Governance‎ > ‎Fiscal policy‎ > ‎Tax‎ > ‎What does tax pay for?‎ > ‎Social goods‎ > ‎


Who should be in the business of housing?

Should the state be in the business of providing housing.
Could this be moved to community groups?
Should we want to shift from a state housing model to a social housing model?

Many community organisations with funding support are able to provide a better service for people needing housing support.
Community groups and charities could provide more than just a house for people, he said, citing the Salvation Army's work with alcoholics and substance abusers, or other agencies who work with the intellectually disabled and the mentally unwell.

Smith said community housing providers had a better track record in moving people back into the private housing sector more rapidly


Squatters deserve no rights ! If i park my 2nd car, go to the shops, I dont expect it to be filled with squatters, whats the difference?

Whom Will the Housing Act Hurt?

The answer to that question is: (1) prudent people, i.e. savers, earners, renters and people who have waited to buy a house at a reasonable price; and (2) innocent people, i.e. taxpayers.

Government action (unless it is aimed at destruction) always causes the opposite of its stated effect. If taxpayers ultimately have to shoulder the burden for all the bad mortgage debt, those who are on the edge of being able to make their mortgage payments will be forced over the edge, causing more missed mortgage payments and more foreclosures.

There is never any need for a law granting privilege except when the goal is to reward the undeserving and to punish the innocent. If the goal were otherwise, there would be no need for a statutory law, because the natural laws of economics, when unencumbered, serve to reward the deserving and punish the imprudent and the guilty. Populists loudly challenge this idea, but they are wrong.