24% rise in deaths amongst the homeless.

Lots of good points being made, but very few solutions. The problems of mixed or capitalist economies are well known, as are the downsides of totalitarianism and communist models. The underlying issue always seems to be the manifest greed of the human species! Most people will talk a good job, but when it comes to actually paying more tax most seem to slink back into the shadows. Whilst far from perfect, I believe the U.K. is head and shoulders above most other nations in respect of the safety nets afforded to the less fortunate. 

Rich 1 posted:

Blanket statements are of little use or help. People have housing portfolios for multiple reasons, pension top ups etc. I do think that there should be a rent cap dependent on area and rateable value (council tax). Yes, second home's as in holiday homes should be 'super taxed'. Unsold but up for sale housing should be exempt.

Ok, in exactly the same way, people who can afford to buy stupidly expensive hifi - and that includes EVERYBODY who has a piece of NAIM hifi, should be SUPER-TAXED eg at the point of purchase - lests say ring-fenced VAT at 100%). Otherwise we're all hypocrites !

The UK Government should properly tax it citizens and allocate sufficient funds to sort out homelessness, IMHO. But we live in a democracy, and I wouldn't bank on the other 65,000,000 people agreeing with homelessness being top of their government spending list.

Timmo1341 posted:

Lots of good points being made, but very few solutions. The problems of mixed or capitalist economies are well known, as are the downsides of totalitarianism and communist models. The underlying issue always seems to be the manifest greed of the human species! Most people will talk a good job, but when it comes to actually paying more tax most seem to slink back into the shadows. Whilst far from perfect, I believe the U.K. is head and shoulders above most other nations in respect of the safety nets afforded to the less fortunate. 

There have been homeless people since time in memoriam. If there was an easy solution it would have been found by now. I'd be interested to hear what strategies have had a positive impact in members' areas. Perhaps we could learn from each other. In Manchester local charities, the council and churches work together to provide some shelter, food, comfort and communal areas. 

In Colchester as well as the usual agencies there is a charity that has a double decker bus they are/ have refurbished for homeless to sleep in at night. But some are still not willing to be helped for various reasons, they are suspicious and have very little trust in others. It’s a tough one to crack.

Don Atkinson posted:

Rich 1 posted:

Blanket statements are of little use or help. People have housing portfolios for multiple reasons, pension top ups etc. I do think that there should be a rent cap dependent on area and rateable value (council tax). Yes, second home's as in holiday homes should be 'super taxed'. Unsold but up for sale housing should be exempt.

Ok, in exactly the same way, people who can afford to buy stupidly expensive hifi - and that includes EVERYBODY who has a piece of NAIM hifi, should be SUPER-TAXED eg at the point of purchase - lests say ring-fenced VAT at 100%). Otherwise we're all hypocrites !

The UK Government should properly tax it citizens and allocate sufficient funds to sort out homelessness, IMHO. But we live in a democracy, and I wouldn't bank on the other 65,000,000 people agreeing with homelessness being top of their government spending list.

I agree, except when it comes to non-progressive ‘purchase tax’. Properly policed and enforced income tax, both national and local, is, in my opinion, the only fair way to extract the ‘from each according to his/her means’. What people choose to spend their money on after paying tax should be up to them (with obvious exceptions like those items that cost society, such as tobacco, alchohol, fossil based fuels etc.). I would still like to see the really important stuff such as public transport, utilities, social housing, health care etc.come under well run public ownership and management, not be left to the vagaries of profit making capitalism. Fanciful I know, but we can all dream, especially at this time of year!

Loki posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

Lots of good points being made, but very few solutions. The problems of mixed or capitalist economies are well known, as are the downsides of totalitarianism and communist models. The underlying issue always seems to be the manifest greed of the human species! Most people will talk a good job, but when it comes to actually paying more tax most seem to slink back into the shadows. Whilst far from perfect, I believe the U.K. is head and shoulders above most other nations in respect of the safety nets afforded to the less fortunate. 

There have been homeless people since time in memoriam. If there was an easy solution it would have been found by now. I'd be interested to hear what strategies have had a positive impact in members' areas. Perhaps we could learn from each other. In Manchester local charities, the council and churches work together to provide some shelter, food, comfort and communal areas. 

What you’ve described are sticking plasters, not solutions. Solutions tend to be expensive, which is why the problems are still there, and increasing. Accepting there is a very small minority who will always refuse all organised help, those who desperately need housing and a decently paid job can only be helped by the injection of real money into the economy in a planned, not haphazard fashion. 

