To wonder what the country would be like of we all live in ha/council houses

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

And no one owned property? If everyone lived in a space that was good for them and their family and we all paid the same based on space ie 1 bedroom = PCM 2 bedroom = a bit more PCM.
This would mean that no one would get the rough end of the deal as mps would also be in the same situation.
Fair rent for everyone, money constantly going to the government.
I wonder if it'd encourage people to have more children or prohibit them from wanting more I they had to move to allow for another bedroom but then had to pay more?
Probably flawed massively somehow but I don't see why it couldn't work?

In fairness though East Germany and the soviet union were never communist. That was just the bogey man that the monied elite in the west concocted. Yes they were government demand driven and state capitalist but communist, no.

Little spoken about fact.....Regan came to power backed by the neo-libs, on a mandate to bring down government spending. What actually happened is government spending rose, as did government debt. What was it spent on? crippling the former soviet bogey man whilst money was drained from domestic and welfare, wages and health.

property ownership requires poorer people

That's a fair point, but but doesn't every section of this society require almost everyone else?

The rich need the poor to buy what they sell, or to serve their coffee, or to do the many small unskilled jobs that without which they wouldn't be able to do their job. Likewise, the poor need the rich to pay their large taxes to enable our civilised society with things like healthcare and policing, or to provide their jobs and buy their labour.

A collective in the work place is where the workers own the means of production. It means that every worker shares in the wealth created and also has a say in how the company is run. It means that businesses are run for the benefit of those that supply the labour and not for the profit of a few people that usually employ the labour power. There are several now dotted about in the states, it's beginning to take off.

The same with housing, collectives can pool their resources, some buy land and start building, maybe eco houses or building houses around another project such as sustainability and food. They build, work and live together. It might mean tapping into tourism, education or other skills within the group to make it a cheaper and more democratic solution to private housing. Private housing, where nothing is socialised and people have no connections or interest in their nearest neighbours.

There's an idea Mini! You mean a bit like John Lewis but with houses?

I like that idea mini

yep if property was owned collectively it would foster co-operation and democracy. That's the point at which you know whether we have lost our humanity or whether we can find it again. Same with the workplace.

It sounds great, maybe, if you do not mind having no freedom at all to do what you want. A system with far reaching government control would require lts of government agents to check nobody is secretly bettering themselves, living more comfortably than others etc. It would be power to the bureaucrats, how utterly depressing.

Only people who have been free all their life are careless about what freedom really means.

i dont want to live in a house that the government owns,i want to live in a house i own myself that has as many bedrooms as i see fit?

Fair enough amber. If you changing your mind on that would mean that everyone was housed fairly and no one was in an inadequate living environment would you change your mind?

CloudsAndTrees only under capitalism do we need the rich to buy our labour and the products of our labour. And even then not all of us are needed. Just this week another 16,000 plus have been added to the dole que.

Under feudalism it was worse but of course the loss of freedom was the price for no unemployment.

I really rather hope that something better can come out of this worsening crisis, something more human. We have been travelling in the right direction. What I described above, collectivised work places and housing and increased democracy is actually communism Big states, totalitarian regimes and huge bureaucracy has no place in it.

A communist is Someone who has fuck all and wants to share it with you.

Chandon 'Only people who have been free all their life are careless about what freedom really means.' Spot on.

No system will every result in 100% fairness, because life isn't fair.

sydlexic.

Hmm, depending on the state for my standard of living accomodation, not sure about that.

Years ago, talking to an elderly lady who had been given a council house after the war, she said that once every month or so a rep from the council would inspect the houses inside and out. They were permitted to paint inside but they were given a choice of three colours. The council women also came in and moved all the furniture away from the walls.

"I'd love to see this country lose its obsession with mortgages. The second you leave school, the race is on to get more and more into debt. It's insane."

Absolutely!! I don't think we should abolish ownership, but give people reasonably priced alternatives, particularly in expensive areas and stop greedy landlords buying up property to charge extortionate rents, making money from those who can't afford to buy themselves.
Rents should be capped at an affordable limit whether it is social housing or private and there is no way that private renting should cost more than a mortgage.

My experience of community projects has been that the hard-working do most of the graft and the idle take, usually moaning all the time.

Having seen a few programmes about people who have chosen to try and build houses as a community, the problems seem to be related to:

1. sharing equally - and who gets to decide what is fair.
2. people not pulling their weight.
3. decision making slowing to a grinding halt as everyone needs to be involved in the process.
4. it always excludes the elderly and disabled because they are least able to contribute in ways that look fair to other members of the community, this also applies to people who become ill or who have small children (esp. single parents).

