Cameron claims he cares about the most vulnerable
- Thread starter ethan
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,389
- Location
- Darwen
The problem is the government doesn't do 'case by case' as evidence by bedroom tax. They just commit to sweeping, all inclusive policies.
YOUR taxes don't pay for that spare room, YOUR taxes pay for someone who is worse off than yourself so they have a safe, warm house to live in until such time as they can better themselves by getting a job, etc...
More money goes towards tax credits for people who actually work and old people, yet you would make unemployed people who may have lost their job through no fault of their own have to top up their rent on their already meagre benefits or spend hundreds they don't have moving to a private rented place with fewer rooms?
I don't use my back room downstairs for anything but storage, if I were on benefits should I also be taxed for that room I don't use as well because potentially it could be used as a bedroom?
interesting article here regarding health effect's of the bedroom tax.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...s-own-words-why-the-bedroom-tax-makes-you-ill
one bloke left with 6 quid a week for food and travel. people going without food no wonder food banks are booming one tenant found unconscious due lack of food it's a disgrace in our country. 6 quid a week ffs i bet IDS spends that on his state funded morning coffee.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...s-own-words-why-the-bedroom-tax-makes-you-ill
one bloke left with 6 quid a week for food and travel. people going without food no wonder food banks are booming one tenant found unconscious due lack of food it's a disgrace in our country. 6 quid a week ffs i bet IDS spends that on his state funded morning coffee.
Last edited:
Someone else is paying your mortgage for you because of a broken housing system, any decent government would heavily tax BTL's and second homes
edit: Infact, me the tax payer is paying for your mortgage because your tenant is on benefits
And the penny drops...
He's not begrudging them social housing, just why should he (and all working people) pay for a larger house with spare bedrooms for someone who isn't using it long term?
Why would the hard working factory worker and nurse who take pride in providing for their family and have to cram their family into a small house with children forced to share a bedroom because that's what they can afford have to pay for someone who has lived on benefits for 10 years with no intention of getting a job to have a lovely large 3 bedroom semi somewhere nice for life even though they are only using one bedroom?
How do you know this person lost their job through no fault of their own and are trying to get back on their feet out of interest? I take it you'd agree that anyone who is quite clearly living on benefits as a lifestyle choice rather than having fallen on hard times and in need of some short term support should contribute a little (14% of housing allowance I believe, not all up benefits) if they want a nice house which is larger than they actually need complete with spare unused bedrooms and a pretty garden to be payed for by the hard working honest people paying tax and living in a two bed terrace struggling to make ends meet. Perhaps a two or three year moratorium before the contribution is requested should be allowed to give time for someone genuinely fallen on hard times to get back on their feet and be able to contribute?
Emotive language works both ways
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,389
- Location
- Darwen
Someone takes too much stock in what the papers print.
I have friends and family on benefits and they live in relatively poor areas in terraced social housing with 2 bedrooms.
Sure there are more affluent areas and towns that only have such social housing available but you cant just attack everyone on benefits just to target these people.
The problem is the government doesn't discriminate, they sit in their ivory towers and target pretty much everyone on benefits regardless of circumstance.How do you know this person lost their job through no fault of their own and are trying to get back on their feet out of interest? I take it you'd agree that anyone who is quite clearly living on benefits as a lifestyle choice rather than having fallen on hard times and in need of some short term support should contribute a little (14% of housing allowance I believe, not all up benefits) if they want the hard working people paying tax and living in a two bed terrace struggling to make ends meet to fund a larger house than they actually need with a nice spare room for them. Perhaps a two or three year moratorium before the contribution is requested should be allowed to give time for someone genuinely fallen on hard times to get back on their feet and be able to contribute?
Emotive language works both ways
Why target the unemployed who are clearly doing without just to make up the difference in bedroom tax and council tax deductions. You would rather everyone starve just to target the single figure percentage of people who take advantage of the benefits system just so you can feel good about how "your" taxes are spent?
If all these people work "so hard" why do they get as much as £50 a week tax credits on top of their £230 a week minimum wage at full time hours?
And this Clown thinks he's performing a charitable service, you couldn't make it up.
I don't agree with the bedroom tax, in a perfect world it would work but fails when you apply it to the real world and people can't simply downsize or they have exceptional circumstances that mean the extra room isn't a luxury. All in all I think it should be scrapped, and I'm far from a Labour supporter.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,389
- Location
- Darwen
£14 out of the £70~ a week they get is a lot of money. More money goes on tax credits and the elderly yet I don't see them being taxed, it's not just a bedroom tax, you have to pay council tax as well as you only get a reduction on the bill it's not fully paid, in my area that's another £5 a week.
No it's just the unemployed who are demonised because it's an easy way of making it look like the government is doing something.
The attitude in here is sickening.
No it's just the unemployed who are demonised because it's an easy way of making it look like the government is doing something.
The attitude in here is sickening.
Last edited:
They're not being taxed, they are being asked to contribute a small amount towards the luxury of having a larger house than they actually need with spare unused bedrooms, a luxury the working class nurse of factory worker who has to pay for it for them could only dream of for their family.
I quite agree...
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,389
- Location
- Darwen
So all these poor people who live in 2 bedroom houses in ****** areas who barely have two pennies to rub together who are being asked to contribute as much as a third of their weekly allowance is ok in your book just to target the few that apparently live in luxurious 3 bedroom semi detached areas?
Which is fair enough if they have the option of down sizing or don't have exceptional circumstances that mean the extra room is put to good use.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,389
- Location
- Darwen
That's the problem, there aren't any options.
If you've ever been on a social housing list it takes well over 5 years of constantly applying for houses week in and week out just to get a sniff at one.
The council don't have empty houses just lying there waiting for people to downsize, they barely have houses for the people that need them.
I don't understand why people think it's acceptable to penalise people when they have no choice.
Which is why i suggested a two or three year moratorium from the initial assessment to allow them time to either downsize or an opportunity to get back on their feet. Lets face it, at £14contribution per week a paper round would cover it.
Ok, how about this kicks in once they have been offered a smaller house and they refuse it?
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,389
- Location
- Darwen
Yes that's fair.
£14 is a massive amount for people on benefits though (and you can't get a paper round if you're on benefits funnily enough). £14 for me and a lot of other people is pocket change but for someone who isn't able to work it's the difference between eating and visiting a food bank, which I imagine must be horrible.
What if that house means that the family has to spend more money taking the kids to school because it's 5 miles away? How many refusals do they get, one? It's just not that simple. It should just be scrapped for what it's worth
Last edited:
First £10 per week for a couple is disregarded for benefits, not that I was seriously suggesting people should do a paper round, clearly that would be cash in hand anyway. (I'm just kiddin' with you
)
What if there's a poor family fallen on hard times already crammed into a house too small for them or having to live in a bedsit taking kids to school miles away who can't get into a much needed larger social housing home because it's being hung onto by someone getting a larger house than they need for free and don't want to give up having a nice spare room?
Last edited: