Bedroom tax

Dolph said:
Other people deciding that it constitutes a tax in their minds doesn't make it so in reality, just as people believing the world is flat doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's quite right, how delusional of people to even feel that it is a tax on their bedroom; next they will be thinking Boris Johnson is the center of the universe!
 
I don't know if this has been said much already... but the real issue with this tax is thus:

"Why do you think these people are living in social housing with more rooms than they need?"

The answer... There are NO houses of suitable size to house them in. It is not possible to house all the people that this will affect in a smaller property, because there are none.

Thus, this tax is impossible to avoid and is simply a tax on poor people living in social housing.

I'd be in favour of it if it wasn't completely retarded.
 
Biohazard said:
Yes, that's quite right, how delusional of people to even feel that it is a tax on their bedroom; next they will be thinking Boris Johnson is the center of the universe!
Click to expand...

They can feel however they like about it, but it doesn't change the fact that it isn't a tax, shouldn't be referred to as a tax by the media and should be treated exactly as what it is, an alignment of the two types of housing benefit.

By refusing to acknowledge reality and present a decent argument against what is actually happening, rather than the position made up in their heads, they have lost a lot of support from the wider population.
 
Docaroo said:
I don't know if this has been said much already... but the real issue with this tax is thus:

"Why do you think these people are living in social housing with more rooms than they need?"

The answer... There are NO houses of suitable size to house them in. It is not possible to house all the people that this will affect in a smaller property, because there are none.

Thus, this tax is impossible to avoid and is simply a tax on poor people living in social housing.

I'd be in favour of it if it wasn't completely retarded.
Click to expand...

Would you support ending the entitlements on social housing to allow people to be moved around, should such properties become available?
 
Dolph said:
They can feel however they like about it, but it doesn't change the fact that it isn't a tax, shouldn't be referred to as a tax by the media and should be treated exactly as what it is, an alignment of the two types of housing benefit.
Click to expand...

See, I knew most of you were just upset by how catchy it is! Aww boo hoo ;)

Dolph said:
By refusing to acknowledge reality and present a decent argument against what is actually happening, rather than the position made up in their heads, they have lost a lot of support from the wider population.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure actually, I think it's you that's departing from reality a touch here. Wider economic and welfare reforms aside, this issue in particular is looking particularly toxic. Not that this particular word is ever far from the word 'Tory'..
 
Last edited:
Docaroo said:
The answer... There are NO houses of suitable size to house them in. It is not possible to house all the people that this will affect in a smaller property, because there are none.

Thus, this tax is impossible to avoid and is simply a tax on poor people living in social housing.
Click to expand...

I'm not really a suporter of the policy, but comments like this sound fairly implausible.

Are you really suggesting people will find it impossible to find alternative accomodation, even as a private tennant on housing benifit. How do people without access to social housing (which there are many due to over subscription) cope?
 
Stretch said:
I'm not really a suporter of the policy, but comments like this sound fairly implausible.

Are you really suggesting people will find it impossible to find alternative accomodation, even as a private tennant on housing benifit. How do people without access to social housing (which there are many due to over subscription) cope?
Click to expand...

There have been very few one bedroom houses build in the last century. Most of it is post war 'family' stock. Even in private housing one bedroom houses/flats are relatively rare and certainly don't square with these numbers, 100,000 in Scotland for example.
 
Biohazard said:
There have been very few one bedroom houses build in the last century. Most of it is post war 'family' stock. Even in private housing one bedroom houses/flats are relatively rare and certainly don't square with these numbers, 100,000 in Scotland for example.
Click to expand...

They should come down here then. Developers build nothing but 1/2 bed flats and family housing stock is non-existent.

I guess if the numbers don't add up the policy is destined to fail. The social house market is never going to square over night so there at least needs to be buffers and waiting lists to ease transition.

I can't see why the policy intention can't be made to work but it dosen't seem to have been given much thought. Maybe a reduction in benifits should only be enforced when someone refuses suitable, smaller accomodation.
 
Last edited:
Biohazard said:
There have been very few one bedroom houses build in the last century. Most of it is post war 'family' stock. Even in private housing one bedroom houses/flats are relatively rare and certainly don't square with these numbers, 100,000 in Scotland for example.
Click to expand...

Obviously cant speak for Scotland but in Edinburgh, 1 and 2 bedroom flats are popping up all over the place as you probably well know. The amount of flats being built in Edinburgh is quite surprising.
 
Stretch said:
I can't see why the policy intention can't be made to work but it dosen't seem to have been given much thought. Maybe a reduction in benifits should only be enforced when someone refuses suitable, smaller accomodation.
Click to expand...

Thats the sum of it, I wouldnt have a problem with the policy if the housing stock was there for them to down size but at the moment it is truely ridiculous as it would penalise people with not real option.
 
Biohazard said:
See, I knew most of you were just upset by how catchy it is! Aww boo hoo ;)



I'm not so sure actually, I think it's you that's departing from reality a touch here. Wider economic and welfare reforms aside, this issue in particular is looking particularly toxic. Not that this particular word is ever far from the word 'Tory'..
Click to expand...

Yougov polling for the times over the weekend shows clear support for the overall benefits reforms and the universal credit, even when the bedroom tax is namechecked...
 
Dolph said:
Yougov polling for the times over the weekend shows clear support for the overall benefits reforms and the universal credit, even when the bedroom tax is namechecked...
Click to expand...

As if you put any weight in opinion based politics over evidence based politics! :p

At the end of the day this government is not cutting spending as they said they would, and part of the cover up/distraction to this is headline grabbing populist policies that do nothing but tinker at the edges, save little to no money, and just seem to catch the poorest, neediest and most vulnerable in their blunderbuss approach to policy.
 
Freakbro said:
As if you put any weight in opinion based politics over evidence based politics! :p

At the end of the day this government is not cutting spending as they said they would, and part of the cover up/distraction to this is headline grabbing populist policies that do nothing but tinker at the edges, save little to no money, and just seem to catch the poorest, neediest and most vulnerable in their blunderbuss approach to policy.
Click to expand...

And funnily enough workfare etc. and all those systems they put in place to "help" people on benefits give no help aside making you work unpaid and they are also costing the government more money.

So in effect the benefit bill is now HIGHER not LOWER as they like to make out....
 
RDM said:
Have we had any evidence presented yet? I have seen a lot of opinion, plenty of hyperbole and a few outright lies but nothing like evidence.
Click to expand...

No idea but probably unlikely as it seems most of the policies this government come up with seem to be back of the fag packet/knee jerk ideas someone thought was a good plan at the time, hence we have had - what is it now - 40 u-turned/scrapped announcements?

Combine that with a bit of welfare bashing though and it's a sure fire winner ;)

My comment to Dolph was that for him to be using a yougov poll as a backup for any sort of claim is rather incongruous to his usual mindset.
 
She likely had much bigger problems than a welfare reduction. I wonder why her family didn't give her more help. I'm sure someone could have spared £20 a week.
 
Biohazard said:
I'm sure that makes all the people who feel its a tax on their bedroom, because they have no where else appropriately sized to go, feel so much better.

I think we all know it isn't a tax stream, but it certainly smacks of a 'tax' given what it targets. If you can't acknowledge that others might see it that way well then I'm not entirely surprised at your inherent lack of empathy.

And lets not go down the forced theft line again!



I agree.
Click to expand...

This is complete garbage, if you signed up to a site like homeswappers, the vast majority of people looking to downsize would have a queue of people in smaller properties lining up around the block to exchange with them.

PS - It's not a tax.
 
Monkeynut said:
She likely had much bigger problems than a welfare reduction. I wonder why her family didn't give her more help. I'm sure someone could have spared £20 a week.
Click to expand...

"Doctors had told her she was too ill to hold down a job, but she had never been registered as disabled, so she lived without disability benefit."

So why didn't her family help out, get her the correct disability if she truely was unable to work?

Can't blame the government for this, stupid story is stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom