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?

I really like how the Swedish system sounds - why do think it wouldn't work here?

Tallalime Mon 21-Jan-13 01:09:38
"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."

Don't you think there is plenty of evidence that human beings are capable of perceiving our village as at least the size of our own country? Think of the sacrifices people went through during the last war. If people could be convinced that social and environmental stability are crucial to the survival of their country, then might not that have a similar effect? Isn't that how the democratic welfare societies have actually been run over the last 60 odd years?

Does everyone deserve the same though? Because 'everyone' includes rapists, child abusers, violent thieves, as well as people who just don't give a shit about anyone else and wouldn't be prepared to do a days work if they could have the same standard of living thanks to other people's work.

I don't believe that everyone does deserve the same. They deserve 'enough', but not the same.

I wouldn't give up ownership so that everyone could be housed, and that's not because I'm selfish, it's because I already contribute time and money for the greater good in the form of voluntary work, taxes and financial charitable donations. I might have the same security if housing was distributed in the way you are suggesting, but what about everything else you would be taking away? Like a sense of achievement, pride, the freedom to have a property that best suits me, my work, and my family? Don't get me wrong, my owned house is tiny and I think my family would be much better off with a bigger one, but actually, I don't want a bigger one that isn't our own. If the government was going to give me a home, then I'd be entirely dependant on them. I would have nothing to sell if DHs work took us to another country. That would leave us less secure than we already are.

I agree that more community projects would be good, for more reasons than just nice housing for everyone. But in a free country I expect the right to be able to choose the cause I help for myself. It works better that way because if people are working towards something that actually care about, their work is likely to be more efficient and more productive.

You make a good point cloud.
Community projects could also allow people to learn new skills on the job - might make them employable/want to be employed.
I really liked the grand designs special - I thought it really worked but I havnt seen anything like that happening anywhere?

I don't suggest anything, the current arrangement suits me fine.

'let them eat cake'

'let them eat cake' - no more "OK, well if you can't afford bread yourself then via our taxes we'll provide basic bread for you, but that doesn't mean we should ban all cake production for other people who can afford it"

Once again, what are you personally doing going to do? Not the government, not everyone else you?

If the answer is talk then you are munching on the cake with the rest of us.

Do something yourself instead of expecting the government to sort everything out.

You know that great big lump of poor people you are worried about? I would place a large bet that many of them would fight this sort of thing just as hard. Because it is part of human nature to want to 'win', if there is no competition there can be no win. As you say they are people to and as liable to selfishness and corruption just the same as you and I.

If people can't look after themselves, then absolutely society should provide for them, no question, no hesitation, not baseline provisions either, we should look after each other. What we shouldn't do is hand over a basic human need I.e. shelter to some all powerful 'government'. If that thought doesn't fill you with dread then I suggest you hit the history books and have a look at what happens when the 'government' takes control of peoples day to day lives.

If you think the current arrangements are inadequate then DO something.

cory

Don't you think there is plenty of evidence that human beings are capable of perceiving our village as at least the size of our own country? Think of the sacrifices people went through during the last war.

This is often what the 'hand over all your liberties' argument comes down to. It happened during the war, so it can happen again.

The reason it happened during the last war is that there was an outside aggressor. Humans are inherently tribal. Give country A an outside threat and they'll work together to defeat it, as long as that threat exists, then they'll start arguing with each other again.

I've said before that the only way you'd get humanity working together is to have an alien invasion.

If people could be convinced that social and environmental stability are crucial to the survival of their country, then might not that have a similar effect?

You have to provide a threat to achieve it. Orwell's "1984" has the fake war, for example. In modern times, we're threatened with 'climate change' by ecomentalist movements and big business to force us to change our ways.

Isn't that how the democratic welfare societies have actually been run over the last 60 odd years?

I'm not even sure what a democratic welfare society is. Is it a country? Is it a political system? An economic one?

There's nothing wrong with "wondering what the country would be like if nobody owned property" and the government controlled all housing, as the OP asks. In the same way, having Christmas every day sounds like fun until you give a second's thought to it and realise that it is totally unworkable. So it's fine to wonder about these extremely awful ideas, as long as nobody takes the idea remotely seriously.

Expensive, imagine all the inheritance taxes and capital gains tax that would not be available to pay for the maintenance.

Sinister - youve hit the nail on the head

As I said upthread about the state not being the most efficient at managing problems than private individuals/private businesses, how about this thread as an example - the OP is stuck because she's a council tenant and has to go through someone logging calls, waiting for the approved repair team to come out and stuck with not heating in this weather.

When our boiler broke, we did have to sort it ourselves, but we had the freedom of calling round as many different firms as we could until we found someone who could work within our time frame. It's not just the security of the property itself that's appealing to own rather than rent, but also the security of being in control of what happens in that space. Yes we had to pay fo the repair ourselves, it didn't just come out of our mortgage payment, and eventually we'll have to replace our boiler, but the fact that in little over 15 years time we'll own our house outright and have no mortgage or rent to pay (and fully expect to live in that house for another 20years at least after that) makes up for having to pay the running costs now.

I hate it that people have just jumped on calling this communisn as a blamket response

People calling it communism has been very convenient for the OP. Look at flatpackhamster's response to the OP's suggestion that she would give up her house if someone else would benefit more from it. The OP ignored the points in it and instead jumped only on the fact that flatpackhamster had called it communism.

Affordable housing should be available for people on low to medium incomes.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the lack of affordable housing is a problem, and it is well worth discussing. It's just that the discussion isn't worth taking seriously when it includes farted out soundbites like the government controlling all housing.

Do you like the current Government in the UK OP? You voted Tory? Or do you hate them?

Because if your plan were to be followed you would have to be OK with the Tory party deciding who gets what and who pays what and where people can live and when they have to move.

Not just as Landlords (i.e. taking rent), but actually controlling people's movements.

Agree with badlad that lack of affordable housing is a problem, but there's lots of ways that the prices of housing and rents could be reduced while maintaining property rights for everyone else, it's just their property would be worth less.

raising interest rates would probably take a lot off house prices. Building a large number of properties (both council and private) therefore increasing the supply of properties, greatly limiting immigration to reduce the competition at the bottom end of the property rental market, would all have a downward pressure on houseprices and rental prices. Question is, would any of these things be better for the country as a whole, not just better for the small minority of people at the bottom of the housing /rental 'ladder' who are struggling.

And Morlth is right, the idea of only one landlord for the whole country, deciding who is and who isn't entitled to property, the size and scale of property is really very worrying. It wouldn't be down to "can you pay and do you want it?" as the current system is, but based on value judgements made by a civil service about who is entitled and more worthy of it. There's a house for sale at the end of our road for £600k (tis gorgeous), anyone - regardless of personal history, criminal record, education levels, family size, political preference, religious belief, social standing, amount of charity work done or socially usefulness of job can buy it if they've got/can borrow £600k. It's bugger all to do with the rest of us in the street or the government or the rest of society. It's a private transaction based purely on who can pay at the right time. I prefer that the the alternative.

DontmindifIdo

Agree with badlad that lack of affordable housing is a problem, but there's lots of ways that the prices of housing and rents could be reduced while maintaining property rights for everyone else, it's just their property would be worth less.

raising interest rates would probably take a lot off house prices. Building a large number of properties (both council and private) therefore increasing the supply of properties, greatly limiting immigration to reduce the competition at the bottom end of the property rental market, would all have a downward pressure on houseprices and rental prices. Question is, would any of these things be better for the country as a whole, not just better for the small minority of people at the bottom of the housing /rental 'ladder' who are struggling.

Raising interest rates during the credit bubble would have helped, but we would have to be quite careful now. I do think they need to go up though.

However any discussion of the housing shortage has to be carried out in the context of the issue of mass immigration, which OP is unwilling to do, for reasons which remain opaque. How can you manage housing without managing your population?