beccaelizabeth: Eight pointed Chaos star with eight red question marks (Chaos star questions)
[personal profile] beccaelizabeth
Universal benefits are cheap to administer
and everybody needs to eat
so why not pay EVERYONE enough to live on and let them get on with it?

Disability Living Allowance is already to make up the difference in money needs for allowing disabled people to live, so all disabled people can has that.

Housing is trickier because landlords can charge whatever they like and there isn't enough to go around. Telling Councils to negotiate isn't going to work when they have a legal obligation to house people and not enough houses to put them in. ... and people need somewhere to live, so please continue to oblige places to house people. So, the government needs to start building. Lots and lots of lovely housing, suitable for the needs of the most people. There's a snapshot of those needs on housing waiting lists, and current housing is arse at suiting them. Housing with a kitchen and a bathroom and a bedroom and a living room. There's a lot of old council flats like that, some of them are nice and you have the repair records on different sorts already so you can choose the sturdy ones, just use the old plans and build a ton more of them.

Then a lot of people get employed, and they have somewhere to live afterwards.

At the moment the government leans on jobseekers to make them get employed. On the whole jobseekers are trying already. There are not enough jobs for all of them to fit. Leaning harder doesn't create more jobs for them to have. So job creation would work better.

And everyone has needing some things, like a place to live and food to eat and suchlike, so making work that covers the basics for basic prices would let the rest of the economy play at the fancy twirly extras.

I don't see how enough extra housing is going to work under capitalism, especially on top of these big prices built up on borrowing. I mean, individual landlords try and maximise their money, usually because their mortgage and insurance is based on their house costing a lot and they have to get the tenants to pay for that and then make more money on top. While there is a housing shortage then because housing isn't an optional extra everyone just has to pay whatever housing costs, even if they have to borrow a ton of money and promise to pay it back in a generation. That makes everything be big numbers. Meaning everyone needs big numbers. If there was sufficient housing, all the big numbers would start to fall down as people started to have a choice and could say 'no, that's a stupid number, I like my number better' like the logic of markets assumes they can. Building a few houses would make a profit if there was spare money, but there mostly isn't, so there mostly isn't building. Just need. For money and for housing both. So that's the kind of thing profit motives aren't going to fix, so everyone has to get together and fix it just because there is a need. And the way people do that in democracies is to vote for the government to do it with a slice of everyone's money. And at the moment we'd have to borrow and say we'll pay it back for a generation, like the whole country would have to do that instead of individual borrowers, but done right we'd have a lot of places to live that whole time, which is the important bit.

I know I've said a lot of this before, but I don't understand the priorities. How about we just, collectively, say "Okay, everyone's allowed to live and eat and all that necessary stuff, now let's see what else we do."


beccaelizabeth: my Watcher tattoo in blue, plus Be in red Buffy style font (Default)

October 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
89 10 11 121314
1516 17 18 192021

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 21st, 2017 03:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios