Bedroom tax

[beorhthelm]

The bedroom tax is an awful, nasty piece of legislation. Are we really at the stage of forcing teenagers to share boxes while giving £££s back to the richest? It seems so.

no, but we are at the stage of making up wild claims to argue against policies we dont think we like. its not a tax, its one part of a much larger peice of legislation, and its enableing legislation that someone down the line uses to apply new rules and regulation. no where does it say teenagers have to start sharing. if you have a couple of teenagers and a 3 bed home, wouldnt affect you. if you had a couple of teenagers who've left 5, 10 years ago and now have two spare rooms, well then its time you down sized so another family can take on your subsidised 3 bedroom house.

this policy is to improve the lot of those in genuine need, and encourage others to fend for themselves a bit. its very sad that people cant see it for that and would rather default to partisan class/wealth war.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I never really understood why once you got social housing, you got to stay regardless of your situation. My mates parents still live in a 3 bed house even though all the kids have left. They are now moaning about the new system.
I think it's a decent idea and brings our social housing rules in line with most countries.
However this only works if you have enough accommodation to implement this change. Clearly they do not! If my mates parents had a nice new 1 bed or 2 bed flat to move to then fine I'm sure they'd do it. But there isn't.
I can see a huge u turn on this. It's a shame that so many of the coalitions ideas area good, but not implemented properly. The problem is I can see labour getting back in at the next election. Alas rather than taking on the current plan of defecit reduction, but improving it, with more building and investment in roads and infrastructure, they will just undo all that has been done and put us back into a course of over spending and future recessions. IMO.

I know quite well somebody who is a senior policy officer for a major housing charity. I was talking to him about this on Sunday evening and he portrayed it as a double evil by the government because it was done in the full knowledge that there is not enough housing of the right kind available in most places to make the downsizing bit work. It is therefore a further "tax" on people who will for the most part be the least able to afford it.

EDIT - I should add that I do not have any particular objection to encouraging people to move to smaller more appropriately sized properties as long as it is done sensibly and sensitively. There was a track by Genesis many years ago on the Foxtrot Album "Get 'em out by Friday", which might presage what could happen here...... although I sincerely hope not.

 

[pork pie]

Have to agree with others that you're being overly harsh ! My partner used to have a good, reasonably paid job but got made redundant. After six months unemployed she finally managed to get another job but it's only part time and almost minimum wage - she wants to work full time but despite what the government says about an extra million jobs being created it's not that easy to get a full time job.

I am sorry to hear that. My point is that if someone is only working 35 hours a week, at minimum wage, should they EXPECT to live in a big house subsidised by the tax payers? It also gives a good example of another of my points. Having had a good job, she probably contributed a lot of NI. I bet she got a lot less benefits back than the "scroungers" who don't work and have no intention to do so. The whole benefits systems is warped in favour of the scroungers who milk the system.

 

[clippedgull]

no where does it say teenagers have to start sharing. if you have a couple of teenagers and a 3 bed home, wouldnt affect you.

That only applies if the teenagers are the opposite sex. Same sex, then they are expected to share and the bedroom tax kicks in.

 

[mikeyjh]

no, but we are at the stage of making up wild claims to argue against policies we dont think we like. its not a tax, its one part of a much larger peice of legislation, and its enableing legislation that someone down the line uses to apply new rules and regulation. no where does it say teenagers have to start sharing. if you have a couple of teenagers and a 3 bed home, wouldnt affect you. if you had a couple of teenagers who've left 5, 10 years ago and now have two spare rooms, well then its time you down sized so another family can take on your subsidised 3 bedroom house.

this policy is to improve the lot of those in genuine need, and encourage others to fend for themselves a bit. its very sad that people cant see it for that and would rather default to partisan class/wealth war.

Wild claims or facts?

Bedroom Tax - National Housing Federation

 

[Bold Seagull]

ts very sad that people cant see it for that and would rather default to partisan class/wealth war.

Is this not because we're not really hearing any policies that are hitting the wealthy in any shape or form? Tends to make if difficult not to be drawn into a partisan argument when the 'we're all in this together' doesn't really appear to be playing out that way.

What is clear is that regardless of government or political party, as a country we can no longer control the financial sector. They are the true anarchists as they are untouchable. Instead, lets focus on the immigrants and the welfare state. We can control and blame them easily enough.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I am sorry to hear that. My point is that if someone is only working 35 hours a week, at minimum wage, should they EXPECT to live in a big house subsidised by the tax payers? It also gives a good example of another of my points. Having had a good job, she probably contributed a lot of NI. I bet she got a lot less benefits back than the "scroungers" who don't work and have no intention to do so. The whole benefits systems is warped in favour of the scroungers who milk the system.

Please please just **** off.

 

[glasfryn]

I am sorry to hear that. My point is that if someone is only working 35 hours a week, at minimum wage, should they EXPECT to live in a big house subsidised by the tax payers? It also gives a good example of another of my points. Having had a good job, she probably contributed a lot of NI. I bet she got a lot less benefits back than the "scroungers" who don't work and have no intention to do so. The whole benefits systems is warped in favour of the scroungers who milk the system.

and why not Abu Qatada does, point being this government has not got the backbone to send him home its easier to pick on those who cannot fight back and listen to those idiots in Europe and the idiot judges we have
scroungers who milk the system eh! something like the disassembling of the NHS to give to privatisation for those who have already rode to a fortune on the backs of the less fortunate to go on and make even more money.
there are those who have who have tried to suck the system dry but they are a lot fewer than some think and there are those who work and look after their family as best they can then get kicked in the teeth by this tory government.
you might think that the great British people would have learned from the last time ...........all politicians line there own pockets but this lot do it with a silly smirk on their faces.
still only two more years of this and they will be out .....some say but who can replace them ........I say anyone as long as its not them

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

still only two more years of this and they will be out .....some say but who can replace them ........I say anyone as long as its not them

Very much this. Good bye to the nasty party.

 

[Bakero]

No, but does it make it the Govenment's problem? People should work long hours, or live within their means. Too many around EXPECT something for nothing. Just because someone has a degree, they think they should walk into a well paid job. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The last Labour Goverment have made it so easy that they are two a penny. It is still important for graduates to "have something about them" and a degree in something that suits the career they wish to pursue. There are too many with degrees that have no worth in the real world what so ever. In the old days these used to be deemed to show the level of intelegence of people, now, if they have nothing to do with the job they are applying for, they are worthless to employers.

Let us be brutally honest, even with a good law degree for a reasonable Uni, people are hard pressed to get a job that will eneble them to become solicitors. What good to anyone is a 1st in English Literature?

Your argument's all over the place, mate. Earlier you were saying that if people were on low wages, it's their fault for not trying at school. Now, you say Uni's a waste of time for many people. Which is it? Also, this is another argument altogether but, studying for a degree provides lots of skills of worth to an employer regardless of the subject.

And, yeah, I'd say it is the Government's problem if wages don't cover living costs. Working more hours isn't always possible.

 

[beorhthelm]

Is this not because we're not really hearing any policies that are hitting the wealthy in any shape or form?

would you be refering to the top 1% who pay a quater of the total tax haul, or to the top 10% who pay 55% of the total? maybe the top 50% who pay 88% of that total? funny how this is always overlooked. a bit like the financial sector being the most regulated sector other than energy, they are practically run from the treasury/BoE/Brussels these days. no, lets focus on a few exceptional tales of big bonuses and extravogance grabbing headline, as we will with this bedroom "tax".

 

[Bold Seagull]

would you be refering to the top 1% who pay a quater of the total tax haul, or to the top 10% who pay 55% of the total? maybe the top 50% who pay 88% of that total? funny how this is always overlooked. a bit like the financial sector being the most regulated sector other than energy, they are practically run from the treasury/BoE/Brussels these days. no, lets focus on a few exceptional tales of big bonuses and extravogance grabbing headline, as we will with this bedroom "tax".

You're just proving my point to you regarding why the debate is polarised...

 

[beorhthelm]

You're just proving my point to you regarding why the debate is polarised...

if your point was that political debate is trivialised and based on poorly informed, entrenched positions, then yes i am.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Very much this. Good bye to the nasty party.

On one side we have the nasty party, on the other the incompetent party and in the middle the political puppy dogs who will be loyal to anyone in power. Great choice !!!!!

 

[drew]

Seems from reading this that when Pork Pie looks to his left he sees a queue of people the first of which is Adolf Hitler. Clearly doesn't believe in any form of benevolent society.

 

[Bold Seagull]

if your point was that political debate is trivialised and based on poorly informed, entrenched positions, then yes i am.

Is there more than one person posting for your account!? You're pretty much having an argument with yourself at this point, I think I'll let you carry on...

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

On one side we have the nasty party, on the other the incompetent party and in the middle the political puppy dogs who will be loyal to anyone in power. Great choice !!!!!

The previous government, allegedly, screwed the economy. The current cannot run an economy. But, at least the previous government did not turn citizens against citizens, screw the disadvantaged, demonise the less off well and stigmatize anyone who dares to claim benefit. It's arrogant, spiteful and nasty. If you want the UK to be a horrible country full of spite, bitterness and envy then carry on. The economy is utterly ****ed regardless of who is leading it; so you might as well be nice to each other. And you can make a start on this by voting the current morons out.

 

[pork pie]

Your argument's all over the place, mate. Earlier you were saying that if people were on low wages, it's their fault for not trying at school. Now, you say Uni's a waste of time for many people. Which is it? Also, this is another argument altogether but, studying for a degree provides lots of skills of worth to an employer regardless of the subject.

And, yeah, I'd say it is the Government's problem if wages don't cover living costs. Working more hours isn't always possible.

It is also the case that those who choose to take degrees with little of no vocational value are wasting their time. Does this country need so many blokes with a "Sports Science" dergee? Probably not. If people had the sense to rake degrees that increased their value in the jobs market like Enginering, they would have more chance of a job at the end of it. You really think that employers are interested in the small amount of skills that someone acquired in their studies over someone in a degree that prepared the candidate for the job on offer? Dream on.

That is the trouble these days - too many wasters think the Government owe them a living, paid for by the "rich" who have got off their arses and made something of their lives.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

I can't claim to understand the first thing about politics really... but whenever any policy has been introduced by this government which affects poorer people (in any way) - it's all the conservatives fault for looking after the rich.

The way I see this particular policy, they're trying to make social housing more efficient. How is that a bad thing?

 

[pork pie]

and why not Abu Qatada does, point being this government has not got the backbone to send him home its easier to pick on those who cannot fight back and listen to those idiots in Europe and the idiot judges we have
scroungers who milk the system eh! something like the disassembling of the NHS to give to privatisation for those who have already rode to a fortune on the backs of the less fortunate to go on and make even more money.
there are those who have who have tried to suck the system dry but they are a lot fewer than some think and there are those who work and look after their family as best they can then get kicked in the teeth by this tory government.
you might think that the great British people would have learned from the last time ...........all politicians line there own pockets but this lot do it with a silly smirk on their faces.
still only two more years of this and they will be out .....some say but who can replace them ........I say anyone as long as its not them

The Government have been prevented from doing so by laws passed by Blair and his acceptance of laws Maggie rejected from Europe.