Jack, thank you for a lesson in hysterics.
First of all, don't presume to imply I am being dishonest. I won't sanction it. Either I have a valid argument or I don't. If you want to introduce information you think I have overlooked, then I welcome it. I am happy to revise my conclusions if you are right.
You aren't right. Where does your figure of £151pw come from? It contradicts your earlier statement that my figure of £111pw is correct, and appears to falsely exaggerate the costs. Care to explain?
You have also confused yourself about the universal benefit cap of £26k by talking about the number of households exceeding the HB caps. Do you not understand that the cap applies to an aggregate? As I have stated in other posts, I'd like to see welfare payments scrapped, including HB. So again your rant is misplaced. HB payments create artificial demand, distorting the market, and limiting the availability of housing to earners. What happens if earners have less disposable income? What happens to demand for goods and services? But let's not make this uncomfortably complicated for you Jack.
Your comments on private rented stock is comical. You complain that there are increasing numbers of private landlords due to the attractiveness of btl, implying rising numbers of homes available to rent. Is that what you consider wrong? What will happen to rents if supply shifts? Lower rents. Is that what you consider wrong?
If people were taxed less, they would have more disposable income to afford their own housing costs. The private sector is moving to meet demand, when social providers can't afford to. A large number of households can't afford housing without welfare in general, because welfare in general is supporting lower wages. Abuses feed abuses.
Regarding repairs etc - I imagine this is a ref to Snow's documentary about a charity carrying out illegal evictions and failing to carry out repairs. In any case we are talking about a fringe minority. There are poor providers of social housing, too. Satisfaction in the private sector is at 75% and above; impressive given that private tenants have higher expectations.
I'm not sure why everyone keeps talking about scroungers. I haven't labelled anyone a scrounger. What I am opposed to is the Government taking 45% of my earnings without asking for my consent, or what I would like to spend it on. I am effectively forced to work 2 days a week for the Government without getting paid, and then get to watch as the interventions into the economy result in disaster.
You talk about economic disasters and the presence of the private sector. Yes if you mean private sector business people who are collectively hand in hand with the Government - they are the worst of all economic phenomena. However, real private sector business people who deliver goods and services profitably by sheer drive and determination will never be at the heart of the disasters Chris refers to.
Check your premises.