."

I believe railways are about 40% subsidised from overall taxes , and still more expensive than air travel , that is taxed very heavely

I agree , house prices are far too high , at least 50% in most regions
so rents are high as well
this happends when banks offer too much , and people buy as an investment , not for a home
an inflation increase is fair though