Don Atkinson posted:

hungryhalibut posted:

I’d give councils the power to requisition empty properties to be used as social housing. It’s outrageous that houses and flats sit empty when people are sleeping on the streets and there are families squeezed into undersized accommodation. What London in particular needs is not £4m flats for foreign investors to leave empty, but social and affordable houses for ordinary people. I’d also charge double or quadruple council tax on second homes to help support local business and homelessness budgets. It’s wrong that people have two or more houses while others have none. 

There are some very pointed views here, and I normally respect most of them and the people making them. But for people on this forum, with bloody expensive hifi kit by any standard, to make statements like "it's wrong that people have two or more houses while others have none" is beyond hypocrisy.

Sorry HH, but on this occasion I don't agree with your last point.

BTW I do consider that society should provide funds and expertise to deal with homelessness, and I consider that higher taxation (business, income, VAT, Local Fuel duty etc) could and should provide these funds.

It’s not beyond hypocrisy at all. There is a housing shortage which makes it vastly overpriced, so that people are excluded. People need only one house to live in. If they have others as buy to let that is a different issue. If people choose to have second homes for themselves I believe they should be taxed accordingly and the money put into housing support for those who need it. It is completely and utterly disconnected from hifi and other expensive items. People can have a Statement in every room, a posh watch on every limb and choose to bathe in champagne, but none of these things contribute to the housing crisis and homelessness, which is what this thread is about. Owning more than one house to live in does contribute to the housing crisis. That’s not hypocrisy. It’s a fact. 

hungryhalibut posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

hungryhalibut posted:

I’d give councils the power to requisition empty properties to be used as social housing. It’s outrageous that houses and flats sit empty when people are sleeping on the streets and there are families squeezed into undersized accommodation. What London in particular needs is not £4m flats for foreign investors to leave empty, but social and affordable houses for ordinary people. I’d also charge double or quadruple council tax on second homes to help support local business and homelessness budgets. It’s wrong that people have two or more houses while others have none. 

There are some very pointed views here, and I normally respect most of them and the people making them. But for people on this forum, with bloody expensive hifi kit by any standard, to make statements like "it's wrong that people have two or more houses while others have none" is beyond hypocrisy.

Sorry HH, but on this occasion I don't agree with your last point.

BTW I do consider that society should provide funds and expertise to deal with homelessness, and I consider that higher taxation (business, income, VAT, Local Fuel duty etc) could and should provide these funds.

It’s not beyond hypocrisy at all. There is a housing shortage which makes it vastly overpriced, so that people are excluded. People need only one house to live in. If they have others as buy to let that is a different issue. If people choose to have second homes for themselves I believe they should be taxed accordingly and the money put into housing support for those who need it.It is completely and utterly disconnected from hifi and other expensive items. People can have a Statement in every room, a posh watch on every limb and choose to bathe in champagne, but none of these things contribute to the housing crisis and homelessness, which is what this thread is about. Owning more than one house to live in does contribute to the housing crisis. That’s not hypocrisy. It’s a fact. 

Well, this is where our views differ.

Looking for a solution to the homeless crisis basically needs (a) money and (b) manpower/infrastructure. That's what this thread is about.

Simply limiting the funding, or the provision of infrastructure, to those who happen to have a second home (for whatever reason) strikes me as very short-sighted and also somewhat vengeful.

Widening the funding net via income tax,  local taxation and  "luxuary goods" would be a far more effective and less vengeful way of making a difference. I'm not actually advocating a super-tax on luxuary goods, but neither am I satisfied that a super-tax on second homes is anything other than a vengeful tax.

But as I indicated above, mobilising the politcal will to create sufficient funding and prioritise its distribution is, IMHO, the main stumbling block.

Are you seriously suggesting that some additional taxation on second homes eg higher stamp duty, Council Tax, would reduce the amount of homelessness in the UK? I don't. If such measures had some containing effect on the demand v supply equation, the potential small increase in supply would probably only benefit those seeking to get on the housing ladder, not those unfortunate people at the bottom of the pile living on/in cardboard. In my view the help those people need is through a better benefits system.  The one we have at the moment is in my view pernicious, too often treating people as scroungers (a view some newspapers like the Daily Mail like to foster).  The homeless should not have to look for well-meaning charities to address their problems but the State.  We are a relatively rich country with an average tax burden but our government choses to prioritise other things.

This thread has prompted me to do a swift bit of internet research, with results that have quite shocked me! If the Guardian’s figures are correct, 12 months ago 5.2 million adults (10%) in the U.K. owned second or more homes, whilst 4 in 10 owned no property whatsoever.

Given that Shelter’s latest figures place the number of U.K. homeless at 320,000 (this figure is a total of those in council funded temporary accommodation plus rough sleepers - it doesn’t include sofa surfers and those living in cars), there are some pretty obvious, if perhaps unpalatable, solutions staring us in the face. I really have to go with HH on this one. Unless they are occupied as buy to lets, the holiday homes which could become social housing, could be compulsorily purchased by the government (perhaps in return for Govt Bonds!) at fair prices, say original purchase price +10%. Another solution might be to exempt the owners from swingeing taxation if they agree to let them to those in need at rents fixed by the local council?

I’m convinced this could be sorted if some politicians stopped acting in the best interests of their well heeled buddies (or themselves - a significant number own more than one property!).

Owning multiple houses is an outcome of wealth inequality, as is homelessness. They are related, but it is not the ownership of second homes that causes homelessness directly. Rather, it is the degree to which wealth is unevenly distributed, that causes the paradox of both homelessness and empty homes.

Zoning for higher density and an increase in affordable housing (smaller, less luxurious apartments etc) is thought by many (including me) to be a worthwhile strategy here in Vancouver. Nimby home-owners, worried about their property "values" and the "character" of their neighbourhood oppose this sort of thing at every turn. It is truly sickening.

Hmm, some thoughts.

One thing needed is to break the 'homelessness trap'.  That is once homeless it's nearly impossible to get a job (discrimination against homeless people is not illegal) and more difficult to get benefits (but not impossible).  So: a proposal - incomplete, but perhaps a possible basic framework on which to build and a lot more details would need to be worked out...

Legislation to establish a type of property and status for the occupants (e.g. 'Protected Status Dwelling' and 'Resident of a Protected Status Dwelling').  A statutory duty for local authorities to provide a number of places in one or more Protected Status Dwellings, as a percentage of their taxable population.  'Resident of a Protected Status Dwelling' would become protected characteristic under the terms of the Equality Act 2010.

Places in a Protected Status Dwelling would be allocated to homeless people on interview by a case worker and subject to a contract.  A photographic ID card will be produced by the council for the 'Resident of a Protected Status Dwelling', and the person would be required to declare any addiction or substance dependencies.  The terms of the contract would include conditions that terminate the contract - subject to a case review by 3 case workers.
Antisocial behaviours (except where resulting in detention under the mental heath act).
Use of any substances other than those prescribed or declared at the time of contract.
Non- accidental Damage to the property or damage occasioned whilst unfit through drugs or alcohol.
Failure to attend case worker meetings (unless reasonable account is made for the circumstances).
Failure to attend job centre meetings (unless reasonable account is made for the circumstances).
Failure to meet job centre requirements (unless reasonable account is made for the circumstances).
Failure to maintain an employable standard of presentation and behaviour.

In return:
Safe accommodation and facilities will be provided for the period of the contract.
Basic necessities as required to start living in the Protected Status Dwelling will be provided.
Basic necessities as required to attend job interviews will be provided.
One week's worth of food will be provided.
Status as a 'Resident of a Protected Status Dwelling' would generate an interim weekly DSS payment, starting immediately, until such time as JSA or other statutory benefits are paid.

I don't know why holiday homes are deemed a problem I don't expect the homeless want to be sent to Cornwall or North Wales

There are people native to those areas who wish to stay but can't afford to buy or rent due to the price inflation cause by outsiders buying homes in the area.  It's not just 'sending' people to those areas.

Good start Huge.

I will be speaking with one of our neighbours during next week's break and sound out her guidance. She is a "hands-on" person who organises places for homeless people and also night accomodation during cold weather periods for homeless people in West Berkshire. We support her, but only by helping out with her own life, and providing either (some of the)  food or funding for food that she needs.  She has a fulltime job, a disabled husband and a recent tripple heart by-pass.

Last year she arranged temporary accomodation for about twenty people over a two/three month period. She managed to introduce about half of them to job opportunities and most of those are now back in society in their own (albeit rented) accomodation. Not all of them had a drug or alchohol problem. But they all had problems that needed help.

Whereas I tend to "chuck" a quid into their platsic collection cup and walk on, she talks to homeless people, tells them where they can get help, and takes them there, if they are interested.

And yes ! I'm not always sure whether my quid will go to the "gang-master", drink, drugs, or towards a decent meal and a bed for the night., unless I recognise the person.

but I still think we need to get Gov to allocate more funds, rather than rely on people like Erica.

Huge posted:

Hmm, some thoughts.

