State benefits of are payed for by the taxpayer and I am a taxpayer so that if I become unemployed I can expect some of my tax returned, it isn't a handout
Are you medically qualified to give opinion or is that just more ill-informed supposition? On the contrary, I've had some first aid training and can say that you may have already had one.
Have you been claiming social since you left school, while living in your free council house while getting your free prescriptions and teeth polishing, and your kids getting their free meals and school trips, whilst you drive them around in your almost free disability car, with no intention to get a job whilst living the high life and pumping out kids whilst the cash registers go kerr-ching?
The two statements are contradictory
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...g-crisis-developers-not-building-land-banking
'Programs' are precisely the sort of thing the state is incompetent at. What is needed is less building restriction for individuals and small firms, instead of planning obstructions and subsidies/preferential treatment for the big six. Increase the supply and you reduce the price (not forgetting that small builders tend to make much nicer houses, too!).
But that's precisely the point. They cannot compete because the big six get preferential treatment. It's the state that sells large packages of land to the big six at below market value, and the big six have the financial and political might to press for planning permission that individuals cannot hope to get. This would not be the case if large swathes weren't green belt and people could sell their own parcels of land with assumpiton of 'can build' to the highest bidder, and the highest bidder is more likely to be an independent builder or self-builder who has lower overheads and can therefore spend more of his budget on land. (You could also put a time limit on planning permissions, of course, to discourage land banking. Individuals can move faster and have greater vested interest in their land than corporations). The blossoming of superior independent and self-build houses would put further competitive pressure on the big six to produce better quality homes, at more expense to themselves, thereby driving up standards or forcing them to downsize or go bust (could Barratts continue to produce shoeboxes in the face of a Victorian-style explosion of beautiful, quality houses from small builders? I suspect not!).
I think that if you cannot debate a topic like an adult (I assume you are an adult) without having to resort to insults, you should refrain from taking part in the first place. It speaks volumes about a person who cannot do this.
I think it is grossly unfair to single out one poster when the forum is awash with 'more experienced' posters throwing insults whenever they run out of valid argument.
