View Single Post
Old 26-10-2010, 22:54   #88
Ignitionnet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Age: 47
Posts: 13,995
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf View Post
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11627021

He may deny it, but an exodus will happen.
I would find paying 400 quid a week rent pressurising. I am apparently in the top decile of income. Why is it ok for the tax payer to be paying more than this to keep people with no income of their own living in areas I cannot afford to?

This will reduce rents, supply of housing will go up as there will be less 'Palace de Welfare' in high cost areas and demand will drop as welfare won't cover them.

This is entirely fair and appropriate. It is an insult to those tax payers who live in the 'burbs as they cannot afford the city that their taxes are paying welfare to cover the rents of people in precisely the areas they cannot afford.
Ignitionnet is offline   Reply With Quote