Time for a change of approach on welfare

[chilon]

I agree that corporate subsidies are one of the most serious problems we have when it comes to bleeding revenue, and that is entirely the fault of the regulator (aka government) not doing their job to regulate and protect the people under their jurisdiction.

That does not, however, excuse individuals who seek assistance from the government and then file fraudulent claims, receiving money that could be given to other more downtrodden recipients that are physically or mentally unable to hold down jobs in the private or public sectors of business. Fraud of all forms must be revealed and disposed of, to create the ideal environment that is fair to business, government, and society all at the same time.

You are aware that False Claims (corporations frauding the government) is a far, far more serious problem and ha much greater economic impact than a handful full of welfare moms getting an extra hundred bucks right?

[Simon Cashmere]

And your posts showed anything but an infantile misunderstanding of economics?

I've got an economics degree. Have you?

[mongrel]

I've got an economics degree. Have you?

Then perhaps you can demonstrate the economic benefits of having the government effectively paying Tesco a substantial part of its wage bill, or giving firms like Amazon millions of pounds in grants whilst receiving nothing by way of Corporation Tax from them.

I agree that corporate subsidies are one of the most serious problems we have when it comes to bleeding revenue, and that is entirely the fault of the regulator (aka government) not doing their job to regulate and protect the people under their jurisdiction.

That does not, however, excuse individuals who seek assistance from the government and then file fraudulent claims, receiving money that could be given to other more downtrodden recipients that are physically or mentally unable to hold down jobs in the private or public sectors of business. Fraud of all forms must be revealed and disposed of, to create the ideal environment that is fair to business, government, and society all at the same time.

Can't disagree with that. However the entire emphasis is on the latter pointand it has now reached the point with Bedroom Tax and Universal Credit where implementation is more costly than any benefit savings. The ratio of fraudsters/workshy to genuine claimants is not high enough.

It has been painful to watch progress on tax justice. Take Apple for example. America is now chasing Apple because it pretends to be an Irish company for tax purposes. The EU are investigating the arrangement because Ireland considers Appple an overseas (American) company. It cannot be both or none. Yet for decades this nonsense has been allowed unhindered, draining our collective treasuries.

[chilon]

I've got an economics degree. Have you?

Yup, sure do.

And just because you have a degree doesn't mean your posts reflect anything other than an extremely biased, radical market fundamentalism point of view arguing rubbish like you want to eliminate most departments of government....

Then perhaps you can demonstrate the economic benefits of having the government effectively paying Tesco a substantial part of its wage bill, or giving firms like Amazon millions of pounds in grants whilst receiving nothing by way of Corporation Tax from them.

TBF I am sure Simon would not agree with those subsidies as Simon wants to eliminate just about every department of government except the Military and Attorney General office.

[Simon Cashmere]

Then perhaps you can demonstrate the economic benefits of having the government effectively paying Tesco a substantial part of its wage bill,

Tesco's wages bill is 3.54 billion pounds annually. What is a 'substantial' part of the wages bill that you say is paid for by the government? Big companies' figures are always a few years behind, but according to it, it contributed

A Tesco spokesman said: ‘We are one of the largest payers of tax in the UK, last year contributing £1.5billion directly, including £387million in corporation tax.

‘The profits generated by our UK businesses are fully taxed in the UK and we have no structures which artificially reduce these profits.’

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...-campaign.html

http://www.redmayne.co.uk/research/s...s.htm?tkr=TSCO

The tax they pay ranges from 300 million pounds to 900 million pounds depending on the year. Are you saying that of the 3.5 billion pounds annually they spend in wages, the government is paying what 1 billion wages? You tell me it's your story. And let's say just for argument sake, Tesco sold nothing contributed nothing, and the UK government entirely paid every cent of its costs. Why does this change welfare policy at all one way or another?

The UK has a welfare management problem because it has an easy benefits culture where people can more easily get onto welfare rolls and do not need to try to get a job. Change the ease that people can get benefits and more of them will work. All this woolly stuff about money contributed to corporations for programs has no bearing on the out of control benefits culture in the UK and elsewhere.

Big companies take steps to minimise their tax - anyone who doesn't - needs a psychiatrist. If governments want to close the revenue leakage, they need to change the rules - they make them after all. But big companies and high net worth individuals will always look for ways to minimise tax, and are effectively tax immune unless you start hitting them with turnover or bank account taxes. And again, unless you say that tax has to pay the welfare bill, it has nothing to do with the amount of people on welfare. Increasing Tesco's wages bill just distorts the free market further and makes them more likely to put in place structures to minimise tax.

TBF I am sure Simon would not agree with those subsidies as Simon wants to eliminate just about every department of government except the Military and Attorney General office.

And I will one day. The government is a fat expensive monster that needs to go on a diet.

[mongrel]

Tesco's wages bill is 3.54 billion pounds annually. What is a 'substantial' part of the wages bill that you say is paid for by the government? Big companies' figures are always a few years behind, but according to it, it contributed

The part where they have to claim welfare to pay the rent and clothe their kids. Tesco should be doing that. and anyu other firm leeching off the state.

The tax they pay ranges from 300 million pounds to 900 million pounds depending on the year. Are you saying that of the 3.5 billion pounds annually they spend in wages, the government is paying what 1 billion wages? You tell me it's your story. And let's say just for argument sake, Tesco sold nothing contributed nothing, and the UK government entirely paid every cent of its costs. Why does this change welfare policy at all one way or another?

People having to claim benefits because of shite wages obviously affects welfare policy , if only because now it it unaffordable.

The UK has a welfare management problem because it has an easy benefits culture where people can more easily get onto welfare rolls and do not need to try to get a job. Change the ease that people can get benefits and more of them will work. All this woolly stuff about money contributed to corporations for programs has no bearing on the out of control benefits culture in the UK and elsewhere.

What about people in work claiming benefits? What about the corporate benefit culture. Yes there is an easy benefits culture alright, pay the serfs a few pennies and Britains's taxpayers ( not Amazon or Vodaphoine mind), stomp up the cash. so they don't starve. You have no answer for this clearly.

Big companies take steps to minimise their tax - anyone who doesn't - needs a psychiatrist. If governments want to close the revenue leakage, they need to change the rules - they make them after all. But big companies and high net worth individuals will always look for ways to minimise tax, and are effectively tax immune unless you start hitting them with turnover or bank account taxes. And again, unless you say that tax has to pay the welfare bill, it has nothing to do with the amount of people on welfare. Increasing Tesco's wages bill just distorts the free market further and makes them more likely to put in place structures to minimise tax.

Giving people jobs deals with the unemployed, but what about those working? Having the state subsidise corporate wage bills and giving foreign companies grants, whilst British firms are left with squat, that distorts the market surely? YOu have nothing to offer except fundamentalist nihilism. We have been denigrating the poor since Thatcher's time, and yet the welfare bill never goes down. Some imagination is called for here.

[Denny Crane!]

I love it how Mongrel uses a lot of phrases but no numbers.

Still waiting on those rent figures Mongrel.

Lots of enemies no numbers and answers. You switched from Labour to Green and using Fascist fear tactics?

I want HARD numbers and figures. When all the landlords refuse to keep the tenants on the rents you'd impose where are the houses going to come from? What rent control will you impose is it per flat or per tenant?

You want WTC done away with what about the small businesses who will close down on a much higher minimum wage?

Lets all hear it for the pro eviction anti small business Mongrel...

Ugh.

[mongrel]

I love it how Mongrel uses a lot of phrases but no numbers.

Still waiting on those rent figures Mongrel.

Lots of enemies no numbers and answers. You switched from Labour to Green and using Fascist fear tactics?

I want HARD numbers and figures. When all the landlords refuse to keep the tenants on the rents you'd impose where are the houses going to come from? What rent control will you impose is it per flat or per tenant?

You want WTC done away with what about the small businesses who will close down on a much higher minimum wage?

Lets all hear it for the pro eviction anti small business Mongrel...

Ugh.

Why just because you have a vested interest you wish to miniimise the drain lanlords are making on the Treasury. The welfare cap might help short term in theory., In practice LAs have to house the poorest homeless somewhere, that is where the cheap B&Bs come in (at more expense). If course if wages matched inflated rents that would help I guess, in the short term, but in the long term ,m the rent is 2 damn high and must be curbed. I have no issue with landlords and multinationals making large profits as long as they do so from their own risk and capital (we call this capitalism), rather than state handouts.



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/358315/LA_Tables-201314.xlsx

This Field of Dreams approach of yours hasn't worked for 30 years. I am sure if councils are allowed to build again on their own term,s and encouraged not to sell their stock to speculators, then we might get back to MacMillian era levels of building.


Anyway the figures, you should know that they are publically avaialble, so why bother asking, you were bound to fail .
The current figure is £24.1 billion. It was £13.bn is 2005/06

Compare that with say, Income Support, which fell from £9.1 bn to £3.5 bn and you can readily see who the bloodsucking leeches are.

[Denny Crane!]

Why just because you have a vested interest you wish to miniimise the drain lanlords are making on the Treasury.

I don't have a vested interest, its a tiny interest and nothing to do with my decision making. Turns out you can think stupid ideas are stupid because they are stupid.

There is no one organisation in the country I've been able to locate that supports your idea of Rent Controls. In fact there isn't a person I know, not even the people I view as semi communistic who want that disaster of a policy brought in.

The welfare cap might help short term in theory., In practice LAs have to house the poorest homeless somewhere, that is where the cheap B&Bs come in (at more expense). If course if wages matched inflated rents that would help I guess, in the short term, but in the long term ,m the rent is 2 damn high and must be curbed. I have no issue with landlords and multinationals making large profits as long as they do so from their own risk and capital (we call this capitalism), rather than state handouts.

But you want to do the most disastrous thing possible to the housing supply. Because you hate poor people?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/358315/LA_Tables-201314.xlsx

This Field of Dreams approach of yours hasn't worked for 30 years. I am sure if councils are allowed to build again on their own term,s and encouraged not to sell their stock to speculators, then we might get back to MacMillian era levels of building.

My Field of Dreams approach has been sabotaged by every government going by basically stopping house building and favouring the big companies to boot.

Bottom line is both approaches demand more houses both public and private - but you want to murder the private housing market for some reason.

[AqD]

Simply put, pay people to have less children and less cause for welfare. Tax the family of 2 less than the family of three, and ostracize those who do not wish to follow the rules and abide by the social contract of resource distribution and the common welfare. I have no sympathy for those who do not attempt to pull themselves by their boostraps after a temporary funk. If they are capable of working, then they must work. If they create more children than they can handle, the state must penalize them. Infrastructure, farming, and trades will always require workers.

But you'd end up penalizing children and by doing so create more problems in future.

There is no one organisation in the country I've been able to locate that supports your idea of Rent Controls. In fact there isn't a person I know, not even the people I view as semi communistic who want that disaster of a policy brought in.

Why not reclaim all land back and rent it to citizens while restricting the maximum amount each of citizens can hold, depending on the location (and rent would also be decided by price index)? That'd solve all housing problem for sure, unless you don't have enough in total for everyone.

Housing would then lose all investment value, but people are free to decorate the inside or pay much more to live in larger places - but lose them once they die without enough number of heirs.

[Dromikaites]

The fundamental issue of rent levels, rent control, rent subsidy, etc is market mechanisms can't work very well in this case.

To begin with, dwellings aren't portable. As such, the cheap ones already built in a "ghost town" in North of England cannot be brought to London to force the prices down.

Building new houses in places where the demand is high isn't much of a solution either. Assuming there is plenty of empty land where to build + roads and utilities to connect the new buildings to, it still takes at least 1 year to build something. In the mean time the rents will still need to be paid at the high level.

Those characteristics of the market ensure the supply and demand would never balance fast nor cheaply.

To understand what I mean by supply meeting demand in a cost effective/cheap way think of an investor building for Detroit right before the collapse.

If that investor didn't hedge against a sudden and unforeseen drop in demand, he would be in serious trouble.

So the only way to balance the rent with the income via market mechanisms would be to "force" the companies to pay higher wages by cutting the government subsidies.

The problem is the companies might be forced to cut jobs as a result.

Forcing the landlords to go with smaller rents cannot work on long term because what happens is the buildings end up neglected and the neighborhood turns into a favela.

This can happen in two ways:

1) inflation drives the costs of maintainance up till it becomes unprofitable to take care of the building;

2) or, if the rent is indexed with the inflation, other investment opportunities would offer more attractive yields. So instead of reinvesting in keeping the buildings operational, it would be more appealing to place the money in something else.

Both scenarios had happened in real life around the world and in different periods of human history.

The bottom line is somebody needs to put in place a mechanism which covers the whole national economy, through which the inflexibility of the housing market is addressed at national level.

