Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research " It is but people would rather keep thier big house and bleat how unfair it is that they aren't getting quite so much free money anymore. Still 330 millions is a big chunk saved | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is a difficult one. I fully agree with the principle of the welfare state but it does seem that more often than not, people in need and derserving of benefits don't always get them while at the same time some people manage to play the system and milk it for every penny. Given that everyone on benefits will find themselves in differing circumstances, how do you legislate for that? Maybe the system needs to be totally overhauled and brought into the 21st century rather than trying to change litle bits here and there." yes and making sure they have an appropriate computer system to deal with it effectively before rushing into change it all ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... " there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area "Add in the fact that only those on benefits get penalised - if you're working and under-occupying you don't pay extra. If there were the properties available for people to move into I wouldn't have such an issue with it, but since there's nowhere to go we're being punished for something we can't remedy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Add in the fact that only those on benefits get penalised - if you're working and under-occupying you don't pay extra. If there were the properties available for people to move into I wouldn't have such an issue with it, but since there's nowhere to go we're being punished for something we can't remedy. " Isn't that the idea? If you work and decide you want a spare bedroom, you have to find the money to pay for it from your wages. The principle behind the "bedroom tax" is that those on benefits pay towards their spare room as well thus in theory making it fairer to all. Obviously for this to work, there do need to be sufficient smaller properties available. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research It is but people would rather keep thier big house and bleat how unfair it is that they aren't getting quite so much free money anymore. Still 330 millions is a big chunk saved" If you read the rest of the article you will see that people are desperate to move into smaller properties but cannot as there is a shortage. They are sat on waiting lists hoping to get one and in the meantime are being taxed for something they don't want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research It is but people would rather keep thier big house and bleat how unfair it is that they aren't getting quite so much free money anymore. Still 330 millions is a big chunk saved If you read the rest of the article you will see that people are desperate to move into smaller properties but cannot as there is a shortage. They are sat on waiting lists hoping to get one and in the meantime are being taxed for something they don't want. " and being threatened with eviction I assume for not being able to afford the charge | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... " Can't imagine being uprooted from my home x n having to settle somewhere else x  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Add in the fact that only those on benefits get penalised - if you're working and under-occupying you don't pay extra. If there were the properties available for people to move into I wouldn't have such an issue with it, but since there's nowhere to go we're being punished for something we can't remedy. Isn't that the idea? If you work and decide you want a spare bedroom, you have to find the money to pay for it from your wages. The principle behind the "bedroom tax" is that those on benefits pay towards their spare room as well thus in theory making it fairer to all. Obviously for this to work, there do need to be sufficient smaller properties available." Fair would be to not allow anyone to under-occupy regardless of wealth | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research It is but people would rather keep thier big house and bleat how unfair it is that they aren't getting quite so much free money anymore. Still 330 millions is a big chunk saved If you read the rest of the article you will see that people are desperate to move into smaller properties but cannot as there is a shortage. They are sat on waiting lists hoping to get one and in the meantime are being taxed for something they don't want. and being threatened with eviction I assume for not being able to afford the charge " Or cutting back elsewhere hence the rise in people relying on food banks. Seems the government is privatising the Welfare State via the back door. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... Can't imagine being uprooted from my home x n having to settle somewhere else x "it can be quite upsetting for older people but there is a shortage of all properties | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"expect more of it if they get in next year.. incompetent bunch of nasty fuckers looking after their own chums.. " well said there a load of wankers always have been always will be. They only look after there own . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"expect more of it if they get in next year.. incompetent bunch of nasty fuckers looking after their own chums.. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? " Nope x only those who get housing benefit I think | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... " This is the problem . My council have no smaller homes what so ever and i still have to pay £130 a mth in b/tax .  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Nope x only those who get housing benefit I think "Yup - those who can least afford it. And it's not like they can rent out their spare room being tenants. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Nope x only those who get housing benefit I think
Yup - those who can least afford it. And it's not like they can rent out their spare room being tenants. "Yes they can. And income from lodgers will not affect benefits claimed. Google 'taking in a lodger' - the facts are there. A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Nope x only those who get housing benefit I think
Yup - those who can least afford it. And it's not like they can rent out their spare room being tenants.
Yes they can.
And income from lodgers will not affect benefits claimed.
Google 'taking in a lodger' - the facts are there.
A"If they are council tenants subletting is not permitted. Many private landlords are not keen either. Of course people could break the rules but then they'd face accusations of cheating the system and face eviction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep heard this from a lot of people I think if you don't want to move then fair enough you should pay but if your on a waiting list wanting to move then you should not...I don't see them knockin any money off for over occupancy either lol xx" Think that would be a fair system as long as you actually move eventually , unfortunately in the housing association were in they say there's no such thing as over occupancy. However your not allowed to go into a new property if your over occupied but if still in the same house, it's not a reason to go on a list for a bigger house ???? Lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"expect more of it if they get in next year.. incompetent bunch of nasty fuckers looking after their own chums.. well said there a load of wankers always have been always will be. They only look after there own ." What a load of bollocks ! We all know the welfare state exists to help those who need help . It can only give what's in the kitty . The kitty was left empty by the last lot . Finally there are signs of recovery thanks to some sensible measures put in place . The bedroom tax is just one of the many sensible measures now in place to help , and while I agree it's unfair to tax those on a waiting list , why should the state pay for rooms not being used ?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual the government punish the poorest and fail to make the savings promised. So what's the point? " The point is to create hate and social division in order to divert the public's attention away from the rampant corruption which is at the heart of the current extraction of the country's wealth and resources. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Add in the fact that only those on benefits get penalised - if you're working and under-occupying you don't pay extra. If there were the properties available for people to move into I wouldn't have such an issue with it, but since there's nowhere to go we're being punished for something we can't remedy. Isn't that the idea? If you work and decide you want a spare bedroom, you have to find the money to pay for it from your wages. The principle behind the "bedroom tax" is that those on benefits pay towards their spare room as well thus in theory making it fairer to all. Obviously for this to work, there do need to be sufficient smaller properties available." The thing is that many (me included) are in the position that we took what we were offered when there were more properties available. Or people had families who have now moved on. Since the council property sell off the government has not built enough social housing to fill the shortfall _ Maggie did promise that the money from the sales would go back into social housing... I'm now in the trap of being on benefits due to ill health and being charged extra for a spare room that I never asked for in the first place. There is no suitable one-bed alternative. This means I have to find the extra money with no possibility of moving to something smaller (a private rent would be more so my housing benefit claim would increase) and, currently, no chance of employment due to my health issues. Please explain how this is fair? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Nope x only those who get housing benefit I think
Yup - those who can least afford it. And it's not like they can rent out their spare room being tenants.
Yes they can.
And income from lodgers will not affect benefits claimed.
Google 'taking in a lodger' - the facts are there.
A"The council said they will help find suitable lodgers for tenants if you wanted to do that. Don't know if that would work for people with children but I know people who own their homes and have lodgers. If the government replaced the stock it sells there would be less of a problem. In my borough a lot of ex council homes are now rented privately at the same cost as buying a house | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Nope x only those who get housing benefit I think
Yup - those who can least afford it. And it's not like they can rent out their spare room being tenants.
Yes they can.
And income from lodgers will not affect benefits claimed.
Google 'taking in a lodger' - the facts are there.
A
If they are council tenants subletting is not permitted. Many private landlords are not keen either. Of course people could break the rules but then they'd face accusations of cheating the system and face eviction. "Wrong I'm afraid. Council tenants have the right to take in lodgers as long as they don’t breach overcrowding rules. Under their tenancy agreements housing association tenants can usually take in lodgers with the landlords’ consent. A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Nope x only those who get housing benefit I think
Yup - those who can least afford it. And it's not like they can rent out their spare room being tenants.
Yes they can.
And income from lodgers will not affect benefits claimed.
Google 'taking in a lodger' - the facts are there.
A
If they are council tenants subletting is not permitted. Many private landlords are not keen either. Of course people could break the rules but then they'd face accusations of cheating the system and face eviction.
Wrong I'm afraid.
Council tenants have the right to take in lodgers as long as they don’t breach overcrowding rules. Under their tenancy agreements housing association tenants can usually take in lodgers with the landlords’ consent.
