[eesmith]

> to live in housing intended for the most vulnerable

My understanding of the UK system is pretty limited, but I don't think it works that way.

That is, I thought the UK prioritizes housing assignment for the most vulnerable, but once you are in you are a secure tenant and - baring breaking your tenancy agreement - can stay there for the rest of your life, and even pass that tenancy on to a family member.

There is nothing in the law that say you must leave if you make too much, and I thought Thatcher pushed the idea that council housing should be transferred to the residents, as a way to promote home ownership. Isn't that why the UK has the Right to Buy for council housing?

If council housing were indeed only for the most vulnerable, why promote the idea that if you make enough money you can remove housing stock and force the council to build new housing?

Would you feel better if Dempsey buys out his council housing?

> which is a strange for position for someone of the left.

Why is that strange? I am on the left. Everyone should have access to basic housing as a secure tenant, no matter how much they make, just like everyone should have access to a government funded public library, health care, and education.

£70k/year salary does not sound like all that much to uproot, especially if you are friends with your neighbors, your kids love the local school, your parents live nearby, etc. Social ties are one reason you should not get kicked out of your housing simply because you exceed a certain income threshold.

[gadders]

Council housing rent in the UK is much less that market rents. I agree that it would suit the well paid tenant not to move, and there doesn't seem to be a legal way of making them move out.

However, my point is not that it's illegal, just that it's unethical.

[eesmith]

Why is it unethical?

Why do you want a legal way to move them out, even if that breaks their social support network?

Because I don't understand why you think there is any issue with him staying.

If there isn't enough council housing, raise taxes and buy/build more housing. Someone making 70K/year should be in a higher tax bracket so it's not like he's not contributing more to society.

Would you really say it is unethical for a rich man to check out a book from the public library, because he can afford to buy his own books?

[gadders]

There is a finite supply of council housing. It's a zero-sum game - wins and someone else loses. I mean, we can imagine a world where we could expand the supply indefinitely but I don't think that world exists.

In general, I think benefits should largely be means tested.

[eesmith]

You are nowhere near the limit of housing possible in the UK, and are nowhere near the zero-sum point.

Your system is set up to encourage people in council housing to make enough money to be able to buy their home. With your zero-sum argument in mind, you must think this unethical as it takes council housing away from the council.

Your system does not appear to be set up with your ethics in mind, so I hope you can understand why it doesn't seem like something others should be bound by.