Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk
Whichever way it's cut, the 'windfall' is just as likely to benefit kids as it is the parents. And it might have more favourable impact as an accumulated benefit.
But, yes, it's politics. I think you have to expect politics from politicians.
|
So I have one argument for the policy being that OAPs are in financial strife due to low interest rates, etc, etc, and this is giving something back and another argument that it's cool the money is as likely to be passed on to their kids as it is used by them.
Still not sold but enjoyed the discussion nonetheless.
---------- Post added at 20:45 ---------- Previous post was at 20:43 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy
Or, of course, reducing the number of immigrants flooding in that need to be housed but there's that dastardly EU freedom of movement clause.
|
Actually even if there were no immigrants coming in at all we'd still not be building enough new houses in England to cope with native population growth and demographic/household size changes but a minor detail.
Perhaps if the chancellor took some cash from his bribery budget and put it back into the housing budget, the one whose budget he swiftly cut by 60%, things would be different, but then his entire economic growth model is based around private debt, much of that being mortgages, hence high house prices.
EDIT: In 1950 the UK was on financial life support and had a population of 50 million yet
300,000 homes a year was achievable.
This kinda thing was a while ago now.
