I don't find a flat tax/universal rate 'fair' when the way people are remunerated is not done in the same linear way.
There is nothing wrong in progressive stepped tax bands, as your millionth pound received has less value to you than your first.
Bedroom tax
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
I don't find a flat tax/universal rate 'fair' when the way people are remunerated is not done in the same linear way.
There is nothing wrong in progressive stepped tax bands, as your millionth pound received has less value to you than your first.
I am not disputing unfair taxation, only the application of authoritarianism toward a UK Govt as it implies associations that are unwarranted and unfair. You know my views on taxation and equal provisions within that arena.
As I see it the "scheme" is simply a way of generating money from a section of society that are least able to to pay their way anyway. If it was about being fair, then surely if you have a family living in a two bedroom home, with kids sharing then you could argue if the rent goes up for an empty bedroom it should go down for double occupancy.
Instead of building social housing and keeping the money from it in the loop so to speak. (Benefits are paid for rent, then paid back to the social housing pot.) Money is now just waisted; benefits for rents get spent in the private sector on over inflated market driven rates and the money is never seen again.
On top of pinning back benefit rises for the next 3 years. It's going to push people into real poverty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21731488
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,432
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
There you go you failed already so the rest was worthless.
They are not PAYING they are taking, they are just being restricted to taking what they need as opposed to taking more than they need.
job done ! Money saved... Its brilliant really. Cold and calculated brilliance.
Those are your subjective views, it helps to know what they are when people want to discuss these matters, but you can't claim other people are against fairness when they disagree with you, they just have a different definition of what is fair or necessary.
Given that you agree that taxation is necessary your statements that taxation is theft, while justifiable, don't really help.
+1
This is why this policy should be revised at a local level and not just applied nationally, how long would it take one housing officer to do that.....2 weeks at most.
I meant the concept is definable, and reasoned, rather than agreeing with it.
Nothing is being paid.
It's definable, I couldn't agree with reasoned however.
Taxation is a burden, taxation is nontransparent, taxation is not used efficiently, taxation policy is misguided.. these are all valid complaints.
Taxation is theft is a complete overreaction and something akin to the Tea Party nutters. All we are missing in here today is the forced element; state monopoly of force. Which is another bereft tangent.
Last edited:
Camerao was on PMQ other day trying to get away from this term 'bedroom tax' wasn't he. Unfortunately it sticks and is more catchy now then anything they can come up with.
It makes sense no need for people to live in a house bigger than they need if the kids etc.. move out and OAPs are immune to this which I have no problem with when you consider they may have lived there for many many years, moving them would be unnecessary.
Few people have called in on 5live a few times (single dads) saying this has worked against them though as they don't take into consideration visiting rights and they are given a one bedroom flat/bedsit and they have very little room if any for their child to stay over, this doesn't seem fair.
As others have pointed out though this is such a deep rooted thing that it is going to be almost impossible to find a perfect solution without it having a knock on effect for someone some where down the road.
It makes sense no need for people to live in a house bigger than they need if the kids etc.. move out and OAPs are immune to this which I have no problem with when you consider they may have lived there for many many years, moving them would be unnecessary.
Few people have called in on 5live a few times (single dads) saying this has worked against them though as they don't take into consideration visiting rights and they are given a one bedroom flat/bedsit and they have very little room if any for their child to stay over, this doesn't seem fair.
As others have pointed out though this is such a deep rooted thing that it is going to be almost impossible to find a perfect solution without it having a knock on effect for someone some where down the road.
Twaddle, in most cases they simply take what they are given or is available, at it's best the choice is limited. Do you think the syetm allows you to pick and choose if you are at the bottom of the pile? Do you actually believe that everyone who lives in social housing is totally dependant on benefits? That everyone in social housing is some type of work-scumbag out to stiff the state?
What of the families who work but have a low income? They have to pay, it's not a subsidy that is simply being withdrawn, it additional rent paid out of their income. It's a **** and bull story, people are taking up space in larger properties and should be in smaller ones, so we are charging for empty rooms. Thing is there aren't enough smaller homes even if everyone wanted to, or could move. (Simply moving may well be impossible because of work/travel constraints) Plus would you want to move into some god-forsaken high rise flat or such like, when you've lived in the family home for 30 years?
