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?

It is great to at least see this being discussed here. Pity people can't just take it as a discussion (i.e. exchange of points of view - or even just ideas) - instead of resorting to slagging systems off - assuming that there are only two.

There are plenty of othe mixed models out there - Sweden and the Netherlands are quoted in the thread - Germany has quite a different model too - none of which appear to be Communist or Totalitarian last time I checked.

It does seem that we in Britain are VERY insular on so many things and are not prepared to consider that some other countries perhaps have a bit better way of doing things.

Certainly the system WE have appears very corrupt (ther very critisism of the Communist approach (tax evasion, expenses fiddling) and immoral (rent exploitation, redicuous housing costs, tax avoidance).

We are very priviledged to (almost) own our own house - after 20+ years each paying mortgages - but it doesn't meant we look down on those who have not had our luck/opportunities and can't see that there are many in far worse circumstansces who could benefit from a different system.......

Maybe a bit of compassion for people in other circumstances may be a good thing - although I think this idea was outlawed in 1979 by somone who's name I forget.

I think Amber has a good point, it's one thing asking people to accept there should be a safety net for people who can't provide for themselves, thats significantly different than saying because some people can't provide for themselves, you should take away the chances and options from everyone in order to make those who can't provide for themselves equal with everyone else.

There is scope for some changes in the current system, but thats very different to removing all other options. It's like saying the solution to private schools out performing state ones isn't to improve /increase the access to good state education, but to close all state schools and ban home schooling. The solution to some schools being over subscribed and others under subscribed is to remove choice from parents and make them only be allowed to apply for the closest school. That's not fixing the problem, that's just removing the choices for those who can afford/want something better.

It's not just to do with motivation though amber. There are people who aren't adequately housed through no fault of their own, stuck in a catch 22 of renting where the rent is too high to be able to afford to move (deposit fees etc) but the housing isnt up to scratch so isn't ok to stay.
We actually own our own home so I'm not one of those unmotivated people you assumed I was. If though there was a way (not necessarily via the government owning) everyone would be adequately housed and we would have security in that system too then I would give up my house. Yes it'd be a wrench but worth it I feel.

Dontmind - I see what your saying and agree that narrowing options isn't necessarily the right way to go (I don't know what is I'm just thinking out loud). However I don't agree that wealth should equal more opportunities. Why should money have bearing on education or housing accessed? Surely if you want to reward people it should be based on time and effort, achievements not on money?

Does a footballer deserve better quality of life than a nurse?
I just don't think money necessarily = deserving

Jazz - but those people are the minority. Your plans involve cutting the standard of living for a large percentage of the population plus taking away the possiblity of improvement for an even larger group just to slightly improve things for a small number.

Increasing social housing makes sense, as does generally allowing more house building to better match supply and demand (because while some people get stuck in inadequate housing, it was often not acceptable to start with, just they didn't have many options when they first moved).

Very very few people in bad situations are there purely by accident without having made any bad decisions along the way, you would still get people making bad decisions with larger number of coucil properties and better tenant rights.

However its just a little tinkering at the edges, not total overhaul that's needed.

No way would i give up my house for the greater good.

I have my house because i made different choices to others i grew up with. Where they went out and spent money having fun i worked 2 jobs and saved. I didn't choose to have children young like some of my friends as i wanted to buy a house first and it wasn't easy as when i first bought we had interest rates of 15% and then the first property crash so no i didn't make a load of money of my first studio flat when i traded up to a 1 bed flat. I lost money but as i didn't have a family i could carry on working 2 jobs.
I started small with a studio, then a one bed flat then a house. When i was ready to start a family i sold up and bought again in a cheaper area miles away from friends and family.
No one gave me a pot of money to help and when i met my husband he was still living with his parents and had debts. Nor will he or i ever be high earners.
I would defend what we have built up between up to my last breath as my family comes before any nameless faceless mass.

Well now Jazz, you are talking about scrapping capitalism all together, not just tinkering with it, what would you replace it with?

A footballer earns more than a nurse because a) his labour is worth more (a top player makes his club a lot of money, why shouldn't the person who created the wealth get some of it as well as the shareholders?) and b) a top player has very rare skills, very few people have the talent and ability to make it to the top in football (remember the bulk of professional footballers will not earn dramatically more than a nurse) and c) it is a very insecure career. Your playing days are at best over by 40, most far younger, one injury which would in any other career not be a signifiant problem,will end your career.

The bulk of people don't want a different system. While most would like safety nets for those who the system fails, they don't want it scrapping all together.

BTW - Taking away the option of getting something better if you've got more money doesn't improve it for everyone else. Usually taking away competition and taking away a clear comparable alternative to judge against makes things worse IME.

Well true I guess as capitalism is shite!
I mean it works for us and lots of people but it doesn't work for everyone. It's a society based on greed (of which I am also guilty of at times).
I cannot be the only person that would sacrifice some so that all could gain?
There's more to life than stuff.
Footballer v nurse was perhaps a bad example as they both need skill however there are plenty of people who earn lots and do not a lot (like people who live off of inherited bank accounts interest) v a hard working teacher or builder etc.
The hard workers aren't always rewarded in this system and that is unfair. But that's kind of an aside to the housing issue. more housing needs to be supplied and at a fairer price - how would you go about achieving that?

Are you willing to start a civil war to implement this system. Because Amber (and I) are not alone in our selfishness.

No morloth.

There will be war eventually anyway.

It will be when the people in the middle have had enough.

The vaaaaast majority of people are in the middle. People at either end are not numerous enough to really be the cause of massive change.

Right now, most people have 'enough'. They have adequate housing and food etc.

When that changes you have a revolution. So when enough Jill & Joe Bloggs can't afford to put a roof over their heads and feed their two kids, that will be the time for this sort of thing to be implemented.

History shows it has to get a whole lot worse than it is before it gets better.

I hope not war, change yes but not war.
I'm in the middle and I want change.

JazzAnnNonMouse What you call "greed", other people call hope. Hope of something better is what keeps many people working and striving to provide for their families, put something away for their old age, or just save up for that new car or holiday. Different people have different priorities too. As Cantspel points out very eloquently, to some people, it is WORTH giving up the chance to go out, to have an easy time as a young person in order to have security for their old age. For others, they prefer to look back on a fun youth nostalgically, and let the cards fall where they may for their old age.

You know, whole countries - the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, were populated based on the ethos that if you worked hard, you could build a better life for your family. Of course it didn't work out perfectly (or even well) for everyone, but it worked out well enough for millions of people to put themselves through hell getting there and working hard for years to make a better life. You can't blame "society". Society is people. Individual people with different aspirations and needs. A one-size-fits-all panacea imposed on society from above will not work and cannot work.

Just ask one of my ex-neighbours, an old Palestinian guy, what happens in a country when the government comes with guns and tanks to throw your family out and bulldoze your home because someone else "deserves" it more.

Yes, you want change but you are doing OK aren't you?

When you can no longer afford the necessities you will more than 'want' change, you will demand it with violence if necessary.

That is the way it goes.

The people on the top don't need to change anything and the people on the bottom have no power to change anything.

While the majority of people are OK, then nothing much will happen.

What are you actually willing to do to force a change?

I am always a little confused by the notion that 'humanity' is linked to selflessness or an ability to care about the masses more than ourselves as individuals or as small communities.

Historically or geographically speaking I can't really think of any examples of a decent sized population that operated/operates with 'for the good of the many' in mind. Of course there are individuals or movements that do, but people? People are like any other animal when it comes down to our base nature. We want to 'survive' ourselves, our family, our 'village'... whatever. If that means taking resources from someone else and leaving them worse of, so be it.

It's not particularly palatable but realistically survival of the fittest is at the core of human nature (as with all animals) I think blaming the more selfish side of humans on 'society' is a smoke and mirrors. We are society, if we were naturally inclined to be selfless as a species, we wouldn't need to be having these discussions.

And I am selfish and I wouldn't give up my owned house for equal rent for everyone, and I absolutely aspire to a bigger better house - it's the main reason I bother working!

I also aspire to a bigger better house. But doesn't that seem wrong when you look at 'the faceless masses'? I just can't help thinking those faceless people aren't any less 'people' than me.
I guess part of it is guilt that yes I am doing ok. I do wonder how long that ok will last though.

Does a footballer deserve better quality of life than a nurse?

In my opinion, not in the lease, but I don't begrudge the footballer his extortionate salary. Because I don't contribute anything to the football industry. If the Chelsea owner wants to waste his money paying these fat salaries to his players, that's his business.

Apart from that, I feel like applauding all of flatpackhamster's posts in this thread.

So what are you actually going to do?

It is easy to talk, if you really actually cared you would be doing something.

As I said, nothing will actually happen until enough people are personally affected.

It is human nature, you are as selfish as the rest of us, if you weren't you would be actively sharing your personal wealth and living on the poverty line in order to support as many people as you could.

I am not saying you are doing anything wrong by the way, but it is a bit rich to want everyone else to hand over their stuff whilst you are continuing to benefit just as they are. Why don't you get started on a fairer distribution of wealth? Or does seeing your children fed and clothed and housed seem more important? Just like it does to everyone else on the planet.

I expect you probably meant it as an offhand description, but "faceless masses" does key into my impression that you are seeing people as an amorphous grey lump who must have things handed down from on high for their Own Good. It's the one-size-fits-all thing again. All these people are individuals and different. They want many different things, specific to their own likes and circumstances.

I think Tony and Dave have done enough damage to our Magna Carta rights recently without furthering it by taking away property rights from people.

Something else that occurs to me is that it is kind of annoying when you talk about people who don't want to lose their homes for the Greater Good as "selfish". If they were resisting having their homes taken away because the government wanted to build an airport or a motorway, or they were simply protesting the effect of another runway at Heathrow, say, on their quality of life, would you still call them selfish? The facilities would benefit and be used by far more people than the people who were protesting about them.

I see faceless mass as someone else had by in a negative way so I was just using the same term but my own take ie that the mass are also people and deserve just as much as you.

I guess I decline myself as in the middle as we own our house therefore have security but in terms of monitory worth dh is currently a student engineer so we are actually classes as on the poverty line.
We do what we can to help others, unfortunately it's more to do with recycling and passing on dds clothes than cash st the moment but when dh qualifies and gets a better wage we will be able to up our contribution.

I've already said that I don't know the answers and that I'm thinking out loud, that's why I didn't say 'the country should do this' but 'I wonder what would happen if'.
This was never about forcing people out of their homes, bulldozing houses or starting a totalitarian regime!
I am surprised though that even if you were guaranteed the same security you have with ownership you wouldn't give up owning so that everyone else could be housed.
It's true though that everyone is an individual - perhaps more community projects would be good - there was a special grand designs where a group of people were funded to build houses - those houses were then theirs until they died I believe - They paid rent but much reduced and the ha have (eventually) more housing in the area. This seemed like a good idea if people wanted to do it. It would be good if more opportunities like this around as options IMO. What do you think of these schemes?

*said

People can make any private arrangements they want.

The problem is that these sorts of ideas grow into 'forcing people out of their homes, bulldozing houses or starting a totalitarian regime!'

The thing about freedom is that some times it means freedom to starve and die.

It wouldn't be guaranteed security though, it would be state controlled, the state is people and people take kick backs and people put themselves first - it wouldn't work any better than the current model.

The way the Swedish housing market works is that a great deal of property is owned by housing associations, some council managed, some cooperative and some private. Some flats are rent only, some are mixed rent and buy (so you buy a share in the flat, but then pay an annual rent). Rents are fixed in advance so you can't suddenly be thrown out to make room for a higher paying tenant. Noone has bulldozed anyone out with guns and it's not going to happen either. It is not a communist scheme and it is not based on coercion.

What it does rely on, though, is a sufficiently high demand. Because the blocks of flats tend to be well built and fairly comfortable and there is little status attached to the concept of being a home owner, there are enough customers to make it worth running these housing associations.

When I was a student in Sweden, the head of my department and all the professors lived in flats: one lecturer owned a house but that was not because his status or pay were higher but because he liked DIY.

It is difficult to see how such a change of attitude could come about in this country.

That's true morloth but it might work for more people than the current?

What would you suggest instead?