Ms Macbeth   70 #13 Posted April 8, 2014 I've just had a look at the properties advertised at the moment, out of a total of 50 three bedroomed properties across the city, 28 are maisonettes in Gleadless Valley. Most area advertised as First Come First Served, that means as long as a family of the right size have their name on the register, in most circumstances they could have one pretty much straight away.  I hope the working families who are paying over the odds to rent privately know there are three bedroomed properties renting for under £80 a week. Details are here: https://www.sheffieldpropertyshop.org.uk/Data/ASPPages/1/43.aspx?LastSearch=1&CurrentPage=1  Unfortunately, they aren't nearly as attractive as a house under the Right to Buy so perhaps thats why there isn't much interest. Or is that me just being cynical. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
GLASGOWOODS   10 #14 Posted April 8, 2014 Not always, work doesn't suit everyone  Hahaha!  I guess so.  No worries though. I shall keep on grafting my nads off, so those who aint suited to work can do nowt all day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Ms Macbeth   70 #15 Posted April 8, 2014 Can you let me know where these properties in S14 are please?  Gleadless Valley, have a look at the link in my previous post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
charmer   10 #16 Posted April 8, 2014 It's a pity they can't do a Maria Miller and borrow £90,000 from the taxpayer to buy their gaff.  She should be prosecuted in the same way that someone who took £90,000 extra in benefits would be.  Nobody has stopped to think about the impact that benefit cuts has on peoples lives.  I have, it funds things like the increase in tax threshold that goes directly into my pocket.  Do you know what, regardless of title or weather this is a tax or a reduction that sort of post was done to death last year and was a completely different thread, i am unemployed and have been paying it for must be a year now just been another hurdle to get over such is life, but if this is right what basset one is stating then surely councils are becoming worse off to something that wasn't thought out properly i could bleat on but what the point if this is just going to be bash benefit claimants version 2 !!!  I am not bashing any benefit claimants, my dear departed mother was one. However, there is no debate, this is not a tax in any shape or form. No legislation is ever going to be perfectly implemented as they are implemented by humans. The problem with using humans is that they make mistakes. I think that the legislation has been largely successful, though could do with some tweaking, such as allowing people who need (not want) an extra bedroom should be exempt. One of the few examples of this I can thing of is specially adapted housing for disabled people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Leadhammer   10 #17 Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) She should be prosecuted in the same way that someone who took £90,000 extra in benefits would be.   I have, it funds things like the increase in tax threshold that goes directly into my pocket.    I am not bashing any benefit claimants, my dear departed mother was one. However, there is no debate, this is not a tax in any shape or form. No legislation is ever going to be perfectly implemented as they are implemented by humans. The problem with using humans is that they make mistakes. I think that the legislation has been largely successful, though could do with some tweaking, such as allowing people who need (not want) an extra bedroom should be exempt. One of the few examples of this I can thing of is specially adapted housing for disabled people.  Ok well that's fair to hear that you are not bashing benefit claimants but to be fair there are many that would on this forum and i am always defensive to that and be the first to fight back, as i do try to look for work despite the growing applications per job advertised,  as regard to you stating your legislation claims and the fact that it isnt a tax are founded, its actually under occupancy rule/act to the best of my knowledge, but when this act was introduced it was probably the media that gave it the name bedroom tax and that sticks in people minds and often is stuck by when people see rulings for the first time either it be the daily tabloid or the news,  therefore i don't think this so called heated discussion that some hold on here will never be any different some will always say its a tax while others wont it all depends on where they heard it first and im sure it will always be that way until either the torys are voted out or back in next year (which i doubt) and labour to rename it if they get back in to something more pleasing to the masses, where again the media will rename it something else.  But thats why i say regardless of name tax or reduction of benefit people will always have a name for it based on when and where they heard if first weather it be media or tv . Edited April 8, 2014 by Leadhammer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