A"Would the lodger,if working full time, be liable for all the cost of rent and council tax? A family member would be I think | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Nope x only those who get housing benefit I think
Yup - those who can least afford it. And it's not like they can rent out their spare room being tenants.
Yes they can.
And income from lodgers will not affect benefits claimed.
Google 'taking in a lodger' - the facts are there.
A
If they are council tenants subletting is not permitted. Many private landlords are not keen either. Of course people could break the rules but then they'd face accusations of cheating the system and face eviction.
Wrong I'm afraid.
Council tenants have the right to take in lodgers as long as they don’t breach overcrowding rules. Under their tenancy agreements housing association tenants can usually take in lodgers with the landlords’ consent.
A"I wasn't permitted as a council tenant to do that. It was against my tenancy agreement. I assumed it would be the same elsewhere but maybe I'm wrong. However, it's still a moot point. People are penalised for under occupancy yet are unable to find a smaller property. They are easy targets. It seems very unfair to be punished for a situation you have no control over. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's an organisation called home swapper - can't publish the link - simply google it. It's designed to allow those in social housing to look for smaller or larger properties. Type in a location and the number of rooms needed. Just as an example - there's currently 200 pages of 1and 2 beds listed in/around Sheffield. It's a great scheme that's had lots of success nationally in assisting those affected by the bedroom tax - and shows there are options out there! A" Yes but you can't swap if if you are in arrears someone I know is in that situation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point is this . If you claim benefits and see your neighbour getting more than you for no apparent reason , you would want to know why . They may live in the same 3 bedroom house but have full occupancy . Your Kids may have left home and you are the sole tenant . So your council tax and rent are significantly higher as there is just you to fund them . Why should the state fund it ? "the rent and council tax will be the same regardless of how many occupants | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual the government punish the poorest and fail to make the savings promised. So what's the point? The point is to create hate and social division in order to divert the public's attention away from the rampant corruption which is at the heart of the current extraction of the country's wealth and resources. "... and, judging by some replies here, it appears to be working like a charm - IDS would be proud! Two words: Maria Miller | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point is this . If you claim benefits and see your neighbour getting more than you for no apparent reason , you would want to know why . They may live in the same 3 bedroom house but have full occupancy . Your Kids may have left home and you are the sole tenant . So your council tax and rent are significantly higher as there is just you to fund them . Why should the state fund it ?
the rent and council tax will be the same regardless of how many occupants "I thought the benefits such as relief and help toward rent was taken away as a result of under occupancy ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's an organisation called home swapper - can't publish the link - simply google it. It's designed to allow those in social housing to look for smaller or larger properties. Type in a location and the number of rooms needed. Just as an example - there's currently 200 pages of 1and 2 beds listed in/around Sheffield. It's a great scheme that's had lots of success nationally in assisting those affected by the bedroom tax - and shows there are options out there! A Yes but you can't swap if if you are in arrears someone I know is in that situation" Not strictly true. Many housing associations and councils will allow moves even with a certain level of arrears. It's a question of asking. It's in their interests as much as the tenants to reduce rent arrears - and a simple way of doing that is reducing the number of tenants affected by the bedroom tax and getting them into suitably sized properties. A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual the government punish the poorest and fail to make the savings promised. So what's the point? The point is to create hate and social division in order to divert the public's attention away from the rampant corruption which is at the heart of the current extraction of the country's wealth and resources.
... and, judging by some replies here, it appears to be working like a charm - IDS would be proud!
Two words: Maria Miller "These kinds of threads always provoke a lively debate. Often polarised but it's much the same in life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point is this . If you claim benefits and see your neighbour getting more than you for no apparent reason , you would want to know why . They may live in the same 3 bedroom house but have full occupancy . Your Kids may have left home and you are the sole tenant . So your council tax and rent are significantly higher as there is just you to fund them . Why should the state fund it ?
the rent and council tax will be the same regardless of how many occupants
I thought the benefits such as relief and help toward rent was taken away as a result of under occupancy ?"you have totally confused me now. I will blame my terrible head cold and come back and read your comment later  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point is this . If you claim benefits and see your neighbour getting more than you for no apparent reason , you would want to know why . They may live in the same 3 bedroom house but have full occupancy . Your Kids may have left home and you are the sole tenant . So your council tax and rent are significantly higher as there is just you to fund them . Why should the state fund it ?
the rent and council tax will be the same regardless of how many occupants
I thought the benefits such as relief and help toward rent was taken away as a result of under occupancy ?"right . Think I get what you mean. You won't pay any rent, your council tax benefit will be reduced depending on how many bedrooms you aren't occupying. I don't think anyone looks at their neighbours and thinks they are getting more than me when it comes to bedrooms | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"DHP are available to some who are liable for the bedroom tax " is that hardship payments? They should scrap the whole thing and just make people move. I thought they could do that anyway if you don't need all your bedrooms | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual the government punish the poorest and fail to make the savings promised. So what's the point? The point is to create hate and social division in order to divert the public's attention away from the rampant corruption which is at the heart of the current extraction of the country's wealth and resources. "
Absolutely right! Read an article about a speech given by Georgie boy before he became an MP where he said the the purpose of government is to transfer the maximum amount of wealth to their backers as possible without causing a revelation...
Seems he and were all in it together Dave and co are proving themselves adroit at their task. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual the government punish the poorest and fail to make the savings promised. So what's the point? The point is to create hate and social division in order to divert the public's attention away from the rampant corruption which is at the heart of the current extraction of the country's wealth and resources.
... and, judging by some replies here, it appears to be working like a charm - IDS would be proud!
Two words: Maria Miller
These kinds of threads always provoke a lively debate. Often polarised but it's much the same in life. "I'm pretty sure the point is to best use the available stock of social housing - making sure those in need of larger houses can move into them by encouraging those with excess rooms to downsize. In the world of private renting/home ownership you pay for the size of the property you need/want. Why should it be different in social housing? As I mentioned earlier there are plenty of options available to help minimise the impact - it was quoted earlier there was only 1 one bed available in Swansea. There are currently 224 1 bed properties on the home swapper website where people want to move to larger accommodation. Those wanting to keep larger properties can rent spare rooms out. The objectives are fair. There will be those impacted that should not be (the issue with those requiring spare rooms due to disabilities is a huge issue) - but the argument that someone should not be expected to move from a large 'family home' long after the family has moved on is invalid. Social housing is designed to meet a need - not a want. Is it not as unfair that families living in overcrowded properties can't get sufficient rooms due to single people/couples living in two/three/four bed properties that they no longer need? A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I live on my own and i certainly dont want strangers living in my home. So would never consider the lodger route. I have been trying to down size to a smaller home for 15 years and am still trying but my council have nothing suitable. Yet im still penalised by a money grabbing ,self serving corrupt government " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual the government punish the poorest and fail to make the savings promised. So what's the point? The point is to create hate and social division in order to divert the public's attention away from the rampant corruption which is at the heart of the current extraction of the country's wealth and resources.
Absolutely right! Read an article about a speech given by Georgie boy before he became an MP where he said the the purpose of government is to transfer the maximum amount of wealth to their backers as possible without causing a revelation...
Seems he and were all in it together Dave and co are proving themselves adroit at their task."What both astonishes and depresses me most about this is that there are still so many people who are either unable or unwilling to open their eyes and minds sufficient to see this. It's sad indictment of our national intellect.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual the government punish the poorest and fail to make the savings promised. So what's the point? The point is to create hate and social division in order to divert the public's attention away from the rampant corruption which is at the heart of the current extraction of the country's wealth and resources.
... and, judging by some replies here, it appears to be working like a charm - IDS would be proud!
Two words: Maria Miller
These kinds of threads always provoke a lively debate. Often polarised but it's much the same in life.
I'm pretty sure the point is to best use the available stock of social housing - making sure those in need of larger houses can move into them by encouraging those with excess rooms to downsize.
In the world of private renting/home ownership you pay for the size of the property you need/want.
Why should it be different in social housing?
As I mentioned earlier there are plenty of options available to help minimise the impact - it was quoted earlier there was only 1 one bed available in Swansea. There are currently 224 1 bed properties on the home swapper website where people want to move to larger accommodation. Those wanting to keep larger properties can rent spare rooms out.
The objectives are fair. There will be those impacted that should not be (the issue with those requiring spare rooms due to disabilities is a huge issue) - but the argument that someone should not be expected to move from a large 'family home' long after the family has moved on is invalid. Social housing is designed to meet a need - not a want.
Is it not as unfair that families living in overcrowded properties can't get sufficient rooms due to single people/couples living in two/three/four bed properties that they no longer need?
A"the answer is to make them move out surely, regardless of if they pay their council tax themselves. If nobody was on benefits what would the solution to the housing problem be? Why should someone who works get to stay in a property they don't need? If they want that they should buy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research It is but people would rather keep thier big house and bleat how unfair it is that they aren't getting quite so much free money anymore. Still 330 millions is a big chunk saved If you read the rest of the article you will see that people are desperate to move into smaller properties but cannot as there is a shortage. They are sat on waiting lists hoping to get one and in the meantime are being taxed for something they don't want. " They are not being taxed at all they are just being given less. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research It is but people would rather keep thier big house and bleat how unfair it is that they aren't getting quite so much free money anymore. Still 330 millions is a big chunk saved If you read the rest of the article you will see that people are desperate to move into smaller properties but cannot as there is a shortage. They are sat on waiting lists hoping to get one and in the meantime are being taxed for something they don't want. They are not being taxed at all they are just being given less. " Well we can be pedantic all day but the result is that many people are being forced into debt through no fault of their own. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research It is but people would rather keep thier big house and bleat how unfair it is that they aren't getting quite so much free money anymore. Still 330 millions is a big chunk saved If you read the rest of the article you will see that people are desperate to move into smaller properties but cannot as there is a shortage. They are sat on waiting lists hoping to get one and in the meantime are being taxed for something they don't want. They are not being taxed at all they are just being given less. Well we can be pedantic all day but the result is that many people are being forced into debt through no fault of their own. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual the government punish the poorest and fail to make the savings promised. So what's the point? The point is to create hate and social division in order to divert the public's attention away from the rampant corruption which is at the heart of the current extraction of the country's wealth and resources.
... and, judging by some replies here, it appears to be working like a charm - IDS would be proud!
Two words: Maria Miller
These kinds of threads always provoke a lively debate. Often polarised but it's much the same in life.
I'm pretty sure the point is to best use the available stock of social housing - making sure those in need of larger houses can move into them by encouraging those with excess rooms to downsize.
In the world of private renting/home ownership you pay for the size of the property you need/want.
Why should it be different in social housing?
As I mentioned earlier there are plenty of options available to help minimise the impact - it was quoted earlier there was only 1 one bed available in Swansea. There are currently 224 1 bed properties on the home swapper website where people want to move to larger accommodation. Those wanting to keep larger properties can rent spare rooms out.
The objectives are fair. There will be those impacted that should not be (the issue with those requiring spare rooms due to disabilities is a huge issue) - but the argument that someone should not be expected to move from a large 'family home' long after the family has moved on is invalid. Social housing is designed to meet a need - not a want.
Is it not as unfair that families living in overcrowded properties can't get sufficient rooms due to single people/couples living in two/three/four bed properties that they no longer need?
A"It has been pointed out that there are not enough of the smaller properties so those wanting to move into one simply cannot. It's not the case that people WON'T move but that they CAN'T and so are put in a position that they have no power to control and are penalised for it. The government were warned that this would be the case yet they went ahead anyway knowing that this would exacerbate the levels of poverty in the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area "There is a serious lack of 1/2 bedroom properties anywhere in the UK, its was so easy for these fat cat politicians to put stealth taxes into play as they knew with just 47,000 1/2 bed props the 400,000 under occupied would fetch an healthy profit as people can't downsize. They burnt their bridges with this crazy fuck up making 100's homeless each week while their own MP's fiddle 1000's in expenses...says it it all really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual the government punish the poorest and fail to make the savings promised. So what's the point? The point is to create hate and social division in order to divert the public's attention away from the rampant corruption which is at the heart of the current extraction of the country's wealth and resources.
Absolutely right! Read an article about a speech given by Georgie boy before he became an MP where he said the the purpose of government is to transfer the maximum amount of wealth to their backers as possible without causing a revelation...
Seems he and were all in it together Dave and co are proving themselves adroit at their task.
What both astonishes and depresses me most about this is that there are still so many people who are either unable or unwilling to open their eyes and minds sufficient to see this. It's sad indictment of our national intellect.
"
Is government to blame for treating us like mushrooms, kept in dark and fed shit.
or are the public burying their heads to avoid accepting a share of responsibility, if you cant see the bogeyman he doesnt exist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just did a search in my area there are a whopping 7 one bed properties available!!," Make that 6 as one of those is too far away to consider | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just did a search in my area there are a whopping 7 one bed properties available!!," I just did a search and came up with zero properties | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A few facts: The 'bedroom tax' affects those in social housing in receipt of housing benefit. That equates to 670,000 households. 72% of those affected either have a disability or major health concern, eg, cancer. 180,000 judged to have a 'spare' room including people on home dialysis or who have medical equipment in that room. Yet there are fewer than 70,000 one - bedroom alternatives. If this causes people to be forced out of social housing into the private sector then that would cost more in housing benefit. " my parents for example live in a 3 bed house but their rent being housing association is crazily cheap, if they were to move into a suitable one bed property that was private rented and then be out of work their housing benefit would be nearly double what their rent is now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual the government punish the poorest and fail to make the savings promised. So what's the point? The point is to create hate and social division in order to divert the public's attention away from the rampant corruption which is at the heart of the current extraction of the country's wealth and resources.
Absolutely right! Read an article about a speech given by Georgie boy before he became an MP where he said the the purpose of government is to transfer the maximum amount of wealth to their backers as possible without causing a revelation...
Seems he and were all in it together Dave and co are proving themselves adroit at their task.
What both astonishes and depresses me most about this is that there are still so many people who are either unable or unwilling to open their eyes and minds sufficient to see this. It's sad indictment of our national intellect.
Is government to blame for treating us like mushrooms, kept in dark and fed shit.
or are the public burying their heads to avoid accepting a share of responsibility, if you cant see the bogeyman he doesnt exist."Where the USA go today we go in 5 to 10 years... In the States there are 2 brothers, Charles and David Koch, they have been funding the tea party and climate change denial for years with diverted taxes, sorry they have been offsetting this activity against tax. They are proud of what they do and boast that they have the American poor queueing up to help them drive them further into poverty to line their own pockets... Now its our turn to be shafted in the same way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just did a search in my area there are a whopping 7 one bed properties available!!, I just did a search and came up with zero properties "how do you search for empty council homes? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop MPs claiming for a second home and make them move to the constituency they want. Have one bed flats available in Parliament for when they visit to vote on something important like their pay rise. Or make them lodge in a house that is under-occupied. While we're at it make them pay full price for their whiskey and wine while they're in Parliament pushing through a bill that will give their mates a helping hand " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research " That's what we thought it was for, Some of the cases may have been badly managed and may need to be looked at again but on the whole it is a fair tax. Council houses are after all a privilege to have not a right, or I'm I wrong there?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"it wasnt JUST about monetary savings, although that was obviously a part of it. it was about freeing up family homes for families, not for single occupants, which hasnt happened, because people would rather not pay their rent and stay put." so why not enforce contracts and make people move into a smaller home? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just did a search in my area there are a whopping 7 one bed properties available!!, I just did a search and came up with zero properties
how do you search for empty council homes? "Go to your council's housing department website and it will be on there. They are all slightly different. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Nope x only those who get housing benefit I think "That's a shame but thank you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research That's what we thought it was for, Some of the cases may have been badly managed and may need to be looked at again but on the whole it is a fair tax. Council houses are after all a privilege to have not a right, or I'm I wrong there? "I wouldn't say privilege. It's affordable housing. Privately renting a 3 bedroom house in my area is £1,360 pcm. Council tent would be about a third of that. Anyone who can afford that much rent would buy. A lot of ex council properties are now being rented out by agencies | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Council houses are after all a privilege to have not a right, or I'm I wrong there? "You are wrong! Councils have a statutory obligation to provide appropriate housing for all those in need. That is why where a suitable council house is not available they have to house families in B&B's until such housing becomes available. Once you have a council tenancy it cannot be revoked without good reason. The bedroom tax is just another end run round a law that any attempt to openly change would lead to mass protests and the Tories being forced out of office. Its the Thatcher/Tebitt policy of on your bike and sleep in doorways and under archways again! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government have showed their true colours with their "hate a poor family campaign" & they done what they set out to do in lining their own pockets as usual. With the elections looming next year people have the chance to decide who they really want running the country, fingers crossed people who don't usually vote will this time for a party they think will improve their lives." It's always the easy answer to blame the current government and say the next will be different. But it also pays to look at the history of all parties too. There's plenty of info out there to show that labour and the torys both have interesting histories in regard to social housing. The report below was written last September at the time of the Labour Party conference. "As part of the Labour conference focus on the cost of living, the party will be going to great efforts this week to reclaim its presumed title as the party of ‘council housing’. Expect to hear private builders bashed for _quirrelling away land plots rather than piling ‘em high with apartments as they should. And the pillorying of the right to buy policy, ritually chastised as it is each conference as the chief reason for the country’s interminable descent into social housing drought. What you’re unlikely to hear is a serious admission by Labour of its appalling track record on council housing supply. That local authority housing passed into private hands far faster under Labour than Conservative prime ministers. Or that the true title of council housing champion sits more comfortably in Conservative hands. Despite the huge building boom under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, only 13 percent of the 2.5 million homes which rose up under their watch were built by ‘social’ landlords. This compares with almost a quarter of 3.8m homes under Margaret Thatcher and John Major’s reign. Even David Cameron appears on track to match his predecessors’ trend, in market share at least. If Labour had caught onto the coat tails of their building boom to the same degree as the Tories, almost 300,000 more social homes would be dotting this land. What a massive missed opportunity. Whichever way you look at it Labour’s council housing halo has slipped. Investment in housing plunged under Blair and Brown to its lowest level for decades. During their first 12 months in power they spent less than in any year of Thatcher and Major’s 18-year reign. Their poverty of social housing ambition persisted throughout most of their administration. A big increase only arrived in its dying days- as a prop for builders tripped up by the financial crisis. One council housing crown does belong firmly in Labour’s territory, though not one its grassroots members ever wanted. council houses and flats passed into private ownership at a far greater rate in Brown and Blair’s 13 years than under two decades of Thatcher, Major and Cameron premierships." If social housing is to be a key factor in someone's vote at the next election - make sure the party you're voting for has a realistic, affordable (to the taxpayer) and viable solution - rather than just aspirations and wild claims of how things will change, and a view that you're voting FOR a policy rather than just hoping that a change in government will wave a magic wand and solve all problems - it won't! A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research That's what we thought it was for, Some of the cases may have been badly managed and may need to be looked at again but on the whole it is a fair tax. Council houses are after all a privilege to have not a right, or I'm I wrong there?
I wouldn't say privilege. It's affordable housing. Privately renting a 3 bedroom house in my area is £1,360 pcm. Council tent would be about a third of that. Anyone who can afford that much rent would by. A lot of ex council properties are now being rented out by agencies "So the council homes are there for being subsidies by the tax payer in which case it is a privilege to have one, is it not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"it wasnt JUST about monetary savings, although that was obviously a part of it. it was about freeing up family homes for families, not for single occupants, which hasnt happened, because people would rather not pay their rent and stay put. so why not enforce contracts and make people move into a smaller home? " thats not a question i can answer, unfortunately. that said, if i were on benefits, i would have probably moved house as i have a 2 bed and im on my own. i was approached by someone that had a 3 bed and wanted to downsize, but it never came to anything. it depends what contracts are signed. mine doesnt state anything about the amount of occupants, but merely, as long as i keep my rent paid, i can stay here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research That's what we thought it was for, Some of the cases may have been badly managed and may need to be looked at again but on the whole it is a fair tax. Council houses are after all a privilege to have not a right, or I'm I wrong there?
I wouldn't say privilege. It's affordable housing. Privately renting a 3 bedroom house in my area is £1,360 pcm. Council tent would be about a third of that. Anyone who can afford that much rent would by. A lot of ex council properties are now being rented out by agencies So the council homes are there for being subsidies by the tax payer in which case it is a privilege to have one, is it not? "I wouldn't call being too poor to be able to buy a house a privilege, personally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research That's what we thought it was for, Some of the cases may have been badly managed and may need to be looked at again but on the whole it is a fair tax. Council houses are after all a privilege to have not a right, or I'm I wrong there?
I wouldn't say privilege. It's affordable housing. Privately renting a 3 bedroom house in my area is £1,360 pcm. Council tent would be about a third of that. Anyone who can afford that much rent would by. A lot of ex council properties are now being rented out by agencies So the council homes are there for being subsidies by the tax payer in which case it is a privilege to have one, is it not? "that depends if you think it's the private renters over charging or if a council home warrants the rent charged on them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Nope x only those who get housing benefit I think
That's a shame but thank you "How could a reduction in benefits affect those that aren't entitled to claim them? Those that own their own homes have to pay their own bills - mortgage, utilities, council tax, repairs, ongoing maintenance. As do those that work, don't receive benefits and rent privately. (Except repairs/maintenance). Who helps them when money is tight, pay rises are non existent and the cost of living increases?
A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area
Add in the fact that only those on benefits get penalised - if you're working and under-occupying you don't pay extra.
If there were the properties available for people to move into I wouldn't have such an issue with it, but since there's nowhere to go we're being punished for something we can't remedy.
"Nobody pays "extra" people on benefits have to pay a portion of their rent themselves out of their benefits. The total rent charged for the property is the same for everyone regardless of circumstance. I live in social housing and my husband works very hard to pay our ever increasing rent. Why should ee pay "extra" if when our children leave home we become underoccupied? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area "Same in my area. The one time I found myself in need of council housing I specified I wanted a 2 bed house but was given a 3 bed because there are no 2bed properties. That wasn't my fault. I had moved out by the time the legislation came in but it would have galled me to have to pay for a bedroom I hadn't even asked for in the first place | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area
Same in my area. The one time I found myself in need of council housing I specified I wanted a 2 bed house but was given a 3 bed because there are no 2bed properties. That wasn't my fault. I had moved out by the time the legislation came in but it would have galled me to have to pay for a bedroom I hadn't even asked for in the first place"Already councils are reporting a surplus of 3 bed houses they CANNOT LET, since people won't take them if they have to lose 14% of their benefit. So we have empty houses and people living on the street. Clearly a well thought out, logical and practical policy, or an ideological standpoint - you choose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To clarify. Only those receiving housing benefit and in social housing are affected. If someone is forced out by this into private renting then this 'bedroom tax ' would not apply and therefore a greater burden is placed on housing benefit. It's quite simple. " However the unsuitable house they were living in would now be free for a family that needed such a property. Who had possibly been in privately rented accommodation/expensive B&B accommodation funded by housing benefit - therefore reducing the burden. Thus balancing the cost. A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research That's what we thought it was for, Some of the cases may have been badly managed and may need to be looked at again but on the whole it is a fair tax. Council houses are after all a privilege to have not a right, or I'm I wrong there?
I wouldn't say privilege. It's affordable housing. Privately renting a 3 bedroom house in my area is £1,360 pcm. Council tent would be about a third of that. Anyone who can afford that much rent would by. A lot of ex council properties are now being rented out by agencies So the council homes are there for being subsidies by the tax payer in which case it is a privilege to have one, is it not?
that depends if you think it's the private renters over charging or if a council home warrants the rent charged on them "If you are in a house or using a service that you have not fully paid for and asking people to help pay for that house/service out of their wages I would class that as a privilege not a right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area
Same in my area. The one time I found myself in need of council housing I specified I wanted a 2 bed house but was given a 3 bed because there are no 2bed properties. That wasn't my fault. I had moved out by the time the legislation came in but it would have galled me to have to pay for a bedroom I hadn't even asked for in the first place
Already councils are reporting a surplus of 3 bed houses they CANNOT LET, since people won't take them if they have to lose 14% of their benefit.
So we have empty houses and people living on the street. Clearly a well thought out, logical and practical policy, or an ideological standpoint - you choose."Are you seriously saying there are no families with two children (thus needing three rooms) currently living in two bed accommodation that would jump at the chance of a three bed house? For years the press was awash with tales of overcrowding and families living in unsuitable properties. Have all these families suddenly disappeared? A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area
Same in my area. The one time I found myself in need of council housing I specified I wanted a 2 bed house but was given a 3 bed because there are no 2bed properties. That wasn't my fault. I had moved out by the time the legislation came in but it would have galled me to have to pay for a bedroom I hadn't even asked for in the first place"When I first went on the housing list they offered me a 3 bed house! At that time they had a lot of properties available in some of the worst areas. The fall out of Care in the Community led to the less popular areas/streets being filled disproportionately with people coming out of residential care. The antidote to this was to offer larger properties to people who were working and had no record of problems (in an asbo sense). They wanted to create a mix of people instead of having ghettos of one type. So a lot of people got properties that were technically larger than they were entitled to. Many of these people (who were in employment) then bought them. I never bought my council property because I think it's wrong to remove social housing from the communal pot. I think that social housing should be available to all. Now that I can't work due to ill-health I am penalised for this because I have a second bedroom that I didn't ask for in the first place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area
Same in my area. The one time I found myself in need of council housing I specified I wanted a 2 bed house but was given a 3 bed because there are no 2bed properties. That wasn't my fault. I had moved out by the time the legislation came in but it would have galled me to have to pay for a bedroom I hadn't even asked for in the first place
Already councils are reporting a surplus of 3 bed houses they CANNOT LET, since people won't take them if they have to lose 14% of their benefit.
So we have empty houses and people living on the street. Clearly a well thought out, logical and practical policy, or an ideological standpoint - you choose.
Are you seriously saying there are no families with two children (thus needing three rooms) currently living in two bed accommodation that would jump at the chance of a three bed house?
For years the press was awash with tales of overcrowding and families living in unsuitable properties.
Have all these families suddenly disappeared?
A"If those two children are under 10 or are the same sex then they are expected to share so the family would still be charged. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area
Same in my area. The one time I found myself in need of council housing I specified I wanted a 2 bed house but was given a 3 bed because there are no 2bed properties. That wasn't my fault. I had moved out by the time the legislation came in but it would have galled me to have to pay for a bedroom I hadn't even asked for in the first place
Already councils are reporting a surplus of 3 bed houses they CANNOT LET, since people won't take them if they have to lose 14% of their benefit.
So we have empty houses and people living on the street. Clearly a well thought out, logical and practical policy, or an ideological standpoint - you choose.
Are you seriously saying there are no families with two children (thus needing three rooms) currently living in two bed accommodation that would jump at the chance of a three bed house?
For years the press was awash with tales of overcrowding and families living in unsuitable properties.
Have all these families suddenly disappeared?
A
If those two children are under 10 or are the same sex then they are expected to share so the family would still be charged. "Even if that bedroom is a tiny boxroom which will barely fit one bed, let alone two. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"expect more of it if they get in next year.. incompetent bunch of nasty fuckers looking after their own chums.. well said there a load of wankers always have been always will be. They only look after there own . What a load of bollocks ! We all know the welfare state exists to help those who need help . It can only give what's in the kitty . The kitty was left empty by the last lot . Finally there are signs of recovery thanks to some sensible measures put in place . The bedroom tax is just one of the many sensible measures now in place to help , and while I agree it's unfair to tax those on a waiting list , why should the state pay for rooms not being used ? "did you know the signs of recovery also take into account revenue raised from prostitution and the illegal drugs trade. "Britain makes £10 billion a year thanks to drug dealers and prostitutes, the government's statistics watchdog is set to confirm. The Office for National Statistics is expected to comply with new EU rules by revealing its first estimates for the size of the illegal industries and how it has reached these calculations as soon as March or April. Prostitution in Britain is set to be valued at around £3 billion a year while the drug dealing sector is set to be valued at £7 billion, with both of them factored into the UK's £1.6 trillion gross domestic product, according to the Times. The EU rules require members to record the value of certain illegal activities in the nation's GDP, including the "production and consumption of drugs' as well as prostitution, in order to ensure consistent economic comparisons between member states and a fair distribution of the EU's £120 billion EU budget. Other states have been asked to include the sectors in their national accounts given that prostitution and the consumption of drugs are legal in countries like the Netherlands." So the minimal amount of monies raised by the bedroom tax is like pissing in the wind! it serves no real purpose as there are insufficient properties,causes further debt and uproots people and families that may have been in their homes for decades that now found themselves going through additional hardships... shame on the Tories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area
Add in the fact that only those on benefits get penalised - if you're working and under-occupying you don't pay extra. "The whole point of the 'bedroom tax' is to help reduce the welfare bill. If you're working and don't receive any benefit you are already paying the full rent anyway. I'm not sure many people would feel it acceptable to be paying tax on their earnings (which provides some of the money to enable benefits to be paid) then pay extra so those on benefits don't have to? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You could also argue why homeowners in large houses enjoy tax free gains of the profits when they sell up " If they're selling and moving into a new home at the same time they don't pay tax - why should they? If the sale is of a second home or they are not using the funds to buy a new property to live in then the profits are subject to capital gains tax. So there's not really an argument there is there?
A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area
Add in the fact that only those on benefits get penalised - if you're working and under-occupying you don't pay extra.
The whole point of the 'bedroom tax' is to help reduce the welfare bill. If you're working and don't receive any benefit you are already paying the full rent anyway. I'm not sure many people would feel it acceptable to be paying tax on their earnings (which provides some of the money to enable benefits to be paid) then pay extra so those on benefits don't have to?"No. The whole point of the bedroom tax is to make an ideological point that the Tories hate people who aren't rich, and view them as an exploitable resource in peace, and cannon fodder in war. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area
Add in the fact that only those on benefits get penalised - if you're working and under-occupying you don't pay extra.
The whole point of the 'bedroom tax' is to help reduce the welfare bill. If you're working and don't receive any benefit you are already paying the full rent anyway. I'm not sure many people would feel it acceptable to be paying tax on their earnings (which provides some of the money to enable benefits to be paid) then pay extra so those on benefits don't have to?"At what point would people pay extra??? The bedroom tax ONLY affects those in social housing who are also in receipt of housing benefit. No one else has been asked to pay more tax to cover people in need! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? " Not yet. But if the spiteful vindictive Liebour party get elected again anything is possible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
One sector of society can buy and move enjoying the gains tax free. There arn't enough houses so the prices go up, they gain.
Others forced to rent, some of which are forced to move.
1.3 million council houses sold off, and not replaced
Yes there really is an argument | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? " 'Not yet. But if the spiteful vindictive Liebour party get elected again anything is possible' It will come. There's a growing student loan deficit, £90 bn by 2040 to be repaid. Moneys got to come from somewhere It will come from buy to let britain, and possibly taxes on main residence (not while Tories in ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Not yet. But if the spiteful vindictive Liebour party get elected again anything is possible." wasn't there talk of a council tax increase for people with better views from their windows? I could have dreamed it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Not yet. But if the spiteful vindictive Liebour party get elected again anything is possible. wasn't there talk of a council tax increase for people with better views from their windows? I could have dreamed it " yes, as well as a tax for those with conservatories too. remember two jags mentioning it. party of the people, what? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Not yet. But if the spiteful vindictive Liebour party get elected again anything is possible. wasn't there talk of a council tax increase for people with better views from their windows? I could have dreamed it " Bugger!
I'll get well and truly shafted then! I'm at the top of a very big hill next to the peak district. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area
Add in the fact that only those on benefits get penalised - if you're working and under-occupying you don't pay extra.
The whole point of the 'bedroom tax' is to help reduce the welfare bill. If you're working and don't receive any benefit you are already paying the full rent anyway. I'm not sure many people would feel it acceptable to be paying tax on their earnings (which provides some of the money to enable benefits to be paid) then pay extra so those on benefits don't have to?
At what point would people pay extra??? The bedroom tax ONLY affects those in social housing who are also in receipt of housing benefit. No one else has been asked to pay more tax to cover people in need! "I didn't say they would pay more tax, the other poster was complaining only those on benefits were paying extra. I was pointing out that those who are working and not in receipt of benefits already pay tax and therefore would not want to pay any extra money (not tax) so those on benefits don't have to | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Not yet. But if the spiteful vindictive Liebour party get elected again anything is possible. wasn't there talk of a council tax increase for people with better views from their windows? I could have dreamed it yes, as well as a tax for those with conservatories too. remember two jags mentioning it. party of the people, what?" I suppose that was binned because they all have a house in the country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Not yet. But if the spiteful vindictive Liebour party get elected again anything is possible. wasn't there talk of a council tax increase for people with better views from their windows? I could have dreamed it yes, as well as a tax for those with conservatories too. remember two jags mentioning it. party of the people, what? I suppose that was binned because they all have a house in the country " im almost certain mp's can claim part payment for CT so it probably wouldnt matter to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Not yet. But if the spiteful vindictive Liebour party get elected again anything is possible. wasn't there talk of a council tax increase for people with better views from their windows? I could have dreamed it yes, as well as a tax for those with conservatories too. remember two jags mentioning it. party of the people, what? I suppose that was binned because they all have a house in the country im almost certain mp's can claim part payment for CT so it probably wouldnt matter to them." I bet they don't get an under-occupancy reduction | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"expect more of it if they get in next year.. incompetent bunch of nasty fuckers looking after their own chums.. well said there a load of wankers always have been always will be. They only look after there own . What a load of bollocks ! We all know the welfare state exists to help those who need help . It can only give what's in the kitty . The kitty was left empty by the last lot . Finally there are signs of recovery thanks to some sensible measures put in place . The bedroom tax is just one of the many sensible measures now in place to help , and while I agree it's unfair to tax those on a waiting list , why should the state pay for rooms not being used ?
did you know the signs of recovery also take into account revenue raised from prostitution and the illegal drugs trade.
"Britain makes £10 billion a year thanks to drug dealers and prostitutes, the government's statistics watchdog is set to confirm.
The Office for National Statistics is expected to comply with new EU rules by revealing its first estimates for the size of the illegal industries and how it has reached these calculations as soon as March or April.
Prostitution in Britain is set to be valued at around £3 billion a year while the drug dealing sector is set to be valued at £7 billion, with both of them factored into the UK's £1.6 trillion gross domestic product, according to the Times.
The EU rules require members to record the value of certain illegal activities in the nation's GDP, including the "production and consumption of drugs' as well as prostitution, in order to ensure consistent economic comparisons between member states and a fair distribution of the EU's £120 billion EU budget.
Other states have been asked to include the sectors in their national accounts given that prostitution and the consumption of drugs are legal in countries like the Netherlands."
So the minimal amount of monies raised by the bedroom tax is like pissing in the wind! it serves no real purpose as there are insufficient properties,causes further debt and uproots people and families that may have been in their homes for decades that now found themselves going through additional hardships...
shame on the Tories.
"Typical... they can put into prison anyone found to be living on "immoral earnings" yet gain from it themselves..... I hope to got these tory scum dont get in again.....ever | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nowhere for them to move to.... there is a severe lack of 2 bed properties in my area
Same in my area. The one time I found myself in need of council housing I specified I wanted a 2 bed house but was given a 3 bed because there are no 2bed properties. That wasn't my fault. I had moved out by the time the legislation came in but it would have galled me to have to pay for a bedroom I hadn't even asked for in the first place
Already councils are reporting a surplus of 3 bed houses they CANNOT LET, since people won't take them if they have to lose 14% of their benefit.
So we have empty houses and people living on the street. Clearly a well thought out, logical and practical policy, or an ideological standpoint - you choose.
Are you seriously saying there are no families with two children (thus needing three rooms) currently living in two bed accommodation that would jump at the chance of a three bed house?
For years the press was awash with tales of overcrowding and families living in unsuitable properties.
Have all these families suddenly disappeared?
A"That family would only need a two bed now if their kids are 10 and under, regardless of gender. so would then be penalised with the bedroom tax | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there's not really an argument there is there?
One sector of society can buy and move enjoying the gains tax free. There arn't enough houses so the prices go up, they gain.
Others forced to rent, some of which are forced to move.
1.3 million council houses sold off, and not replaced
Yes there really is an argument "Another sector of society enjoys free or heavily subsidised accommodation whilst others have to pay for it themselves. What a horrendous country we live in! And I'm sure there's never been a labour voter buy their own home (and certainly not an ex council house) nor a labour MP make money from second homes and expense fiddles. It's only the nasty Tories and their voters that do that!
A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research " they dont give any help to downsize tho | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there's not really an argument there is there?
One sector of society can buy and move enjoying the gains tax free. There arn't enough houses so the prices go up, they gain.
Others forced to rent, some of which are forced to move.
1.3 million council houses sold off, and not replaced
Yes there really is an argument
Another sector of society enjoys free or heavily subsidised accommodation whilst others have to pay for it themselves.
What a horrendous country we live in!
And I'm sure there's never been a labour voter buy their own home (and certainly not an ex council house) nor a labour MP make money from second homes and expense fiddles.
It's only the nasty Tories and their voters that do that!
A"enjoy? Nice choice of word | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there's not really an argument there is there?
One sector of society can buy and move enjoying the gains tax free. There arn't enough houses so the prices go up, they gain.
Others forced to rent, some of which are forced to move.
1.3 million council houses sold off, and not replaced
Yes there really is an argument
Another sector of society enjoys free or heavily subsidised accommodation whilst others have to pay for it themselves.
What a horrendous country we live in!
And I'm sure there's never been a labour voter buy their own home (and certainly not an ex council house) nor a labour MP make money from second homes and expense fiddles.
It's only the nasty Tories and their voters that do that!
A
enjoy? Nice choice of word "Simply using the same choice if word as the poster I quoted! Anyone from any 'sector' of society has the chance to buy a home - or indeed take advantage of social housing. It's not restricted to supporters of one political party or another. Saying someone is 'forced' to rent or move is avoiding the fact that individuals have to take responsibility for themselves, their circumstances and choices - as much as wider issues can affect them. Nobody is 'owed' anything in life - a job, a roof over their head, their bills paid for them or food on their table. It often seems in threads that some believe they are entitled to all of the above with no input or contribution from themselves and that certain things should be handed to them on a plate. As has often been said - the welfare state and the benefits system were set up to help those in need at the time they needed help - not to become a way of life and an alternative to personal accountability, responsibility and supporting yourself. There are many people out there struggling to make ends meet who work, get no assistance from the state, who take ownership of their circumstances and do all they can to ensure they are contributing to their own welfare and the welfare of those around them. They look for positive solutions and adjust their lives rather than expecting the state to meet all their needs. They relocate. They seek and take work that many would deem beneath them rather than rely on benefits, even if the wage is little more than they would have received by not working. They look at their lifestyles and make cut backs to live within their means. They tend to do so without blaming politicians, employers or others - and as such they don't make for good stories in the press or good soundbites in the party political broadcasts of all parties. I'll support anyone who's circumstances change and who need state support due to those changes. That is what the system was created for. I'll never however lay blame at the doorstep of one political party or another when history shows there is scant difference between them all, the effectiveness of their policies and the environment they create. Nor will I ever believe the constant claims that people have no opportunities for work and that the state has forced them into a life on benefits. I've worked too closely with councils, social housing providers, recruitment agencies, job centres and support services and charities over the last 15 years to fall for press stories, political rhetoric and even Fab forum posts to believe that individuals have zero opportunities to improve their lot through personal effort and seeking help in the right way. A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So there's not really an argument there is there?
One sector of society can buy and move enjoying the gains tax free. There arn't enough houses so the prices go up, they gain.
Others forced to rent, some of which are forced to move.
1.3 million council houses sold off, and not replaced
Yes there really is an argument
Another sector of society enjoys free or heavily subsidised accommodation whilst others have to pay for it themselves.
What a horrendous country we live in!
And I'm sure there's never been a labour voter buy their own home (and certainly not an ex council house) nor a labour MP make money from second homes and expense fiddles.
It's only the nasty Tories and their voters that do that!
A
enjoy? Nice choice of word
Simply using the same choice if word as the poster I quoted!
Anyone from any 'sector' of society has the chance to buy a home - or indeed take advantage of social housing. It's not restricted to supporters of one political party or another. Saying someone is 'forced' to rent or move is avoiding the fact that individuals have to take responsibility for themselves, their circumstances and choices - as much as wider issues can affect them.
Nobody is 'owed' anything in life - a job, a roof over their head, their bills paid for them or food on their table. It often seems in threads that some believe they are entitled to all of the above with no input or contribution from themselves and that certain things should be handed to them on a plate.
As has often been said - the welfare state and the benefits system were set up to help those in need at the time they needed help - not to become a way of life and an alternative to personal accountability, responsibility and supporting yourself.
There are many people out there struggling to make ends meet who work, get no assistance from the state, who take ownership of their circumstances and do all they can to ensure they are contributing to their own welfare and the welfare of those around them. They look for positive solutions and adjust their lives rather than expecting the state to meet all their needs. They relocate. They seek and take work that many would deem beneath them rather than rely on benefits, even if the wage is little more than they would have received by not working. They look at their lifestyles and make cut backs to live within their means.
They tend to do so without blaming politicians, employers or others - and as such they don't make for good stories in the press or good soundbites in the party political broadcasts of all parties.
I'll support anyone who's circumstances change and who need state support due to those changes. That is what the system was created for.
I'll never however lay blame at the doorstep of one political party or another when history shows there is scant difference between them all, the effectiveness of their policies and the environment they create. Nor will I ever believe the constant claims that people have no opportunities for work and that the state has forced them into a life on benefits.
I've worked too closely with councils, social housing providers, recruitment agencies, job centres and support services and charities over the last 15 years to fall for press stories, political rhetoric and even Fab forum posts to believe that individuals have zero opportunities to improve their lot through personal effort and seeking help in the right way.
A
"I would have to agree with most of the above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"expect more of it if they get in next year.. incompetent bunch of nasty fuckers looking after their own chums.. well said there a load of wankers always have been always will be. They only look after there own . What a load of bollocks ! We all know the welfare state exists to help those who need help . It can only give what's in the kitty . The kitty was left empty by the last lot . Finally there are signs of recovery thanks to some sensible measures put in place . The bedroom tax is just one of the many sensible measures now in place to help , and while I agree it's unfair to tax those on a waiting list , why should the state pay for rooms not being used ?
did you know the signs of recovery also take into account revenue raised from prostitution and the illegal drugs trade.
"Britain makes £10 billion a year thanks to drug dealers and prostitutes, the government's statistics watchdog is set to confirm.
The Office for National Statistics is expected to comply with new EU rules by revealing its first estimates for the size of the illegal industries and how it has reached these calculations as soon as March or April.
Prostitution in Britain is set to be valued at around £3 billion a year while the drug dealing sector is set to be valued at £7 billion, with both of them factored into the UK's £1.6 trillion gross domestic product, according to the Times.
The EU rules require members to record the value of certain illegal activities in the nation's GDP, including the "production and consumption of drugs' as well as prostitution, in order to ensure consistent economic comparisons between member states and a fair distribution of the EU's £120 billion EU budget.
Other states have been asked to include the sectors in their national accounts given that prostitution and the consumption of drugs are legal in countries like the Netherlands."
So the minimal amount of monies raised by the bedroom tax is like pissing in the wind! it serves no real purpose as there are insufficient properties,causes further debt and uproots people and families that may have been in their homes for decades that now found themselves going through additional hardships...
shame on the Tories.
Typical...
they can put into prison anyone found to be living on "immoral earnings" yet gain from it themselves.....
I hope to got these tory scum dont get in again.....ever "What a nonsensical answer
Firstly the requirement to include various illegal activities comes from the EU. Sod all to do with the Tories or any other UK party.
Secondly the exchequer gets no taxation from the illegal activities, if it could they wouldn't be illegal. Again sod all to do with the Tories or any other party.
If you don't like the Tories that is fine. I am quite happy to hate loathe and despise the Labour party and everything it stands for. But please if you are going to have a pop at them or any other party, lets keep it to something that they are responsible for.
As for the "bedroom tax" it isn't a tax. It is the removal of taxpayer subsidy for empty rooms. There is one hell of a difference. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Secondly the exchequer gets no taxation from the illegal activities, if it could they wouldn't be illegal." Not directly, but indirectly. VAT for a start. How much VAT do you think is raised from people who grow cannabis, for example ? Anyway, prostitution per se is not illegal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What nonsense to blame a party who are trying to get the country back on it's feet with facts that are not even true ! "The definition of facts is something that IS true! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What nonsense to blame a party who are trying to get the country back on it's feet with facts that are not even true ! "They getting the rich on their feet and keeping the poor in the gutter, if this keeps up crime will increase as people will need shelter and food. Expect more riots because as the country is split into two.. people will rebel as they do in any other badly run country, how can we tell the middle east what to do when we cant even clean up our own country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Secondly the exchequer gets no taxation from the illegal activities, if it could they wouldn't be illegal. Not directly, but indirectly. VAT for a start. How much VAT do you think is raised from people who grow cannabis, for example ? Anyway, prostitution per se is not illegal." the same VAT you or i would pay in increased electricity usage, and extra horticultural provisions. so what? should people not grow their own veg for fear of giving the government more money than they ought? your argument is flawed at best, at worse, ridiculous | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression it was to make people move to smaller accommodation to free up housing for people that need more bedrooms. I should do some research they dont give any help to downsize tho" Yes. And the cost of moving is all in one lump sum and involves more than just removals costs; cookers, washers and other appliances need to be connected, when a property is vacated the council strip out carpets and curtains so they may need replacing or altering and carpets need to be fitted and they may be decorating costs as well as other incidentals. The bedroom tax may be nearly manageable but having to pay out one big amount for these services can be too much for people with no savings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Secondly the exchequer gets no taxation from the illegal activities, if it could they wouldn't be illegal. Not directly, but indirectly. VAT for a start. How much VAT do you think is raised from people who grow cannabis, for example ? Anyway, prostitution per se is not illegal. the same VAT you or i would pay in increased electricity usage, and extra horticultural provisions. so what? should people not grow their own veg for fear of giving the government more money than they ought? your argument is flawed at best, at worse, ridiculous" No, I was responding to a poster who said it was ridiculous to size illegal activities in the economy since there's no tax take from it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From today's Independent: The controversial “bedroom tax” has plunged half the tenants affected into rent arrears but will fail to deliver the savings sought by the Government, according to a study published today. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation predicted that ending the “spare room subsidy”, which means an averagehousing benefit cut of £14 a week for social housing tenants, will affect 498,000 people rather than the 600,000 estimated by the Government. A year after its introduction, the foundation estimated the savings at £330 million, some £115 million lower than expected. See the paper for the rest. As usual the government punish the poorest and fail to make the savings promised. So what's the point? " I wouldn't listen to a word from the JRF a bunch of left wing loons and liebour supporters! Just look at there links with common purpose! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? 'Not yet. But if the spiteful vindictive Liebour party get elected again anything is possible' It will come. There's a growing student loan deficit, £90 bn by 2040 to be repaid. Moneys got to come from somewhere It will come from buy to let britain, and possibly taxes on main residence (not while Tories in )" lol Libor? there was a GLOBAL finacial crisis! Libor was a part but this came about from the Mortgage fiasco in the good ol USA! BANKS! look at the millions and millions have to be paid back through mis-selling of various products... To put a TAX because that is what it is on the poorest in society was not thought through. this government should have considered getting the new builds started first. those new builds should include a high percentage 1 bedroom accom. this should have been done by successive gov's since the sell off, which if my memory serves was another Tory called Thatcher, now what else did they come up with??? oh yes the POLL TAX! I also bought a home in her era and saw my mortgage rate rise from 9.5% and top out @ 16% and guess what happened, yes negative equity! divorce then another kick in the teeth caused by that recession redundancy and if it wasn't for us having a child I'd of had no where to live as I had to be able to provide a roof over his head if I was to fulfill my responsibilities as a good parent, I could only do this because we had a social policy that allowed for a single male parent to be housed. ... Conservatives have no social conscience what so ever, it's all about self and £45,000 pounds of mortgage relief or administration error! thought she'd get away with it did she, well news from her seat today has clearly shown she wont be winning that next time. I'm all for everyone paying their way and on occasion those who have more should contribute more. those with it never know how long it will last or if they'll find themselves in the soft and smelly at some point and needs a safety net. If Labour hadn't saved certain banks millions out there could have seen all there hard earned cash gone! and who knows how many others would of been in dire straits. now they've cocked up the sale of the post! ffs! whats next? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What nonsense to blame a party who are trying to get the country back on it's feet with facts that are not even true !
They getting the rich on their feet and keeping the poor in the gutter, if this keeps up crime will increase as people will need shelter and food.
Expect more riots because as the country is split into two.. people will rebel as they do in any other badly run country, how can we tell the middle east what to do when we cant even clean up our own country."Not the case at all .... at least no worse than labour . If the rich get richer , they pay more tax and the poor get more handouts
The fact is that under labour as a nation we are far worse off .
Things will get even better when we can cash in our pensions and get a lump sum instead of a paltry return . The economy will boom and everyone will be better off .
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What nonsense to blame a party who are trying to get the country back on it's feet with facts that are not even true !
They getting the rich on their feet and keeping the poor in the gutter, if this keeps up crime will increase as people will need shelter and food.
Expect more riots because as the country is split into two.. people will rebel as they do in any other badly run country, how can we tell the middle east what to do when we cant even clean up our own country.
Not the case at all .... at least no worse than labour .
If the rich get richer , they pay more tax and the poor get more handouts
The fact is that under labour as a nation we are far worse off .
Things will get even better when we can cash in our pensions and get a lump sum instead of a paltry return . The economy will boom and everyone will be better off .
"Until the money runs out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What nonsense to blame a party who are trying to get the country back on it's feet with facts that are not even true !
They getting the rich on their feet and keeping the poor in the gutter, if this keeps up crime will increase as people will need shelter and food.
Expect more riots because as the country is split into two.. people will rebel as they do in any other badly run country, how can we tell the middle east what to do when we cant even clean up our own country.
Not the case at all .... at least no worse than labour .
If the rich get richer , they pay more tax and the poor get more handouts
The fact is that under labour as a nation we are far worse off .
Things will get even better when we can cash in our pensions and get a lump sum instead of a paltry return . The economy will boom and everyone will be better off .
Until the money runs out."the world is run on money that doesnt exist, so it will NEVER run out doesnt seem like you enjoy living in this country at all. save up buy a private island somewhere | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody is 'owed' anything in life - a job, a roof over their head, their bills paid for them or food on their table. It often seems in threads that some believe they are entitled to all of the above with no input or contribution from themselves and that certain things should be handed to them on a plate. As has often been said - the welfare state and the benefits system were set up to help those in need at the time they needed help - not to become a way of life and an alternative to personal accountability, responsibility and supporting yourself. There are many people out there struggling to make ends meet who work, get no assistance from the state, who take ownership of their circumstances and do all they can to ensure they are contributing to their own welfare and the welfare of those around them. They look for positive solutions and adjust their lives rather than expecting the state to meet all their needs. They relocate. They seek and take work that many would deem beneath them rather than rely on benefits, even if the wage is little more than they would have received by not working. They look at their lifestyles and make cut backs to live within their means. They tend to do so without blaming politicians, employers or others - and as such they don't make for good stories in the press or good soundbites in the party political broadcasts of all parties. I'll support anyone who's circumstances change and who need state support due to those changes. That is what the system was created for. I'll never however lay blame at the doorstep of one political party or another when history shows there is scant difference between them all, the effectiveness of their policies and the environment they create. Nor will I ever believe the constant claims that people have no opportunities for work and that the state has forced them into a life on benefits. I've worked too closely with councils, social housing providers, recruitment agencies, job centres and support services and charities over the last 15 years to fall for press stories, political rhetoric and even Fab forum posts to believe that individuals have zero opportunities to improve their lot through personal effort and seeking help in the right way. A " Your post is proof of what I said earlier 'what the yanks do now we do in 5 to 10 years!' To all those who think that they are free-thinking and forward thinking individuals who have come to the conclusion that the welfare state is too big and needs to be cut in order to balance the books, and that we need to reduce the size of government please follow this link to a New York Times article published in 2010: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html Please read it all, follow the links and explore the spiders web of media manipulation used to con the US voters into voting against their own self interests. Then compare the economic actions of our government and play a game of spot the similarities. Unless you are a totally blind and have no sense of enlightened self interest (or you are a billionaire/banker or similar earning millions) you will find the comparisons disturbing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? 'Not yet. But if the spiteful vindictive Liebour party get elected again anything is possible' It will come. There's a growing student loan deficit, £90 bn by 2040 to be repaid. Moneys got to come from somewhere It will come from buy to let britain, and possibly taxes on main residence (not while Tories in ) lol Libor? there was a GLOBAL finacial crisis! Libor was a part but this came about from the Mortgage fiasco in the good ol USA! BANKS! look at the millions and millions have to be paid back through mis-selling of various products... To put a TAX because that is what it is on the poorest in society was not thought through. this government should have considered getting the new builds started first. those new builds should include a high percentage 1 bedroom accom. this should have been done by successive gov's since the sell off, which if my memory serves was another Tory called Thatcher, now what else did they come up with??? oh yes the POLL TAX! I also bought a home in her era and saw my mortgage rate rise from 9.5% and top out @ 16% and guess what happened, yes negative equity! divorce then another kick in the teeth caused by that recession redundancy and if it wasn't for us having a child I'd of had no where to live as I had to be able to provide a roof over his head if I was to fulfill my responsibilities as a good parent, I could only do this because we had a social policy that allowed for a single male parent to be housed. ... Conservatives have no social conscience what so ever, it's all about self and £45,000 pounds of mortgage relief or administration error! thought she'd get away with it did she, well news from her seat today has clearly shown she wont be winning that next time. I'm all for everyone paying their way and on occasion those who have more should contribute more. those with it never know how long it will last or if they'll find themselves in the soft and smelly at some point and needs a safety net. If Labour hadn't saved certain banks millions out there could have seen all there hard earned cash gone! and who knows how many others would of been in dire straits. now they've cocked up the sale of the post! ffs! whats next?" Stealthily privatise the national health service if they win the next election | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Secondly the exchequer gets no taxation from the illegal activities, if it could they wouldn't be illegal. Not directly, but indirectly. VAT for a start. How much VAT do you think is raised from people who grow cannabis, for example ? Anyway, prostitution per se is not illegal." Psst. Wanna buy a wrap of wacky backy? How much? 20 quid plus VAT | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the parasitic over-class of scroungers? Who’s ancestors stole all the Common Land, who are Millionaires the day they’re born, who have never done a day’s honest work in their lives, who avoid paying income tax at every given opportunity, who get paid enormous sums of public money in return for doing nothing (e.g. Emma Harrison)? Aren’t they abusing the system? State Benefits are a RIGHT, the State owes us all a living, and don’t you ever forget it!" NO IT BLOODY WELL DOES NOT | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The bedroom tax was not designed to free up larger homes and make it easier to home larger families." Erm...yes it was. Along with potentially reducing welfare costs. "It was thought up to raise more money through stealth taxation." It's not a tax- it's a reduction in benefit. "How can you move someone to a smaller and in most cases a one bedroom home when all news builds are family 2-3 bedroom houses?" Not all new builds are 2-3 bedroom homes. "A friend has a one bedroom flat, his kitchen is 8x6 foot and the lounge/dining area can just fit a small coffee table, a tv and a chair and a sofa. Modern homes are bring built smaller and smaller, who wanted to live in a rabbit hutch?" Can't blame those nasty Torys for that. Labour introduce a policy many moons ago stating that there had to be 30 properties built per hectare. Smaller houses are not down to the current government. A (who lives in a rabbit hutch sized flat - rent paid for by myself rather than the state.) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does this affect people who own their own house? Nope x only those who get housing benefit I think
Yup - those who can least afford it. And it's not like they can rent out their spare room being tenants. "They are allowed to rent out spare rooms. Many choose not too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
