Rosa - your last para evades the truth of what Shapps said:
'Why should a person on benefit be able to live in an area where a working person can not'
What both Shapps and yourself miss is that excluding benefit claimants from swathes of the land means that working people are immediately excluded too. And the absolute irony is that the working person without benefit will still not be able to afford to live in those areas.
Therefore Shapps proposal, with your support Rosa, excludes anyone below a certain pay level from living in the 'affluent areas'. Not only is this social exclusion on a grand scale but it is self defeating as the undesirable areas will experience such high demand as to become less and less affordable. The affluent areas so cleansed may actual experience a small fall in value, adding to the good times for the higher paid.
What a sensible notion to support!
On the long-term subsidy Rosa - i.e the original build costs. 1) these are drastically reduced if the right to buy reciepts were credited to this debt instead of having been spent in the pockets of the higher paid. 2) should students pay the build costs for their schools and patients the build costs for their hospitals - otherwise they too owe the state for the subsidy. 3) will the rail company, utilities, and the other privatised businesses pay back the build cost of the assets they received at nil or discounted levels - of course not because the Tories would rather increase the cost of the bills upon the poor than cause companies to give up their subsidies.
The State has provided the necessary infrastructure for the nation, to the benefit of the people and the benefit of commerce. The State has funded this from taxation. The tax payer has paid for these assets, such as housing, and pay for loans through their taxes. Tenants are tax payers too Rosa, which you conveniently forget.
It is a fact that the amounts paid in rents last year exceeded the amount distributed in subsidy - however you look at it Rosa rent payers are subsidising the treasury already.
Whilst we argue over how much more tenants should be taxed, the crucial point of the £1tr national debt remains. Interestingly the cost of the Trident weapons of mass destruction is also £1tr; the cost of the loans to the banks is nearly £1tr; the estimated cost of tax avoidance across the term of this government is estimated to amount to £1tr. There is the national debt possible repaid three times over, without hitting the tax payer of the tenants for a penny extra. Now consider what can be done across the entire budget, if fairness and worth was considered.
It is not the tenant's place to pay the entire cost of social provision - that is why we have a State in the first place.