Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[The Bear]

Just now, Voll Blau said:

Huge leap there to assume people with larger families and/or who claim child benefit don't have jobs. 

I was talk to about those that live off the money that having kids bring in. 

 

People with jobs can afford to cover any loss of benefits. 

[Finnegan]

Just now, The Bear said:

I agree with this. Child benefit should be capped at a certain amount. If people choose to have kids after that then that's their lookout and up to them to pay for them by getting off their arses and getting jobs. 

 

But this is stupid because then you just create child poverty. People will still have children that they can't afford, it's just now those children will become more destitute. 

 

Maybe if Candice's best chance of getting a house wasn't to have four children then we'd have less of a problem. 

 

How about instead of having laws limiting the amount of kids you can claim benefit for, we have laws limiting the number of properties you can own. To 1.

 

Sounds like a much better way to solve the country's problems to me. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

Hasn't it just tried that to some degree?

That, as bad as it might appear, is a candle flicker compared to a nuclear device with respect to what it can and possibly will do in the future.

[The Bear]

Just now, Finnegan said:

 

But this is stupid because then you just create child poverty. People will still have children that they can't afford, it's just now those children will become more destitute. 

 

Maybe if Candice's best chance of getting a house wasn't to have four children then we'd have less of a problem. 

 

How about instead of having laws limiting the amount of kids you can claim benefit for, we have laws limiting the number of properties you can own. To 1.

 

Sounds like a much better way to solve the country's problems to me. 

That's exactly what I suggested. Capping the benefits you can claim for. 

[Footballwipe]

The whole Candice argument relies on the prejudice that only poor people have lots of kids. I'd be interested to know how many people chuck out sprogs for the housing benefit compared to those who are just lazy with their protection, or are in a life of "being a mum" so aren't too bothered how many they have.

 

I like the irony of these NIMBYs who desperately oppose new housing developments but live in a plush 5-bed house and have had 4-5 kids themselves. They'll live in that house until they die and we'll need 4-5 more houses for her kids. Then if they all have 2 kids, let's say, we'll need another eight houses for them, and so on, and so on.

 

Bit of a housing slant on the argument but in an age of people living longer in their homes and popping out kids like they're a fashion item, you're going to need them to live somewhere.

[Voll Blau]

Just now, The Bear said:

I was talk to about those that live off the money that having kids bring in. 

 

People with jobs can afford to cover any loss of benefits. 

You mean the princely sum of £21.15 a week, plus £14 for any extra kids you have, as is the current rate?

 

Even if you're not inclined to work as a result of receiving that, you're not exactly going to be living the high life.

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Hasn't it just tried that to some degree?

 

 

 

Not the first time I've posted this. Does always make me smile. I don't agree with all of it, I think some of it is a bit dated, but the core concept is still bang on and the end is great. 

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, The Bear said:

That's exactly what I suggested. Capping the benefits you can claim for. 

 

Do you need to read my post again? Or did I typo somewhere I really didn't mean to? Because that's not what I said at all. 

[leicsmac]

Guys, the global population increase rate is slowing down anyway, and it will only slow down further as more nations get into situations where many kids are no longer necessary to support a family for whatever reason.

 

It's currently projected to top out at somewhere between 10 and 11 billion sometime around the year 2100. Whether the Earth can support that kind of population in the style they all wish for is another matter entirely. But on that score, I would actually hazard a mention that there's not an awful lot of difference between 8-9 billion and 10-11 billion total there. So if we're screwed then, then we're likely screwed now too.

Edited 6 January 2022 by leicsmac

[HighPeakFox]

I've not had kids, nor am I likely to, so I would like to facetiously and erroneously claim superiority of my intellect and morality  

[Fox92]

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I do think they should be able to prove that they can afford to support the children. Candice knocking out 4 kids to get a free gaff isn't doing anyone a favour.

I do tend to agree with @Finnegan in terms of population growth, but I'm not agreeing with stereotypes of poorer people having larger families just for benefits.

[FoxesDeb]

44 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

But this is stupid because then you just create child poverty. People will still have children that they can't afford, it's just now those children will become more destitute. 

 

Maybe if Candice's best chance of getting a house wasn't to have four children then we'd have less of a problem. 

 

How about instead of having laws limiting the amount of kids you can claim benefit for, we have laws limiting the number of properties you can own. To 1.

 

Sounds like a much better way to solve the country's problems to me. 

If people were only allowed to own one property, and presumably lived in it, who would own the properties tenants rent? 

[Finnegan]

3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

If people were only allowed to own one property, and presumably lived in it, who would own the properties tenants rent? 

 

There wouldn't be any tenants other than those in social housing. 

 

When I'm Grand High President of the Universe, all landlords will be forced to hand over the keys to their tenants and get proper fvcking jobs the massive spongers. 

 

Nobody should be a "landlord" it's not fvcking 1450.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

Can't stop people from having kids. We don't live in somesort of Nazi state.

No but we also do live in a world threatened by population increase. It’s not unreasonable to say you can only reproduce a set amount in my opinion.

[FoxesDeb]

7 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

There wouldn't be any tenants other than those in social housing. 

 

When I'm Grand High President of the Universe, all landlords will be forced to hand over the keys to their tenants and get proper fvcking jobs the massive spongers. 

 

Nobody should be a "landlord" it's not fvcking 1450.

What about those who choose to rent though? Not everyone wants to own their own home, but don't need to be helped with social housing. 

[AjcW]

7 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

There wouldn't be any tenants other than those in social housing. 

 

When I'm Grand High President of the Universe, all landlords will be forced to hand over the keys to their tenants and get proper fvcking jobs the massive spongers. 

 

Nobody should be a "landlord" it's not fvcking 1450.

Would you agree there's a difference between landlord A and landlord B in my example below, or do you group everyone together? (genuinely interested)

 

Landlord A) Owns about 10 houses/flats, rents them out, got some of those nasty HMO's as well. Nasty ****er who doesn't care about tenants

 

Landlord B) Sold only property, moved in with their partner, had money from previous only property lying about, decided to buy a flat, rents it out and treats tenants with respect, gets things fixed immediately and if there's any delays reduces rent

 

There's also another element, just like some people will only ever hire purchase cars, there's a growing number of people who only ever want to rent property so that they can move around for their jobs or their lifestyle... what should they do in your universe? 

[AjcW]

1 minute ago, FoxesDeb said:

What about those who choose to rent though? Not everyone wants to own their own home, but don't need to be helped with social housing. 

Got there just before me!

[Finnegan]

Just now, FoxesDeb said:

What about those who choose to rent though? Not everyone wants to own their own home, but don't need to be helped with social housing. 

 

People only rent because its cheaper than owning. It's cheaper than owning because we have an absolutely disastrous housing market. 

 

Nobody would choose to rent if they could afford to own the same property. 

[AjcW]

Just now, Finnegan said:

 

People only rent because its cheaper than owning. It's cheaper than owning because we have an absolutely disastrous housing market. 

 

Nobody would choose to rent if they could afford to own the same property. 

You know some Doctors/Nurses have to move around every 6-12 months right? You can barely buy and sell a property in that period of time... 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

 

People only rent because its cheaper than owning. It's cheaper than owning because we have an absolutely disastrous housing market. 

 

Nobody would choose to rent if they could afford to own the same property. 

It’s not cheaper than owning.

[FoxesDeb]

Just now, Finnegan said:

 

People only rent because its cheaper than owning. It's cheaper than owning because we have an absolutely disastrous housing market. 

 

Nobody would choose to rent if they could afford to own the same property. 

That's just not true though. People sell homes and rent short term in preparation for moving abroad, some people just don't want the responsibility of maintaining their own homes, plenty of people move around frequently and the costs associated with buying and selling are expensive, there are lots of reasons why people choose to rent. 

 

A mortgage on my last rented house would have been cheaper than the rent, too. 

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, AjcW said:

Would you agree there's a difference between landlord A and landlord B in my example below, or do you group everyone together? (genuinely interested)

 

Landlord A) Owns about 10 houses/flats, rents them out, got some of those nasty HMO's as well. Nasty ****er who doesn't care about tenants

 

Landlord B) Sold only property, moved in with their partner, had money from previous only property lying about, decided to buy a flat, rents it out and treats tenants with respect, gets things fixed immediately and if there's any delays reduces rent

 

There's also another element, just like some people will only ever hire purchase cars, there's a growing number of people who only ever want to rent property so that they can move around for their jobs or their lifestyle... what should they do in your universe? 

 

A & B both own more residential properties than they have households and are both part of the problem. B may be less morally bankrupt but they're still getting their house taken off them by El Presidente Finnegano. 

 

Regards your last point - the issue there isn't ownership, the issue is how absurd our home buying process is. 

 

In my obviously hypothetical perfect world the process of exchanging / selling / trading homes would be more streamlined sufficient enough that those that only want to reside in a location temporarily can buy and sell the property easily enough to do so. 

 

[filbertway]

I do like the idea of building less houses and just using the ones we've got. I keep seeing estates pop up next to roads that are already an absolute nightmare. Take your god damned houses and throw them in the sea. 

 

I'm glad renting is an option otherwise I'd be sleeping on a sofa somewhere becoming more and more unwelcome by the day

 

[AjcW]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

 

A & B both own more residential properties than they have households and are both part of the problem. B may be less morally bankrupt but they're still getting their house taken off them by El Presidente Finnegano. 

 

Regards your last point - the issue there isn't ownership, the issue is how absurd our home buying process is. 

 

In my obviously hypothetical perfect world the process of exchanging / selling / trading homes would be more streamlined sufficient enough that those that only want to reside in a location temporarily can buy and sell the property easily enough to do so. 

 

So B.... or me in this scenario, only owns one residential property, the one I rent out. So that's where the 'people should only be allowed to own one property' strand of your argument comes unstuck. Similarly in another scenario, my parents own one property that they rent out, and they've spent the last 8 years renting property in various different countries due to work commitments. 

 

I realise you can't cover everything in your argument, but landlords that are a 'problem' are ones who own 5... 10... 15... 100 properties as their business and treat their tenants like shit. Or Russians and Chinese who buy flats and leave them empty....That is the area that needs addressing, not people who still work, or own their home and rent elsewhere but look after their tenants.

 

On your last point, fair do's, that would be a wonderful world!

[Wymsey]

Why can't house-building firms use brownfield sites to build more houses on, instead of damaging the countryside landscape often as it does now?