The only things that gets people through is that there is a clear timescale, after which it will be over, and the fact that they are all passionately committed to making the process work.

Trying to change the way an entire nation approaches housing would have no end point to aim for, probably not in any sort of reasonable timescale. Dear god, it's been hard enough and taken many, many years of gentle persuasion to shift from analogue to digital TV. When you add in the fact that many people would be actively opposing the change (to the point of civil unrest in all probability), I really can't see this happening.

I, for one, would be barricading my door and waiting for the police to come and physically evict me for the greater good. Which would make great headlines news...or do you think that reporting on the evictions should be state-controlled to prevent panic?

Biggest flaw in the OP (which has been admitted) is that pricing shouldn't be on space.

So I'll assume pricing will be a market price, i.e. when a property is vacated, whoever is willing to pay the most rent gets it next. If that's the case then all the "this is communism" objections fall away and essentially we are left with two things.

1. No private ownership. This doesn't really matter, may actually be a good thing. Shouldn't make much difference to your cost of housing, on average over the long term, and will prevent some of the problems that house price volatility causes. I own a paid-for home in London and do not like having such a large proportion of my financial eggs in that one basket. If I could sell my property with the right to rent it back for the rest of my life, I would be tempted.

1. Compulsion to move (or get someone to move in) if you are under-occupying. A bit draconian, but not the end of the world. Doubt it would make a long-term difference to housing shortage.

the problem with alot of these assumptions are based on the assumption that the majority of people would be better off under this system than otherwise, that everyone who would be slightly better off would be happy to sacrifice the possiblity of being even better off in the future under the old system, that governments are the best way to allocate any resource.

I can't imagine a housing system run by the state would be anywhere near as good for end users as one run by individual making choices (doing the bulk of the work themselves), landlords, letting agents and banks for the majority of people, the only possible improvement would be lower monthly housing costs for some people, and limited increased security (although arguably, you are less secure if you only have one source of housing). Think about it, only one landlord for everyone - if you have a problem with it, where else will you go? No longer will the individual have any control over their home envirornment.

When we were renting, if my boiler broke, I could contact my landlord directly to get him to fix it or the letting agency. I didn't have to deal with any beaurocracy to get it fixed. If they didnt deal with it in a timeframe I wanted, or pissed me off too much, I had the option of moving to a different landlord/agency with minimum fuss. Before moving in, time frames for repairs could be discussed, and there was variation with different letting agents and different rent levels. If everyone has the same landlord, you have to put up and shut up with problems.

We own now, if the boiler breaks, we arrange to fix it ourselves, we have control over it, we can book when we want someone to come round, we get to pick which repair company we use. Yes we have to pay for it, but the upside that I could easily have 40 years of living rent and mortgage free once the mortgage is paid off makes that worth it compared to renting a similar sized property.

I also have a problem with any society that suggests what I have should be based purely on someone else's decision about my level of 'need' not on my level of 'want' or my ability to pay. Perhaps it's because since leaving uni, I've always lived in places that under council rules would be 'under occupied' - while I could always have coped with smaller properties, when it's been entirely my choice, I've chosen to have less disposable income and more space in more expensive areas. I've worked with woman who've made different choices, lived in much smaller places in rougher areas, then had Jimmy Choo shoes on their feet and prada handbags on their arm with the difference.

oh and in my experience, any sort of 'shared living and ownership' system based on just need that's worked, has only worked on a small scale. Perhaps that's because the people who are benefitting from the sacrifice of those who are most able (and under a 'winners/losers' system would be winners and have more) can see the people who are benefitting. It's much easier to give to someone in need you know than to facelessly pay tax.

I might take a hit in my lifestyle for a family member or a friend, but some faceless unknown family living in the other end of the country? Nope. Unfortunately, most people feel the same way.

Truly, its why those that get winter payments that dont need them dont return them to "the state", whereas if they could choose where they went they might, the idea of the undeserving and deserving poor and charity still seems pervasive.

Jazz no i wouldnt change my mind.

Fair enough amber. Quite selfish though.

its selfish to expect the entire country to stop aspiring to anything because you havnt gt the brains or motivation to look after yourself or your family.

I dnt want to be looked after by the government,i dont want them to own my house,to educate my kids or tell me what to eat or if i should be vaccinated,i make my own mind up.

It seems like most people on here just want their arse wiped for them.