Bedroom tax

[DampDog]

Handy you have tagged your own post before the rest of us need to

LOL.. That did make me laugh, at least we have the same sense of humour..

Irrelevant.

Why irrelevant, I was simply asking a question? It just appear to have a low opinion of those on the lower rung of societies ladder. I could be wrong so thought I'd ask.

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.

These folk are already in or close to poverty anyway. It's simply the government turning the screw on the most vulnerable and needy. The notion that they CHOOSE to live there is wrong. They have often lived there with their family for a lifetime and it's the family home. Often they live where they are put it was never a choice simply a necessity of circumstance. The bottom line is there are not enough 1&2 bedroom homes in the system. Simply moving people around is smoke and mirrors, it will never fix the problem. The idea that pople are somehow "hogging" the best properties is simply wrong. The problem is there just are not enough.

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.

Exactly "God knows" because they certainly had not got a clue, it was best guess.

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.

Agreed. But but it would be nice if these "schemes" at least gave a nod to being thought through and not punative as they now are.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/08/human-cost-of-bedroom-tax

 

[Biohazard]

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.

Yes it's imposed, it has to be otherwise it would become more optional than it already is.

This single point as you put it is almost the entirety of his motivation. It isn't a logical base premise to move forward with, otherwise you are attacking the role of the state itself at the same time with every tangent you pull it off too.

State inefficient? It shouldn't be stealing your money anyway.

Paying for the bloody benefits of others out your tax? You are being pick pocketed! Charity does it better!

Have to contribute to community schemes such as policing, health and education? The Government is using it's force, against you as a person, unfairly. Freemen of the hills derp derp.

These are all the logical conclusions that come forth, and unfortunately while it may be valid blue sky thinking it's going to remain just that.

I've seen his opinion explained at length, and his justifications haven't changed he's just lowered the rhetoric slightly.

 

[LordSplodge]

Yes, but a bedroom in a house is a bedroom, regardless of wether it gets used as an Office or any other purpose..

Is it? I should imagine it is defined by its purpose. The room I write this post in has been.

1. A servants room (bedroom/kitchen)
2. A bathroom (post war, indoor plumbing for the win!)
3. A bedroom (post 1980's approx.)
4. A study (from when I purchased the property)

So in this "three bedroom" house it has had as little as one bedroom and as many as three depending on the period.


As for the "Bedroom Tax" well it is plain wrong, not because it helps solve the housing crisis - because it doesn't, but rather because it punishes the disabled, divorced parents and those who cannot really move. Why, exactly, are the poorest who society should be helping being used as a scapegoat for the mistakes of the rich?

 

[Amp34]

Yet if you were to sell that house you wouldn't say it has two bedrooms and an upstairs study would you? That would decrease the sale price of the house a fair bit...

 

[aln]

Yes it's imposed, it has to be otherwise it would become more optional than it already is.

It isn't a base premise to move forward with, otherwise you are attacking the role of the state itself at the same time with every tangent you pull it off too.

I've seen his opinion explained at length, and his justifications haven't changed he's just lowered the rhetoric slightly.

We'll just have to disagree on that because I believe it's a reasonable platform to attack specific state spending as long as there is a reasonable understanding thats the point you're making.

You should well know I'm behind the state, it is a necessity, but that shouldn't give the state leave to spend money on whatever the hell pleases it, which is something it often does from my perspective.

All it really means though is the taxation needs to be justified. On the whole it is, but if we look at specific cases on how contracts are awarded, how often we're successful ( any IT project ever ), and the penalising agreements we make for backing out of such agreements, it doesn't feel too far afield from actual theft in my opinion.

Of course you'll note I'm not exactly using it the same way he does.

 

[LordSplodge]

Yet if you were to sell that house you wouldn't say it has two bedrooms and an upstairs study would you? That would decrease the sale price of the house a fair bit...

The number of bedrooms arbitrarily sets the price in the current climate so I'd say it was a bedroom on the purpose of getting maximum return. Kind of like saying it has space for servants would up the price two centuries ago (alas no private servants stairs though...)

Never going to be used as a bedroom for as long as I own the gaff so why is it classed as a bedroom again? I have another spare bedroom for my lad to use when he stays over. Thankfully I don't get housing benefit or I'd be screwed.

Are they going to tax people with spare reception rooms next? I mean if this was a social housing place I'd have one spare reception room (it's a dining room - a rare thing nowadays and as such gets used for ~50% of the year at most) and in Cameron's fantasy world that could be used as a bedroom.

It is a tax on the poor. Politics pandering to a populace that thinks these poor people are screwing over the working class.

 

[doofer]

Buckingham Palace, property and paid for by the State (Not the personal property of the Monarch [Who is in effect a recipient of State Benefits]) 700+ Rooms. But I'm sure they can afford it...

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

LOL.. That did make me laugh, at least we have the same sense of humour..



Why irrelevant, I was simply asking a question? It just appear to have a low opinion of those on the lower rung of societies ladder. I could be wrong so thought I'd ask.



These folk are already in or close to poverty anyway. It's simply the government turning the screw on the most vulnerable and needy. The notion that they CHOOSE to live there is wrong. They have often lived there with their family for a lifetime and it's the family home. Often they live where they are put it was never a choice simply a necessity of circumstance. The bottom line is there are not enough 1&2 bedroom homes in the system. Simply moving people around is smoke and mirrors, it will never fix the problem. The idea that pople are somehow "hogging" the best properties is simply wrong. The problem is there just are not enough.



Exactly "God knows" because they certainly had not got a clue, it was best guess.



Agreed. But but it would be nice if these "schemes" at least gave a nod to being thought through and not punative as they now are.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/08/human-cost-of-bedroom-tax

 

[Biohazard]

We'll just have to disagree on that because I believe it's a reasonable platform to attack specific state spending as long as there is a reasonable understanding that the point you're making.

Why only specific if it's such a universal rule of thumb?

It's applied to everything, and it isn't theft. It's a wafer thing appeal to emotion in attempt to introduce anarcho-capitalism. Taxation as slavery is an attempt to paint the majority as having enslaved the rich minority which is equally absurd.

Not unless you want to ignore any sort of notion of social contract and community.

It's arguing from a void that doesn't exist, and will not exist. Why use it?

 

[Dave85]

My nextdoor neighbor will be affected by this and its pretty despicable really he has been waiting years for a 1 bedroom flat or bungalow since his mother passed as feels the place is too big for him. I am his carer basically and we even offered to rent some place private but with housing benefit but the council refused and said stay put as they have no where available, and now he will be charged for the privilege.

Genius idea to attack the weak and disabled knowing they wont really fight back.

 

[LordSplodge]

Buckingham Palace, property and paid for by the State (Not the personal property of the Monarch [Who is in effect a recipient of State Benefits]) 700+ Rooms. But I'm sure they can afford it...

How many are bedrooms?

Genius idea to attack the weak and disabled knowing they wont really fight back.

We are all in this together though, right? It is disgusting targeting the weak and disabled.

 

[Biohazard]

It's like fox hunting for Tories; except by legislature. OR Drive by shootings at whole demographics.

Have faith though; they will lose seats at the next election.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Some are close to poverty or needy yes but lets not blanket everyone with generic terms based on the lowest.
There are plenty that are far from that.
There are plenty where the house they are in is vastly too big for them.

There is also supply and demand at work here. Go back 50 years and land wasnt an issue so overly lare amounts of land was used to build houses often with large amounts of garden space etc. Thats now very different. So current thinking should be to build smaller self contained units just like the army are, I forget the name of the project its something like SLAM.

 

[LordSplodge]

It's like fox hunting for Tories; except by legislature. OR Drive by shootings at whole demographics.

Have faith though; they will lose seats at the next election.

Well it was the poor and disabled that screwed the economy over...er...hold on a minute.

 

[aln]

Why only specific if it's such a universal rule of thumb?

It's applied to everything, and it isn't theft. It's a wafer thing appeal to emotion in attempt to introduce anarcho-capitalism. Taxation as slavery is an attempt to paint the majority as having enslaved the rich minority which is equally absurd.

Not unless you want to ignore any sort of notion of social contract and community.

It's arguing from a void that doesn't exist, and will not exist. Why use it?

Its essentially saying "taxation is a bad thing but its justified for x, y, and z". Those x, y and z's are your social contract. You're looking at the argument from his cut off point rather than the one I am using.

Also come on, taxation hurt me a hell of a lot more when I was earning 13 grand a year than since I started earning north of 50. I don't think anyone looks at having money taken from their wage packet as an essentially good thing but most of us will agree that it's for the greater good overall.

 

[LordSplodge]

Some are close to poverty or needy yes but lets not blanket everyone with generic terms based on the lowest.
There are plenty that are far from that.
There are plenty where the house they are in is vastly too big for them.

There is also supply and demand at work here. Go back 50 years and land wasnt an issue so overly lare amounts of land was used to build houses often with large amounts of garden space etc. Thats now very different. So current thinking should be to build smaller self contained units just like the army are, I forget the name of the project its something like SLAM.

Let's not blanket everybody at the other end of the scale though. However if you are making the assumption that those on housing benefit are living the life of luxury then you have swallowed the media and Governments propaganda hook line and sinker.

Fifty years ago, give or take, they started building council tower blocks and we know from lessons learnt the hard way that they don't work. Green space is important.

 

[wazza300]

fat tax,bedroom tax........absolutely ridiculous!!!

this government dont know what to think of next,its alright for them to have big mansions though and claim a second house on expenses

just shoot a few thousand foreigners,problem solved

 

[borich_planner]

That doesn't stop people taking liberties though.

MW

The housing officer would pick it up.

 

[Biohazard]

Its essentially saying "taxation is a bad thing but its justified for x, y, and z". Those x, y and z's are your social contract. You're looking at the argument from his cut off point rather than the one I am using.

I'm looking at it as a whole, and how and what he's used to justify it for in the past.

I'm cutting his argument in two by refusing to accept no society as a valid premise to take forward political and social reform.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Let's not blanket everybody at the other end of the scale though. However if you are making the assumption that those on housing benefit are living the life of luxury then you have swallowed the media and Governments propaganda hook line and sinker.

Fifty years ago, give or take, they started building council tower blocks and we know from lessons learnt the hard way that they don't work. Green space is important.

I am not blanketing at the other end of the scale unlike those who seem to want to highlight on the most needy and hold them up as the normal.
I have not posted at all about the life of luxury, this isn't about luxury its about unneeded space in accomodation that would be better put to use elsewhere.
I havent fallen for anyones propaganda but your seriously sounding like someone who has fallen for the sound bite propaganda that labour spin. Or os there a chip lurking somewhere?

Yes council blocks were a serious failure although your point about green space is poor, since generally they had high amounts of green/open space around them. Saying that you have to look at what was often demolished to make room for the blocks themselves (it was typically very very poor low quality housing, ie slums).