We have a broken morale compass that is so far out of whack we are quite prepared to pump billions and billions of pounds into the system (quantitative easing) never to be seen again. Yet won't spend a few hundred millions on social housing that would benefit the system in all sorts of ways for decades to come. (jobs, homes, spending, mobility) If you're unlucky enough to be poor in this country at the moment you are as cattle for slaughter.
None of this effects me, I'm lucky own my own home, have had good jobs and paid my way. It just smacks me as dishonest to blame the poorest section of the country for all our economic woes, when it's simply not the case.
Last edited:
How do you measure that?
How many hours a day? (Bankers probably win)
How much stress? (Bankers, Doctors etc win, checkout staff lose)
How many years/much money you have put in to get to that point educationally? (checkout staff and most low paid workers lose)
How much physical work you put in? (office workers lose out to manual labourers)
How much money you bring in your company? (Bankers win, checkout assistants lose)
How useful your job is to society? (geologist on £100k more useful than the checkout assistant on £12k? To paraphrase a recent subject)
How easy you are to replace? (Bankers/Doctors/Geologists win, checkout/low skilled jobs lose, although this would be generally correlatable to years of education/education cost)
There are just some suggestions I can think of now. I think renumeration isn't that far of linear IMO but then I'm a fan of a living tax free allowance (say £15k) and then a flat tax after that of ~30%
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,432
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Handy you have tagged your own post before the rest of us need to
Irrelevant.
Simple if they are living in a property defined above the minimum its a CHOICE to do so. If they CHOOSE to live there then they get less of a handout.
QE was out part in stopping a meltdown. Yes we could have avoided it but then god knows where we would have been without it.
No one is blaming anyone. (Although normally people like to blame the bankers for forcing the financially idiotic to borrow
). Its a simple fact we cannot afford the welfare so its got to be cut back.Thats not really his point. Taxation is essentially forced if you don't agree with it, the whole "move then" argument is BS. On the other hand any sane person will agree to paying to build a protected civic & lawful state, as you have thoughtfully pointed out. Thus the argument holds water only when considering Government wastage, where it's a fairly good point.
Problem one is that it's pretty much impossible to get everyone to agree what is and is not wastage so you're just going to have to deal with the fact that you won't always agree with how the money is appropriated.
The next and bigger problem is Dolph uses that argument often and largely in place of actually arguing the merits of whether or not the money is being misappropriated, thus rather than debating whether or not paying for national health has a net benefit to society, he'd like argue taxation is theft thus it is wrong and think that proves his point.
That doesn't make the argument wrong, it just means his utilisation of it a parody within itself. He needs to build on that argument but generally fails to do so. But please, don't use that as an excuse to write off the general point, it's actually a fairly good starting point to arguing against runaway Government spending.
No offense Dolph, I'm fairly sure you're a smart man, I just think you've got a massive black spot when it comes to arguing politics. You easily fall for baiting and criticism of a single point, thus never really being allowed to get off the starting point as it is anyway. Debates here are crap.
Last edited:
If there is an issue with not enough single bedroomed properties around why don't the single people who stand to lose benefits by being in a larger property not rent a room in a shared house?
I'm sure there will be an argument about people not having to but bull**** IMO. If you're on £20-50k in London and single you have to rent a room to be able to afford to live there. They don't get help from the government. I'm not suggesting people should have worse accommodation, just that sharing should be an option for those on benefits, just like it is a reality for those not.
I'm sure there will be an argument about people not having to but bull**** IMO. If you're on £20-50k in London and single you have to rent a room to be able to afford to live there. They don't get help from the government. I'm not suggesting people should have worse accommodation, just that sharing should be an option for those on benefits, just like it is a reality for those not.
Tend to agree with this really. I have no idea why people think that we should be asking people taking social housing what they want. We really are completely retarded as a country when it comes to dealing with welfare.
I saw the other day that a housing association was trialling a system again whereby they don't pay the landlord directly but instead give it to the tenants. In 7 months, the amount of rent in arrears had increased 7 fold. I mean seriously, who comes up with these plans.
Its the laughable idea that everyone on the dole or taking housing benefits is a victim in some way. The vast majority are not victims at all. Their job is to get as much from the system as possible and they know it very well.
Frankly I don't have sympathy for those who'll lose out because their council paid for house is too big. If they don't want to lose out all they have to do is rent out the spare room. Then they'll have an income + their housing benefit won't go down.
That also solves the lack of single occupancy problem as this'll free up a load of rooms.
That also solves the lack of single occupancy problem as this'll free up a load of rooms.
Last edited: