Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Details to follow.

Bedroom Tax megathread

Recommended Posts

There are plenty of houses split into multiple occupancy, people just think they are too good for bedsits. They expect a similar lifestyle to working people, paid for by working people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are plenty of houses split into multiple occupancy, people just think they are too good for bedsits. They expect a similar lifestyle to working people, paid for by working people.

 

:loopy::loopy: The same old cracked record, for Christ's sake THINK.

Our present Government promotes DIVISIVE policies. We then argue amongst ourselves. The rich pay nowhere near enough tax. If they did then a lot of social issues could be addressed intelligently. If the rich don't like it they are free to leave.

They still remained in the UK during the high taxation periods in the '60s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to get out more. Stop reading the SUN and THE DAIY FAIL and try to see important issues from other peoples perspectives. We have a party of privilidged Posh Boys in power and all they do is persecute and try to punish the less well off.

Why do I care ?? I don't have to worry about this or any other tax or benefit, I'm self sufficient [almost] but the constant attacks on the poor do cause concern amongst THINKING people. Who will they pick on next ?? You perhaps ??

I'm no fan of Milliband or any other 'upper crust' socialist, he's lost the plot.

Unemployment is being managed by importing foreign migrant workers, most of them are good hardworking people BUT they add to the problem of finding decent employment. Wages are being held down....but the rich get richer.

Its no coincidence. Poverty is being deliberately managed.

NOT MY WORDS I MUST ADD BUT QUITE APT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES!

The following is quite useful in understanding why you are wrong Nimrod

What has caused more long term destruction -

the A-bomb,or Government welfare programs created to buy the

votes of those who want someone to take care of them?

Japan does not have a welfare system.

Work for it or do without.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rich pay a large majority of the income tax revenue that the government receive. Arguing for them to pay more is simply envy.

Increase tax and they will leave, and the country will have less money to deal with the same set of problems, not the most intelligent approach.

Many left in the 60's.

 

---------- Post added 17-09-2013 at 20:10 ----------

 

NOT MY WORDS I MUST ADD BUT QUITE APT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES!

The following is quite useful in understanding why you are wrong Nimrod

What has caused more long term destruction -

the A-bomb,or Government welfare programs created to buy the

votes of those who want someone to take care of them?

Japan does not have a welfare system.

Work for it or do without.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Social welfare, assistance for the ill or otherwise disabled and for the old, has long been provided in Japan by both the government and private companies. Beginning in the 1920s, the government enacted a series of welfare programs, based mainly on European models, to provide medical care and financial support. During the postwar period, a comprehensive system of social security was gradually established.[1][2] Government expenditures for all forms of social welfare increased from 6% of the national income in the early 1970s, to 18% in 1989. The mixture of public and private funding have created complex pension and insurance systems. But a much older tradition calls for support within the family and the local community.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

That isn't what welfare should be about.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

Nor can you multiply it by social irresponsibility.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

That isn't what welfare is about.

Fortunately unemployment is massively below 50% and has never even approached such a ridiculous figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to be concentrating on a very small minority of disabled people who actually need that extra room, and whilst you're right in that case it's only a very small percentage of people receiving housing benefits.

 

As for the 'impact of social isolation' well if they don't like any of the discounted housing available to them they are free to choose to live where they want - but if you're going to be picky about it you have to accept you must pay for your choices.

 

Council tenants can't have their cake and eat it too, it's not how the system should work.

 

Moving council tenants who claim Housing Benefit into private accommodation will only increase the welfare bill.

 

---------- Post added 18-09-2013 at 00:46 ----------

 

it's not a flat rate of "£14" though, Happ. the figure of 14 is the percentage of the rent for one "spare" room, and on a rent of £100 per week, will work out at £14. a lesser rent will have a proportionately smaller charge, and a higher rent, such as the ridiculous rents (which can be into the thousands of pounds a month), as are charged in London, will be proportionately higher.

 

A person with a second "spare" bedroom or more will be charged 25% of their rent.

 

It doesn't take into any consideration whether a "spare" room is needed for medical or disability equipment, or is part of an adaptation for a disabled child's needs (despite what the Guff may say) as evidenced by the parent who has had £60,000 worth of adaptations made to her home, to enable her disabled child to live as part of the family unit, yet is now facing the penalty for having a "spare" room.

 

It does not take into consideration the availability of smaller properties, let alone smaller properties which have adequate adaptations for the tenant's needs... even if they are willing to move, they still pay the penalty until an alternative property comes available, which could be years, if a property with adaptations are necessary.

 

It doesn't take into consideration the situation of a disabled person living in an adapted property who, to avoid the penalty, would have to move out into an unsuitable property, and wait (often 12 months or more) for an assessor to come and assess the adaptations needed to THAT property... then wait for the assessor's decision to be accepted (if it IS accepted) then the wait for the funds to become available under a Disabled Facilities Grant, and then wait for the works to be carried out....

 

It doesn't take into consideration the social situation of a disabled person, living in an adapted property, having their support network on their doorstep, such as family and friends nearby, their church, temple, synagogue or mosque nearby, doctors' surgery on hand... again, the hardships faced by that person and their family and friends, perhaps the F&F having to travel long distances, to get to the person's new property to provide the necessary support.

 

It takes no consideration of the person's well-being, or ability to move (the person may be too physically disabled to pack up their home, the person may suffer from mental health issues, which would put a tremendous strain on the person's mental well-being, on being forced to move. It could also place a greater financial strain on the tenant, already suffering with the financial penalty of the "bedroom tax" which will undoubtedly have an impact on the person's physical and mental health)

 

It does not consider the impact of social isolation on the tenant forced to move, moving into a less pleasant area, for instance, where anti social behaviour is rife, feeling discouraged from going out for fear of violence... (ditto for the person's F&Family) The difficulties of having to learn the "map" of the new, unfamiliar area.

 

Contrary to popular belief the fact is- the majority of physical and mentally disabled people in the UK still receive very generous amounts of money from the state.

 

ESA and Income Support is £312 every fortnight, and the majority still receive DLA every 4 weeks which is £292 along with Housing benefit and Council Tax benefit.

 

This is often the equivalent of earning £19,000+ per annum. The majority of the disabled can still easily afford a 14% deduction in HB.

 

The biggest looses by far are the JSA claimants whom simply can't afford any cut in their Housing Benefit.

Edited by Dentzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more benefits increase the more people come to expect. It is wrong that people who do not work, for whatever reason, expect to live the same lifestyle as working people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more benefits increase the more people come to expect. It is wrong that people who do not work, for whatever reason, expect to live the same lifestyle as working people.

 

I agree but still believe we need a safety net.

 

 

MY girlfriend works for the DWP and explains how the whole system is so nonsensical and bureaucratic you simply couldn't make it up.

 

The solution is a type of Guaranteed Basic Income or Citizens Income.

 

Which is an unconditional, automatic and non-withdrawable payment to each individual as a right of citizenship.

 

 

 

http://www.citizensincome.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more benefits increase the more people come to expect. It is wrong that people who do not work, for whatever reason, expect to live the same lifestyle as working people.

 

They aren't increasing and I agree, they shouldn't expect the same lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MY girlfriend works for the DWP and explains how the whole system is so nonsensical and bureaucratic you simply couldn't make it up.

 

I have a friend who worked there as well, some of the things she saw were beyond belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a friend who worked there as well, some of the things she saw were beyond belief.

 

Oh go on, give us some examples.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Close the DWP down and let the church handle indoor and outdoor relief, as they used to.

 

What if you're Muslim or Sikh? You have to go to a church to apply for a house?

 

Stop being a divvy for once

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.