And the solution found in the case we're discussing now is to collect money from all the companies throught taxes and use them to subsidize the rents of the employees of those companies.

[Denny Crane!]

You obviously ain't in construction I am. On what planet does it take 1 year to build something?

[sumskilz]

You obviously ain't in construction I am. On what planet does it take 1 year to build something?

I don't know, in Seattle it seems to take about a year for government employees just to add turn lanes to an intersection, so I guess it depends on who's doing the work.

[Denny Crane!]

I don't know, in Seattle it seems to take about a year for government employees just to add turn lanes to an intersection, so I guess it depends on who's doing the work.

Can get a private estate of 3 bed semis knocked up in 11 weeks.

[conon394]

Personal responsibility would make a huge difference in the US budget. I don't see the social harmony developing from supplying a single ghetto mother with checks every month for the rest of her life, unless she was disabled. I could see the benefit of welfare being given to a single mother if her husband/bf left, until she found a job to support her kids. But there is no excuse for anyone to take advantage of a social safety net that should be given to others who desperately need it and earned it. Welfare fraud should be cracked down on, regardless of whether or not it makes a dent in the budget.

So easy to type yet so divorced from reality. Um so let's take your story - how does this single parent find a job, afford daycare (you do realize how expensive it is for decent care) and or after school care. What if that had been the stay at home parent and now their job skills are stale. etc. Chilon is correct you are playing a silly stereotypes but its not even a good one.

Second to deal fraud be individual or corporate etc (or abuse in prisons or problems with probation or foster care) requires staff and staff that are earning a decent wage something does impact the budget.

----------------

@Simon

And I will one day. The government is a fat expensive monster that needs to go on a diet.

Which I you never the chance to since based on your earlier post you don't a good handel on what governments do and fund based on what you think is expendable same goes with your devolve it the states argument.

[Dromikaites]

You obviously ain't in construction I am. On what planet does it take 1 year to build something?

You can build 10 floors blocks of flats faster?! Congratulations! We couldn't do it even during communist times, when things were built much faster than today.

Building a one-family house takes of course much less than that, but that comes with all sorts of disadvantages (there might be not enough free land to build, the utilities and road networks need to be extended, reduction of the green areas, etc).

Beside, in order to put pressure on rents we would need to build many single-family houses. It might take the same time to build 100 two bedroom houses and a block of flats with 100 two bedroom flats, if you use bricks and concrete for the houses.

If you use wood, like they seem to prefer in the US, it takes less time. I am not sure how popular are such wooden houses in the UK, but they didn't seem to be very popular in most of the continental Europe (except for vacation houses).

The issue therefore remains unchanged at country or city level: building lots of new dwellings in one go, in order to force rents down, is not possible overnight. Even assuming there is land where to build them and there are roads and utility networks already in place to service the dwellings once they are up, it is still difficult to flexibly answer the demand.

The other part of the issue is the one of risks, which translate into costs. I have mentioned it already in my example about Detroit.

Say we can build fast. Whoever is financing those new buildings cannot collect the money fast from the buyers, because they don't usually own a pile of cash with which to pay the price in one go.

As a result, the banks or whoever is financing, is betting the city where those new houses will be built won't "go Detroit" before they collect all the money.

But hey, why think Detroit when Ireland is closer?!

Buildings being "big ticket items" are very risky even if they would be able to be built overnight and there would be plenty of free land and adequate infrastructure in place.

That high risk would be factored in into the price. So instead of tenants paying high rents we would have owners paying high mortgage rates. Somebody would have to give those people enough money to be able to afford those rates.

If it is the State, then we replace the landlords-who-leech-the-State with the developers-who-leech-the-State.

If it is the private companies who must pay higher salaries, we risk them to reduce their headcount.

The essence of the issue is the impossibility to have a market where supply and demand are balanced easily and at a low cost (or low risk).

Later edit:
Such issues exist in urban areas since ancient times. Crassus became the richest man in the Roman Republic by being the biggest landlord.

The modern economy requires lots of people living (and working) in close proximity with each other but depending on what happens on the other side of the world (think Detroit again - foreign competitors from literally overseas had a major contribution to what happened to that city).

In pre-industrial times, the majority of the households lived in the countryside and were largely self-sufficient (and people died young because one can grow one's food and weave one's clothes but making one's antibiotics is a different issue).

So the problem of the low flexibility of the housing market existed only in the cities, but there only a tiny fraction of the population of a State lived.

Industrialization brought most of the population to the cities and then the global market simply increased the risk the urban population's welfare would depend on things beyond the borders.

But even in the absence of the global markets, the national markets would have the same effect on stability. A shoe factory in Glasgow would compete with a shoe factory in Liverpool, but the landlords of Glasgow won't compete with those in Liverpool.

In the past such asymmetries were solved by sending the fleet of Venice to sink the fleet of Genova and the other way round. Or by internal taxes and guild regulations.

Nowadays the fact there is a global market for goods and tens of thousands of local markets for houses means the solution has to be non-market.

Which means State intervention.

But again, sending the Genoese fleet against Venice was also a State affair.

[Denny Crane!]

You can build 10 floors blocks of flats faster?! Congratulations! We couldn't do it even during communist times, when things were built much faster than today.

We're discussing the UK. Outside of London those things are rarely built, we do build estates, we have space for them. Why on earth would I be discussing a block of flats? What is common is the 3 story kind and they are very quick to build as well.

Building a one-family house takes of course much less than that, but that comes with all sorts of disadvantages (there might be not enough free land to build, the utilities and road networks need to be extended, reduction of the green areas, etc).

This is what we do and we have built on less than 7% of the land in the UK, we need the green belt extended. And I wasn't discussing building A one family house, I was discussing building an estate of one family houses.

Beside, in order to put pressure on rents we would need to build many single-family houses. It might take the same time to build 100 two bedroom houses and a block of flats with 100 two bedroom flats, if you use bricks and concrete for the houses.

The bigger the build the more efficient we get. Because people go in, in rolling teams. If I can be part of a project that knocks up a 40 house project in 12 weeks then the time decreases per house the bigger you get.

If you use wood, like they seem to prefer in the US, it takes less time. I am not sure how popular are such wooden houses in the UK, but they didn't seem to be very popular in most of the continental Europe (except for vacation houses).

The issue therefore remains unchanged at country or city level: building lots of new dwellings in one go, in order to force rents down, is not possible overnight. Even assuming there is land where to build them and there are roads and utility networks already in place to service the dwellings once they are up, it is still difficult to flexibly answer the demand.

Any kind of infrastructure investment doesn't happen overnight. But with industry wide action it also doesn't take years or decades. In the 1960's when we were a lot less efficient the UK was building up to 150 000 homes a year. We could match it and more today but we don't.

And we don't use wood at all, none of my figures are based on wood.

The other part of the issue is the one of risks, which translate into costs. I have mentioned it already in my example about Detroit.

Say we can build fast. Whoever is financing those new buildings cannot collect the money fast from the buyers, because they don't usually own a pile of cash with which to pay the price in one go.

As a result, the banks or whoever is financing, is betting the city where those new houses will be built won't "go Detroit" before they collect all the money.

But hey, why think Detroit when Ireland is closer?!

Buildings being "big ticket items" are very risky even if they would be able to be built overnight and there would be plenty of free land and adequate infrastructure in place.

That high risk would be factored in into the price. So instead of tenants paying high rents we would have owners paying high mortgage rates. Somebody would have to give those people enough money to be able to afford those rates.

Not if it was social housing with financing backed by central government, if it was down to private builds then we also have them to assess the risk and it would lower overall risk in the UK by lowering the price of housing.

If it is the State, then we replace the landlords-who-leech-the-State with the developers-who-leech-the-State.

If it is the private companies who must pay higher salaries, we risk them to reduce their headcount.

The essence of the issue is the impossibility to have a market where supply and demand are balanced easily and at a low cost (or low risk).

Later edit:
Such issues exist in urban areas since ancient times. Crassus became the richest man in the Roman Republic by being the biggest landlord.

The modern economy requires lots of people living (and working) in close proximity with each other but depending on what happens on the other side of the world (think Detroit again - foreign competitors from literally overseas had a major contribution to what happened to that city).

In pre-industrial times, the majority of the households lived in the countryside and were largely self-sufficient (and people died young because one can grow one's food and weave one's clothes but making one's antibiotics is a different issue).

So the problem of the low flexibility of the housing market existed only in the cities, but there only a tiny fraction of the population of a State lived.

Industrialization brought most of the population to the cities and then the global market simply increased the risk the urban population's welfare would depend on things beyond the borders.

But even in the absence of the global markets, the national markets would have the same effect on stability. A shoe factory in Glasgow would compete with a shoe factory in Liverpool, but the landlords of Glasgow won't compete with those in Liverpool.

In the past such asymmetries were solved by sending the fleet of Venice to sink the fleet of Genova and the other way round. Or by internal taxes and guild regulations.

Nowadays the fact there is a global market for goods and tens of thousands of local markets for houses means the solution has to be non-market.

Which means State intervention.

But again, sending the Genoese fleet against Venice was also a State affair.

All of this ignores the fact that the UK has desperately needed more housing and we are a million short minimum. What we are talking about is housebuilding of say 150k a year to 200k a year which at best would meet demand not slow it.

Stick to topics you know Drom. It is obvious you are woefully unequipped for this one.

[Dromikaites]

All of this ignores the fact that the UK has desperately needed more housing and we are a million short minimum. What we are talking about is housebuilding of say 150k a year to 200k a year which at best would meet demand not slow it.

Stick to topics you know Drom. It is obvious you are woefully unequipped for this one.

Maybe my English is not good enough to convey the ideas, but you have helped me by saying the UK is about 1 million houses short and you would need to build 150k or 200k a year minimum in order to bring the rents down.

Those figures you have provided illustrate the magnitude of the investment needed (including the magnitude of risk) and the scale of systemic changes required. Here is one systemic aspect: the "Polish plumbers" issue seemed to indicate there weren't enough qualified plumbers to serve the existing houses. Can you be sure there are enough construction crews (including the guys doing the finishing work) available to build 150k individual homes per year?

What I was saying is the free market mechanisms cannot by themselves handle such cases. State intervention is needed. Which in turn means somebody would "leech" the taxpayers' money.

Mongrel's opinion seems to be that "leeching" can be avoided. I say it cannot, not because some people are "evil" (landlords, developers, corporations, etc) but because the physical constrains are as such that the State must be involved.

[Denny Crane!]

Maybe my English is not good enough to convey the ideas, but you have helped me by saying the UK is about 1 million houses short and you would need to build 150k or 200k a year minimum in order to bring the rents down.

Well sorry if I misread.

Yeah the same amount we managed to build 60 years ago easily enough. And that is what we are short, its 2 million needed by 2022.

Those figures you have provided illustrate the magnitude of the investment needed (including the magnitude of risk) and the scale of systemic changes required. Here is one systemic aspect: the "Polish plumbers" issue seemed to indicate there weren't enough qualified plumbers to serve the existing houses. Can you be sure there are enough construction crews (including the guys doing the finishing work) available to build 150k individual homes per year?

That was a long long time ago. We are still short in some areas as is any nation. I know in my trade there isn't a shortage.

What I was saying is the free market mechanisms cannot by themselves handle such cases. State intervention is needed. Which in turn means somebody would "leech" the taxpayers' money.

Nowhere in this thread have I said that we shouldn't also have social houses built. I think if the regulatory burden had been eased over the last 40 years private could have kept up, especially if we had not crippled the self build market. The easy comparison here is Germany vs the UK.

Mongrel's opinion seems to be that "leeching" can be avoided. I say it cannot, not because some people are "evil" (landlords, developers, corporations, etc) but because the physical constrains are as such that the State must be involved.

Mongrels opinion seems to be that landlords should be lined up against a wall and shot and then all the problems will disappear. I dunno where the logic is in that.

[mongrel]

Mongrels opinion seems to be that landlords should be lined up against a wall and shot and then all the problems will disappear. I dunno where the logic is in that.

That would require public expenditure, and I beleive enough public money is already spent on living landlords, let alone the dead . And no, rent is only part of the problem. Taxpayer-subsidised wages is the other.

There is no one organisation in the country I've been able to locate that supports your idea of Rent Controls. In fact there isn't a person I know, not even the people I view as semi communistic who want that disaster of a policy brought in.

We had this system pre-1988. it worked, sort of, in terms of welfare spending. We didn't spend billions of pounds on housing benefit. Looks at the fiugures I have provided. How can you not say that expenditure on Housing Benefit is now at worrying levels?

But you want to murder the private housing market for some reason.

Why should the rental market require a taxpayer subsidy of £24 billion? That does not of, course include tax relief and other perks. It needs to said