393
Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
393 points (99.2% liked)
United Kingdom
4094 readers
104 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Could you imagine a world where the word rent never existed. I bet it would be awesome.
I'd rather the word homeless never existed
Then how about you stop contributing to the problem by hoarding properties you don't live in and exploiting those who can't afford to, for profit?
No?
I didn't think so...
I'm pretty sure you mean that you'd like a world with no landlords and not a world where short term housing solutions don't exist. No rent would imply the latter. Unless you know of a way to do it without paying rent?
Community housing that's fully tax funded. Common houses or public houses have been around for millenia, until the last couple hundred years really.
Oh and "the tragedy of the commons" is literally propaganda made up by a literal feudal lord.
How did that work when it came to deciding who gets the more desirable housing versus the less desirable ones? Or those who are not from the area and don't pay taxes to cover the housing?
Let's work on getting people housed before faffing about with pointless nonsense like more or less desirable housing. When even the victorians has lower homelessness rates you don't get to worry about desirability.
Second point, who cares? If they're living there now they pay tax there now. It does not matter they didn't pay tax before they lived there, that's how all other services work. You don't pay for the roads in a town you just moved to until you're moved in.
It's not pointless. Depending on where you live, there's a good chance you do have an abundance of cheap housing available. They're just not in desirable locations, so many would opt to either pay extra for the privilege of living in more desirable homes or even living on the streets.
Regarding taxes, I'm talking about those who haven't previously paid taxes, are not currently paying taxes while living in the area, and have no plans to pay taxes after they leave the area.