Down at the Telegraph a couple of days ago I posted the following comment to a typical homey article:
"The UK's private landlords receive more in Housing Benefit than they pay in tax. It is the community, not the landlord that gives location its value. Average 2/3 of rent is location value.
So, not only do landlords NOT pay any net tax, they receive a £35bn per year de facto State subsidy on top."
To which I was treated to the following two replies. Firstly from Jill Harris-Kuhn:
"Total rubbish! Rent values have very little to do with location, and more to do with the size of accomodation - at least where I live in the Midlands. And yes, we pay tax according to what tax bracket our earnings fall under. Don't make stuff up!"
And then this corker from Paul Barrett:
"Another idiot who seems to think that tenants who pay for their accommodation needs via Govt provided welfare in the form of LHA is a subsidy to that LLl!!
Absolutely barking!!!!
So taking such an idiotic contention does the poster believe that a HB claimant who also receives JSA etc and then uses some of the money to buy food is giving the local supermarket a Govt subsidy!!!??"
Idiot posters like this really don't have a clue about how an economy works and how welfare supports those who need it to exist.
When such welfare is used to purchase relevant services such payments are NOT subsidies to the relevant merchant retailer!!
Without welfare being used to purchase services etc that the Welfare claimant requires would in mass starvation and homelessness.
I bet this idiot is a stupid Labour supporter!!"
The replies speak for themselves, but what's going on with all the "!!!!" and "??" ?
Debate Magazine
