▲ 398 ▼ Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’ (www.telegraph.co.uk) submitted 2 years ago by blackn1ght@feddit.uk to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk 104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) Could you imagine a world where the word rent never existed. I bet it would be awesome. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'd rather the word homeless never existed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago 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... permalink fedilink source parent [–] howrar@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] basmati@lemmus.org 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] basmati@lemmus.org 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] howrar@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'd rather the word homeless never existed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago 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... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago 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... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] howrar@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] basmati@lemmus.org 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] basmati@lemmus.org 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] howrar@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] basmati@lemmus.org 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] basmati@lemmus.org 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] howrar@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] basmati@lemmus.org 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] howrar@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] basmati@lemmus.org 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] howrar@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] howrar@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent