Unbelievable Jeff

2 x 1000 = 2000 2000 - 600 = 1400 Just some maths for you there.

If you are brought up there, but can't afford to live there, then you have to move out? If I was brought up in Chelsea, and then had a minimum wage job, then I would have to move, obviously? Why wouldn't you? Wembley, Ilford, Leytonstone for a few...

Yeah, I chose Liverpool because you live there. But I could also give you examples from Manchester, Sheffield, Wakefield, Leeds, Ipswich, Norwich, Derby, Leicester, Coventry, Newcastle, Plymouth etc. I grew up in Hounslow, you ever been there? £600 per month not enough for decent enough housing then Pap? "Picky is damn right. I've lived in some utter sh!tholes and have no desire to repeat the experience." So who should live here then? Just crackheads, prostitutes and the unemployed? Or perhaps working people on the minimum wage would re-generate these areas if they had to live in them?

What do you class as London though? Certainly East, South East, North West is more affordable, but living in London is desirable. If you are on the minimum wage why should you get to live in a desirable area? You get what you give in life. Why aren't we all driving Lamborghini's? Because they are desirable, hence are more expensive, and aren't affordable on the minimum wage. That's the way the world works. A communist utopia doesn't exist, and will never exist.

Cheers, BTF. So Baz, which of these wouldn't be present in the previous houses?

I'm not saying it is Barry, my point is that it is fine to live in if you are lowly paid. I don't quite get what you mean by 'ghost towns'? Mortgage poverty comes around because people chose the wrong house in the wrong area and overstretch themselves. I can't defend stupidity unfortunately.

So what do you expect for a basic quality of life Baz?

Or maybe you're too picky on area Pap? Perhaps you are happy to stick up for the masses, but don't fancy living with them? Some Liverpool examples for you: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-28800534.html http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-28797057.html http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-28108563.html Anyway, as identified above, a family with 2 people on the minimum wage, they shouldn't need to spend £260, they should be able to spend upwards of £500, at least! Most places say 30% should be spent, so that should be £600pcm. And that is enough for a 2/3 bed house in most places down south.

You say I have no network, but that's not true. Our childcare is in Chiswick, as is ms Jeff's family. It now means ms Jeff has to get up an hour earlier every day to drop her off. But it's a choice we had to make. Spend £800k on a house there, or £400k on a house an hour away. I don't know Liverpool, personally, so I can't comment. However, if you can get something like that in a (not so) desirable area, I assume you can get something not bad, in an alright area for around the £350-£400 mark. I think the difference here is as follows: I believe that barring any extenuating circumstances (disability, single parent families etc), people on the minimum wage have enough choice as to how to live their life that the money is enough to live on, irregardless of where the job is located.

I understand regional relativism thanks, I just found the last comment quite extreme. But you are still yet to comment on the property I found for your example. Why should someone on the minimum wage have the right to live somewhere nicer than that at the taxpayers expense when they can't afford it? I couldn't afford to live in Chiswick anymore, so I had to move. Why shouldn't others?

Frankly this is only really an issue in and around London, affordable accommodation is available in most other British cities. Commute? I know tons of people who commute from cheaper areas into London, an hour and a bit each way (same as me). Kent for instance is very cheap to live and easy to commute from. In addition to this the minimum wage is higher for London jobs, and this is based on where you work, and not where you live.

I agree, a home is not a luxury. However, I believe the location of said home, is. I think slum accomodation is a rather extreme statement also? Look at the above property. Would cost 26% of your monthly income on minimum wage. It's certainly not slum accommodation. Let me show you around Chennai someday, then I'll show you slum accomodation.

A house share would be a lot cheaper (let's use Liverpool as an example). £200 would get you a decent room in a houseshare. Here is a 3 bed house, looks pretty good, for £260 pcm: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-42834052.html That leaves you the money to live a comfortable, if not frugal, lifestyle. As has been debated on here before as well, Liverpool is an great place to live. I'm sorry, but if you don't work hard enough at school/don't have the skills to do a job competently, then why should you be allowed to stay in the nicer areas at the taxpayers expense?

An increase in minimum wage would lead to an increase in unemployment. A living wage is not sustainable.

The minimum wage should be sufficient to survive in most parts of the country. If it isn't sufficient in the area you live, then you should relocate. I had to when I was younger. I couldn't afford a 3 bed house in the area I lived (Chiswick), so I moved. I didn't insist the government helped me to stay in the area.

And this is what you are doing by offering councils properties for social housing.

Determine reliant.

Why try and stifle business for the sake of those that don't work. Counter-productive, especially in the current economy.

You do realise that having a portfolio of properties takes up a lot of your time don't you?

Is it right morally to benefit from a lack of anything I suppose? I am not responsible for building social housing. What I would be doing is providing social housing to a government, nay, a succession of governments that haven't built enough social housing/sold off social housing to the tenants. For me, it's about ROI. I don't care if the money comes from a private citizen who works and pays for their accomodation, or from someone that doesn't work/can't afford housing and has to live off the extorniate taxes that I pay based on the fact that I have worked hard and done well in life. Only in this country would we reward failure the way we do. The best way to solve it is to create massive camped villages in disused areas of the country to house thes people, as obviously those that provide housing for them are seen as morally corrupt.

But that's not a realistic strategy? What you want is a fantasy that doesn't exist, anywhere on earth.

So you'd prefer to see those people on the streets then? I am looking at changing the rental strategy on my properties. Currently I rent out to professionals, but they are unreliable in paying. I am looking at renting out a couple of my properties to the council, because even though I will earn less per month, the guarantee of payment makes it worthwhile. The only thing holding me back is that I have warned about how council tenants can look after/leave properties, with damage far exceeding the paltry deposit amounts put down by the government. Oh, and by the way, I pay a ton of tax because of this.

I'm talking about private landlords in general, not him.

I fail to see what the problem is here? A private landlord will try to make the most out of property they have been given, it's their prerogative. With a shortage of properties the Government has to house people somewhere? I don't know what world people think we live in sometimes.

I bet you £20 that the team that finishes 3rd bottom will not have 38 points or above.