One thing needed is to break the 'homelessness trap'.  That is once homeless it's nearly impossible to get a job (discrimination against homeless people is not illegal) and more difficult to get benefits (but not impossible).  So: a proposal - incomplete, but perhaps a possible basic framework on which to build and a lot more details would need to be worked out...

Legislation to establish a type of property and status for the occupants (e.g. 'Protected Status Dwelling' and 'Resident of a Protected Status Dwelling').  A statutory duty for local authorities to provide a number of places in one or more Protected Status Dwellings, as a percentage of their taxable population.  'Resident of a Protected Status Dwelling' would become protected characteristic under the terms of the Equality Act 2010.

Places in a Protected Status Dwelling would be allocated to homeless people on interview by a case worker and subject to a contract.  A photographic ID card will be produced by the council for the 'Resident of a Protected Status Dwelling', and the person would be required to declare any addiction or substance dependencies.  The terms of the contract would include conditions that terminate the contract - subject to a case review by 3 case workers.
Antisocial behaviours (except where resulting in detention under the mental heath act).
Use of any substances other than those prescribed or declared at the time of contract.
Non- accidental Damage to the property or damage occasioned whilst unfit through drugs or alcohol.
Failure to attend case worker meetings (unless reasonable account is made for the circumstances).
Failure to attend job centre meetings (unless reasonable account is made for the circumstances).
Failure to meet job centre requirements (unless reasonable account is made for the circumstances).
Failure to maintain an employable standard of presentation and behaviour.

In return:
Safe accommodation and facilities will be provided for the period of the contract.
Basic necessities as required to start living in the Protected Status Dwelling will be provided.
Basic necessities as required to attend job interviews will be provided.
One week's worth of food will be provided.
Status as a 'Resident of a Protected Status Dwelling' would generate an interim weekly DSS payment, starting immediately, until such time as JSA or other statutory benefits are paid.

Placing additional burden on the homeless to comply with rules in exchange for support has great appeal to many (non-homeless) people. A system such as you have proposed assuages our guilt. We feel that once such a system is considered to be in place, then any residual homelessness is the homeless person's fault, and that that we can now sleep soundly, between satin sheets, in our king-sized, auto-massage waterbeds, in quiet streets in exclusive gated neighbourhoods, secure in the knowledge that we are wonderful and caring people. Oh, and until it comes time to pay for it. We wouldn't want to wake up and find we'd become Venezuela, now, would we?

Many of the homeless here in Vancouver (and elsewhere) suffer from mental health issues. Substance abuse issues are closely related. Any support that they receive cannot be conditional upon these sorts of things for it to be effective.

I don't know the answer. No-one does. But I'm more than happy for my tax dollars to be spent on unconditional support for homeless people, and for my neighbourhood to be rezoned to allow high-density and low-cost housing to be built. Increases in property taxes for additional funding also have my support.

Winky,

It seems that you missed my previous post on the drug dependency problem - and one of the most important parts of that was the line:

"It MUST be clear that such action is assistive not punitive ..."

it also seems you missed my point above "So: a proposal - incomplete, but perhaps a possible basic framework on which to build ..."

Societies function by an assumed social contract; however, for many of the homeless, that contract has broken down, both ways.  My proposal is a way to re-establish that social contract by making it explicit.  One side of the contract is inclusion in society (hence the very important legal protection from discrimination as well as the material provision), on the other side it is to act in a way that isn't antisocial.

Note also that I'm not saying that other existing support (such as it is and that's very limited) should be withdrawn.

Huge posted:

Hmm, some thoughts.

One thing needed is to break the 'homelessness trap'.  That is once homeless it's nearly impossible to get a job (discrimination against homeless people is not illegal) and more difficult to get benefits (but not impossible).  So: a proposal - incomplete, but perhaps a possible basic framework on which to build and a lot more details would need to be worked out...

Legislation to establish a type of property and status for the occupants (e.g. 'Protected Status Dwelling' and 'Resident of a Protected Status Dwelling').  A statutory duty for local authorities to provide a number of places in one or more Protected Status Dwellings, as a percentage of their taxable population.  'Resident of a Protected Status Dwelling' would become protected characteristic under the terms of the Equality Act 2010.

Places in a Protected Status Dwelling would be allocated to homeless people on interview by a case worker and subject to a contract.  A photographic ID card will be produced by the council for the 'Resident of a Protected Status Dwelling', and the person would be required to declare any addiction or substance dependencies.  The terms of the contract would include conditions that terminate the contract - subject to a case review by 3 case workers.
Antisocial behaviours (except where resulting in detention under the mental heath act).
Use of any substances other than those prescribed or declared at the time of contract.
Non- accidental Damage to the property or damage occasioned whilst unfit through drugs or alcohol.
Failure to attend case worker meetings (unless reasonable account is made for the circumstances).
Failure to attend job centre meetings (unless reasonable account is made for the circumstances).
Failure to meet job centre requirements (unless reasonable account is made for the circumstances).
Failure to maintain an employable standard of presentation and behaviour.

In return:
Safe accommodation and facilities will be provided for the period of the contract.
Basic necessities as required to start living in the Protected Status Dwelling will be provided.
Basic necessities as required to attend job interviews will be provided.
One week's worth of food will be provided.
Status as a 'Resident of a Protected Status Dwelling' would generate an interim weekly DSS payment, starting immediately, until such time as JSA or other statutory benefits are paid.

You should work for DWP, Huge. 

Don Atkinson posted:

Rich 1 posted:

Blanket statements are of little use or help. People have housing portfolios for multiple reasons, pension top ups etc. I do think that there should be a rent cap dependent on area and rateable value (council tax). Yes, second home's as in holiday homes should be 'super taxed'. Unsold but up for sale housing should be exempt.

Ok, in exactly the same way, people who can afford to buy stupidly expensive hifi - and that includes EVERYBODY who has a piece of NAIM hifi, should be SUPER-TAXED eg at the point of purchase - lests say ring-fenced VAT at 100%). Otherwise we're all hypocrites !

The UK Government should properly tax it citizens and allocate sufficient funds to sort out homelessness, IMHO. But we live in a democracy, and I wouldn't bank on the other 65,000,000 people agreeing with homelessness being top of their government spending list.

Why be super taxed ? You know some super arsehole will find a way to cream the top off it and leave what it was meant for redundant.

It is really about scale..  those agencies currently at a position to help the homeless are a million miles away from those that should really help.    Think about all those pen pushers in between who all have salaries and pensions, no surprise it is still an issue and will be forever.

MDS posted:

You should work for DWP, Huge. 

I'm not quite so sure that I take that as a compliment! 

TOBYJUG posted:

It is really about scale..  those agencies currently at a position to help the homeless are a million miles away from those that should really help.    Think about all those pen pushers in between who all have salaries and pensions, no surprise it is still an issue and will be forever.

I take it you are exclusively referring to the management layers - there are a lot of very genuine and very concerned people working on the ground (both paid and volunteers) for whom I have a lot of respect, and who are very committed and much in touch with the problem.

There are also a lot of people working in many Mental Health areas, including addiction (again both paid and volunteers) who are also very committed to alleviating these problems (along with similar problems in the wider community - we don't discriminate against anyone because of homelessness).

Don Atkinson posted:

Good start Huge.

I will be speaking with one of our neighbours during next week's break and sound out her guidance. She is a "hands-on" person who organises places for homeless people and also night accomodation during cold weather periods for homeless people in West Berkshire. We support her, but only by helping out with her own life, and providing either (some of the)  food or funding for food that she needs.  She has a fulltime job, a disabled husband and a recent tripple heart by-pass.

Last year she arranged temporary accomodation for about twenty people over a two/three month period. She managed to introduce about half of them to job opportunities and most of those are now back in society in their own (albeit rented) accomodation. Not all of them had a drug or alchohol problem. But they all had problems that needed help.

...

but I still think we need to get Gov to allocate more funds, rather than rely on people like Erica.

Wow, when you next meet Erica, please pass on my compliments.
In the current situation, getting anywhere near 50% into employment and out of the homelessness trap is an amazing achievement - much respect to her.

I think we need both more government funding AND people like Erica who can make very good use of it.

Huge posted:

TOBYJUG posted:

It is really about scale..  those agencies currently at a position to help the homeless are a million miles away from those that should really help.    Think about all those pen pushers in between who all have salaries and pensions, no surprise it is still an issue and will be forever.

I take it you are exclusively referring to the management layers - there are a lot of very genuine and very concerned people working on the ground (both paid and volunteers) for whom I have a lot of respect, and who are very committed and much in touch with the problem.

There are also a lot of people working in many Mental Health areas, including addiction (again both paid and volunteers) who are also very committed to alleviating these problems (along with similar problems in the wider community - we don't discriminate against anyone because of homelessness).

No. What your describing is the great job that the agencies currently at a position to help are doing, and thank you.. what point I wanted to make was that you are still some considerable distance on this whole situation why people get to this stage.

Travel through most every part of this world and you will see almost everyone sitting at a desk looking at a screen for a job.

It won't be long before that screen will need anyone in front of it.