Elderly homeowners in the United Kingdom are being encouraged to move to smaller properties to give younger families more space for their housing needs. Will the next step be forced quartering of soldiers? Don’t worry about the old people being asked to move for the greater good: any profits made after the state collects its share will be given to the original homeowners.
This is one of the consequences of having a national debt to GDP ratio of 200%. Can this happen in the United States (our national debt to GDP ratio is only 100%)? I guess we may find out since the rumor out of Washington is Quantitative Easing III coming in March with a large helping of mortgage bailouts. If true, we will have to let Congress pass the bill in order to find out its consequences. One thing for is sure: we will not have to worry about any profits left over after the government takes its “fair share”.
David DeGerolamo
State to help elderly downsize as Government tackles housing crisis
Elderly homeowners will be encouraged to downsize to smaller properties and allow councils to rent their homes to local families under Coalition plans to ease the nation’s housing crisis.
Grant Shapps, the housing minister, said councils should offer to help pensioners move to more suitable accommodation to create space for families.
Local authorities would then take over responsibility for maintaining and renting the vacated properties at affordable rates, transferring any profit from the rental income back to the elderly person or their estate. The Government believes the proposal would provide support for the elderly to move without having to sell their homes at a time when there is a shortage of affordable housing for young families.
Research released last year estimated that 25million bedrooms in England were empty, largely because elderly couples do not move out of family homes to smaller properties.
At the same time, young families are increasingly being squeezed into small homes and overcrowded flats as a result of the country’s high property prices.
A government-backed pilot scheme run by Redbridge council, in east London, has won support from the Department for Communities and Local Government for helping elderly residents to downsize while retaining ownership of their homes. Mr Shapps told The Daily Telegraph that councils should look to replicate the Redbridge “FreeSpace” project. “For too long the housing needs of the elderly have been neglected,” he said.
This sounds a bit like communism, a big bit.
This homeowner is heavily armed and would not give up his property for the greater good bs!!
Just one more way they are implementing Agenda 21. No, you don’t need a house that large!!
The key to this article is in paragraph 5 coupled with the word “government.” Governments are partners with mutual but disproportionate shares. The federal government has the power to implement policies effecting the whole population and generally depends on income taxes and licenses. Local governments act in small jurisdictions, but depend on property taxes and fees for services.
The local budgets would require cutting if the property values decline and the federal governments would be embarrassed if the markets they protect withered. In this case, the federal decided to move into the private sector and force policies in an effort to avoid embarrassment (spelled cuts.)
The obvious choice for free market supporters is to cut the budgets in response to bad times instead of trying to tell the wind to stop blowing.
The strategic problem is that the economy and the government have grown over decades and bureaucrats main job is maintaining job security, not serving and protecting the public interest.
Our election cycles in the US are four years apart. If our officials require several terms to learn how bad things are, we have an eight to twelve year period before actual cuts are made. And the bureaucrats continue to feed self protecting information to officials.
The large issue is not residential density. It is overspending which caused the major problem and the denial of the problem. Should a federal government be allowed to delve into this level of citizen rights to property and pursuit of happiness? Or should it be granted the right to contravene against the principles in the fourteenth amendment? Protect the elderly, my foot. The fair market price of property is denied by self perpetuating government and its bureaucrats who wish to perpetuate the delusion of good times. Feed them enough BS and they will be happy -- ha! Remember that it took four years for the federal government to recognize the depression for what it was and another thirty years to regain an economy to the level of 1928 (measured by the DOW stock index.)
If our elected officials consider this option at the federal or local level, we have chosen the wrong ones. We have allowed them to lose our way.