'If they can't secure another tennancy then they won't have to move.
So what if owners have, or had, an asset? What difference does that make to the way you feel if you don't want to move? Money, if you still have it, isn't going to make any difference to things like moving away from an area you know well and such like.
Owners can work in care homes and work in not very well paid jobs too you know.'
No, they'll just be poorer.
So what if owners have an asset? Well, they have something they can rent out, for one. They may have capital to release to afford a private rent, they have something to sell if they can. Those are some pretty major differences from a tenant in a HA/council property.
My objection to this was never about someone's need to stay in a particular area, so I don't really know why I'm responding to that element of your posts.
Mine is that it's all ill-thought-out plan, and exempts the largest percentage of over-occupiers, who also don't have anywhere else to go in many places.