They aren't paying rents though are they you retard.
The whole point of this is that the houses are owned by the government, which is why they are proposing selling them and making a profit.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:34, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

That, and social cleansing.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:35, Reply)

Are you saying that you would ratehr leeave a family out on the street in the pissing rain
than move a family to more reasonable and appropriate accomodation thus freeing up some capital? Seems a bit cruel for a hand ringer like yourself
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:36, Reply)

because, like many other things, it really is as simple as that.
no, really.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:37, Reply)

Of course not. the point I'm making is that the priciple is sound
Impementaion is unfortunately another issue
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:39, Reply)

No, the principle is not sound.
The idea has some merit, but is not without problems.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:41, Reply)

Hey, in my book Mr. Belding is well sound

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:48, Reply)

I don't think I'd go as far as to say the principle is sound
The principle is the problem, really. As in, not thought through. The "hard aspects" ie the pure financial transation itself, is eminently sensible. But the reality is that the associated costs (both social and financial) would probably be huge.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:50, Reply)

Those aren't the only 2 options though.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:40, Reply)

Hence why we should bring back workhouses

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:47, Reply)