Malt 379 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 That's been the case for years mate.. I was once told that the money the local authorities received from the sale of their properties was supposed to have been used to fund the building of more properties. I reckon most of it goes on paying their executive officers, our presiding officer is on more money than the prime minister.. The c**ts even get to vote themselves pay rises every year, even now when they are cutting the money of most of their lowest paid and part time workers.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blackbriar 8,569 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 That's been the case for years mate.. I was once told that the money the local authorities received from the sale of their properties was supposed to have been used to fund the building of more properties. I reckon most of it goes on paying their executive officers, our presiding officer is on more money than the prime minister.. The c**ts even get to vote themselves pay rises every year, even now when they are cutting the money of most of their lowest paid and part time workers.. Sorry to disagree Mr.Mod, but when Thatcher began the sale of Council houses all those years ago, the laws were constructed so that proceeds could not be used to replace the properties sold. Therefore the stock of social housing (where rents are controlled!) is greatly reduced.These new measures are an extension of that policy ie designed to further undermine and weaken the availability of social housing, and also include plans to pay housing benefit directly to the tenant who then pays the landlord (think we can all see a hole in that plan!). Followed to it's conclusion these policies completely destroy social housing which is then farmed out (like almost everything else) to a private, profit-making landlord. Education and health are also being chipped away in this fashion. Thatcher would be proud of you Mr. Cameron !! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
coley_airgunner 14 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 Where I stand is if you want it to be your house buy it if not its the councils they should put something in the tenancy that its yours while you have a need I got three kids in a two bed house I been told 12 years at least 2 year ago oldest was 4 so she be 16 I work hard got English name and wrong colour to get help, sound bad maybe a little selfish but this tax might help our situation by forcing people who have no need for the house to swap. Not gunna be popular but there you go just my thoughts the problem is the lack of social housing due to imegration and them selling them off in the thatcher years and since, local authorities are now reliant on housing associations that put proffit above morality hence the change. just out of interest when they measured the social housing stock for this new tax, they measured the whole property not just the bedrooms so expect a new tax at some point in the future based on area verses occupancy. new social housing stock needs to build, maybe it would kick start the economy as the building industry is normally a good measure of that. Totally agree they must have known it was coming they won't build millions of new homes as this would flood the market and lower house prices and rental prices Quote Link to post Share on other sites
moonlighter 1,162 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 I'm all for the bedroom tax. I work for an housing association and 75% of the tenants are scum bags. No of them work and have no intention to work either. If they want to live in a bigger house than they need, then they will have to pay. It dosnt affect over 65's so that's good and hopefully it will free up some 3 n 4 bedroom houses for large families that need them. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 The councils got all that money from the sale of coucil property and wasted it.They should have forseen this problem,not like we didnt know the population rises every year.As per usual oh we will deal with that when the time comes,same as the lack of apprentices and tradesmen. granted one person living alone in a 4 bed house shopuld be persuaded into down sizing,it makes sense that,But no way should be forced to or finacially blackmailed into vacating thier homes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 I'm all for the bedroom tax. I work for an housing association and 75% of the tenants are scum bags. No of them work and have no intention to work either. If they want to live in a bigger house than they need, then they will have to pay. It dosnt affect over 65's so that's good and hopefully it will free up some 3 n 4 bedroom houses for large families that need them. you work for a housing association and you think there all scumbags.maybe you should get another job mate,your hardly going to be any help to anyone with that attitude. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dewi 187 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 I'm all for the bedroom tax. I work for an housing association and 75% of the tenants are scum bags. No of them work and have no intention to work either. If they want to live in a bigger house than they need, then they will have to pay. It dosnt affect over 65's so that's good and hopefully it will free up some 3 n 4 bedroom houses for large families that need them. you work for a housing association and you think there all scumbags.maybe you should get another job mate,your hardly going to be any help to anyone with that attitude. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nothernlite 18,062 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 I'm all for the bedroom tax. I work for an housing association and 75% of the tenants are scum bags. No of them work and have no intention to work either. If they want to live in a bigger house than they need, then they will have to pay. It dosnt affect over 65's so that's good and hopefully it will free up some 3 n 4 bedroom houses for large families that need them. you work for a housing association and you think there all scumbags.maybe you should get another job mate,your hardly going to be any help to anyone with that attitude. well said scott 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
moonlighter 1,162 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 I'm a tradesman and the pay is great. I don't need to like them to work in there house. I will give you some examples of scum bags.; 4 year old kids in nappies...parents sniffing glue..... Used needles and condoms on garden path.....dog shit on the carpets...... No carpets......kitchens ripped out and set fire too...... Kids been sexually abused..... Doors removed and smashed...... Loft conversion for growing weed..... Toilets blocked with nappies so shiting n pissing in the bath. I've seen it all, and the majority are scum bags. The rest work so they pay the rent them selves. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted March 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 I'm all for the bedroom tax. I work for an housing association and 75% of the tenants are scum bags. No of them work and have no intention to work either. If they want to live in a bigger house than they need, then they will have to pay. It dosnt affect over 65's so that's good and hopefully it will free up some 3 n 4 bedroom houses for large families that need them. wankers are wankers how ever they earn a living so over 65`s means you become morally excluded Quote Link to post Share on other sites
moonlighter 1,162 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 If that's how you live, then fine... But if you've got a spare bedroom, your gonna have too get a job or buy 2 packs of fags less a week, lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dewi 187 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 I'm all for the bedroom tax. I work for an housing association and 75% of the tenants are scum bags. No of them work and have no intention to work either. If they want to live in a bigger house than they need, then they will have to pay. It dosnt affect over 65's so that's good and hopefully it will free up some 3 n 4 bedroom houses for large families that need them. you work for a housing association and you think there all scumbags.maybe you should get another job mate,your hardly going to be any help to anyone with that attitude.been in the same type of job for 27yrs seems the majority of tenants are scum because the tidy ones look after their homes,so very rarely get called to those properties unless its a real emergency.. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
moonlighter 1,162 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 Yes mate. It dosnt affect over 65's Quote Link to post Share on other sites
moonlighter 1,162 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 Correct dewi, the decent ones look after there homes. I change smashed sockets every day... How the hell do you smash a socket unless you kick it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nothernlite 18,062 Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 I'm a tradesman and the pay is great. I don't need to like them to work in there house. I will give you some examples of scum bags.; 4 year old kids in nappies...parents sniffing glue..... Used needles and condoms on garden path.....dog shit on the carpets...... No carpets......kitchens ripped out and set fire too...... Kids been sexually abused..... Doors removed and smashed...... Loft conversion for growing weed..... Toilets blocked with nappies so shiting n pissing in the bath. I've seen it all, and the majority are scum bags. The rest work so they pay the rent them selves. can you not refuse to work in they house or is the pay so great your willing to work in amongst that filth Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.