TomA Â Â 10 #18 Posted April 8, 2014 This is a deserved tax that should have been implemented in the first place. People are only complaining because someone realised loads of people have council property that is too large for their needs. If you want a choice in where to live then privately rent or buy somewhere! Â Obviously there are exceptions such as a death in the household or a genuine disability that requires a larger property but largely people just seem to be complaining because they now have to pay a fair amount for the size of their property! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Leadhammer   10 #19 Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) This is a deserved tax that should have been implemented in the first place. People are only complaining because someone realised loads of people have council property that is too large for their needs. If you want a choice in where to live then privately rent or buy somewhere!  Obviously there are exceptions such as a death in the household or a genuine disability that requires a larger property but largely people just seem to be complaining because they now have to pay a fair amount for the size of their property!  well it is and it isnt who is to dictate when it should have happened,  you say,  (This is a deserved tax that should have been implemented in the first place)  just when was it right to implement it at the beginning of time ?  The point is that pre 2013 councils were quite happy to give you a property for one person either a bedsit, 1 bed flat, or even a 2 bed flat, then now 2013/2014 thats all wrong and its our fault for moving into a property beyond our needs, the council didn't care pre 2013 just so long as you could afford the rent.  so again, just when was it right to implement it Edited April 9, 2014 by Leadhammer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
rollwithit   12 #20 Posted April 9, 2014 What a lot of people don't realise that if they want something, sometimes they have to pay a little extra for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
charmer   10 #21 Posted April 9, 2014 well it is and it isnt who is to dictate when it should have happened, you say,  (This is a deserved tax that should have been implemented in the first place)  just when was it right to implement it at the beginning of time ?  The point is that pre 2013 councils were quite happy to give you a property for one person either a bedsit, 1 bed flat, or even a 2 bed flat, then now 2013/2014 thats all wrong and its our fault for moving into a property beyond our needs, the council didn't care pre 2013 just so long as you could afford the rent.  so again, just when was it right to implement it   The "beginning of time" is a turn of phrase as you probably know. He doesn't actually mean it should have been implemented back before vertebrates inhabited the planet.  It isn't "your fault" at all, stop feeling so hard done by. You used to be given a lot for free, now you are being given slightly less. Your choice is either stump up the extra cash (a maximum of just 14% if you have one spare bedroom or a maximum of 25% for more than two bedrooms spare).  This still seems an excellent deal to me. With that sort of help I could go and live in a huge house on Dore road.  People effected by this legislation that complain need to take a good look at themselves. This country owes you (or me) absolutely nothing. In fact we (as adults) owe this country a huge deal. It has provided us with a safe and stable place to grow up, free education and free health care. How many other people in the world can say that?  Ask not what this country can do for you (ie I want a nice big house paid for by the state, the spare room is for the TV and XBox) but what you can do for the country (work my socks off so that future generations can enjoy an NHS, free schooling etc). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sky0000547 Â Â 10 #22 Posted April 9, 2014 Quite a natural response from a human nature when they get used to something they enjoyed and now it is being taken away for the worse, it is for them to have a moan, rant, complain or disagree. Â The phrase 'beggars can't be choosers' is quite aptly apply on this topic. My comment do not apply to the old or disabled as they are under different circumstances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Anna B Â Â 1,401 #23 Posted April 9, 2014 Working is always an option for the ones who can, No? Â I think one of the problems is the temporory and unreliable nature of many jobs that are on offer at the moment. 0 hours and so on. Â People would happily take them but what happens when there's a gap? The benefit system can't cope with stopping and starting benefits, being in and out of work, and people end up in arrears with their rent, putting their tenancy at risk. Â The only way they can secure their homes is by getting a proper full time job (increasingly hard to come by,) or being on benefits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
barleycorn   10 #24 Posted April 9, 2014 I think they should where possible turn some of these houses into flats.  The problem being they would need money to invest into the properties to do it which they won't have. Meanwhile houses become empty and they loose yet more revenue.  This Government have not thought this through what so ever, all they have done is create a big issue in peoples lives for little benefit.  It isn't a tax. It is a reduction in the amount of free money people get if they have one or more extra bedrooms. Does anyone seriously believe that people should get oversized houses for free (or at a drastically reduced rental price).  Whilst it's implementation hasn't been perfect, I would suggest that most people who understand what the legislation actually is support it. Anyone who calls it a "tax" is either being willfully misleading or is ignorant of the legislation.  Welcome to Sheffield. The main problem as I see it is the unavailability of appropriate* properties for people to move into in order to avoid the benefits cuts. I think that is there are no appropriate properties to move into then the cuts should be waived until such time that they do become available. Telling people that they can either make up the shortfall or move into a non-existent property is just wrong.  * An appropriate property should be of the right size and in the right area. For example saying to someone on minimum they have to move but the house is on the other side of the city could mean they could no longer afford to get to work or get the kids to school.  jb Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...