Do You Think Bedroom Tax Will Be Scrapped

[unlacedgecko 1,466]

 

 

 

Grips my shit that its called a bedroom tax. Its not, as paulus pointed out its a benefit reduction. And a justified one in my mind. Why should tax payers pay for someone to have more bedrooms than they require? All this shite about people who have to move out of homes they have lived in for years fucks me off. Tough shit. Social housing should be allocated according to need, like military quarters. If you want to live in one house your entire life, regardless of need, then save up and buy it like most other people...

 

its morally wrong as it discriminates against social housing occupants that claim rent rebate and not all social housing tenants!! it also does not apply to private rented properties. The argument of under occupancy has some merits but there is not the smaller properties available for couples and single people to move into. then theres the point some couples have lived in the properties and paid rent for seventy years plus and so have arguably paid more into the economy than those who chose to buy rather than rent, back in the late seventies when the housing boom started we created a better than my neighbour culture because the bank owns my house rather than the council was thought to have a higher social standing, the situation with employment,mortgage availability and high house prices is now creating a situation where renting private or social housing is the only option for a lot of todays youngsters, i keep saying this, the only way to significantly reduce the benefit bill is to increase earning to a level that mirrors the true cost of living and solve the problem of pensions as over half of all benefits is paid to pensioners. not using benefits to buy votes would also help, ie the winter fuel payment etc.

Housing benefit claimants in privately rented properties are affected. I have recently had tenants move out of one of my houses as they had their housing benefit reduced. There were 4 adults living in a 3 bedroom house. The government was paying £425 per month and the total rent was £525. Between them 4 adults had to find £100 per month, that is less than £1 per adult per day. And they were unable to find that money, but they had plenty of cash for beer, fags, stock car racing etc.

If youngsters today don't want to live in privately rented houses or social housing, they should work hard and save up a deposit then get a mortgage. However, if people wish to rent that is there choice, but I object to them renting a larger house than they need, with my (tax payers) money.

A couple who have rented for 70 plus years in the same property will not have paid any more into the economy than a private owner if the renting couple have been in receipt of housing benefit the entire time. The bedroom tax is not a tax. Taxes are raised against income. It is a benefit reduction, affecting only those people in receipt of housing benefit.

The 70s culture of better than my neighbour is justified in my mind. We live in a free market economy and a capitalist society. Should people wish to spend their money on property that is there prerogative. It is not the case that the bank owns the property rather than the council. I own my properties, not the banks. I have loans taken out which I used to initially pay for the properties. The banks have an interest in the properties as they were used as collateral, but it is my name on the deeds, and in 18-24 years the banks will no longer have an interest in these particular properties as the mortgages will have been paid off.

As I said in the other thread, it is not the governments sponsibility to create employment on people's door steps. It is down to them individual's to get out there and find work. If you cannot live on the money you are currently earning, then get an additional job, get a better paying job or lower your standard of living.

again you assume that all housing benefit recipients are non working this is not the case!! there are a shit load of hard working families out there who do not earn enough to pay the rents that are being charged. then again theres also a load of landlords that use housing benefit claimants to subsidise their growing portfolio!! also the way i was brought up something is not owned until its paid for in full. your name might be on them deeds but i am quite sure you don't have them the lender does?? my grand parents lived in a council house for over 70 years and paid rent for that time, The government does have a responsibility to create jobs on as you say "peoples doorsteps" otherwise you get the situation like in london where only the well off can afford to live there despite that being the place where the work is.

You're right, the lender does hold the deeds. If something is not owned until it is paid for in full, then surely the same logic applies to people who expect to live in houses which are larger than they are entitled to? If they cannot afford them, then it is right that they move out.

 

These reductions are not huge either. In my example, is it unreasonable to expect an adult to find £1 per day? That is less than 4 packets of fags in a month.

 

I was bought up to believe that people create their own opportunities. The government is not in a position to create work, we don't live in a Communist state. Work is created by private companies. Part of the reason the economy is such a mess is that the previous Labour governments attempted to 'create' work by expanding the public sector.

[paulus 26]

 

 

 

 

Grips my shit that its called a bedroom tax. Its not, as paulus pointed out its a benefit reduction. And a justified one in my mind. Why should tax payers pay for someone to have more bedrooms than they require? All this shite about people who have to move out of homes they have lived in for years fucks me off. Tough shit. Social housing should be allocated according to need, like military quarters. If you want to live in one house your entire life, regardless of need, then save up and buy it like most other people...

its morally wrong as it discriminates against social housing occupants that claim rent rebate and not all social housing tenants!! it also does not apply to private rented properties. The argument of under occupancy has some merits but there is not the smaller properties available for couples and single people to move into. then theres the point some couples have lived in the properties and paid rent for seventy years plus and so have arguably paid more into the economy than those who chose to buy rather than rent, back in the late seventies when the housing boom started we created a better than my neighbour culture because the bank owns my house rather than the council was thought to have a higher social standing, the situation with employment,mortgage availability and high house prices is now creating a situation where renting private or social housing is the only option for a lot of todays youngsters, i keep saying this, the only way to significantly reduce the benefit bill is to increase earning to a level that mirrors the true cost of living and solve the problem of pensions as over half of all benefits is paid to pensioners. not using benefits to buy votes would also help, ie the winter fuel payment etc.

Housing benefit claimants in privately rented properties are affected. I have recently had tenants move out of one of my houses as they had their housing benefit reduced. There were 4 adults living in a 3 bedroom house. The government was paying £425 per month and the total rent was £525. Between them 4 adults had to find £100 per month, that is less than £1 per adult per day. And they were unable to find that money, but they had plenty of cash for beer, fags, stock car racing etc.

If youngsters today don't want to live in privately rented houses or social housing, they should work hard and save up a deposit then get a mortgage. However, if people wish to rent that is there choice, but I object to them renting a larger house than they need, with my (tax payers) money.

A couple who have rented for 70 plus years in the same property will not have paid any more into the economy than a private owner if the renting couple have been in receipt of housing benefit the entire time. The bedroom tax is not a tax. Taxes are raised against income. It is a benefit reduction, affecting only those people in receipt of housing benefit.

The 70s culture of better than my neighbour is justified in my mind. We live in a free market economy and a capitalist society. Should people wish to spend their money on property that is there prerogative. It is not the case that the bank owns the property rather than the council. I own my properties, not the banks. I have loans taken out which I used to initially pay for the properties. The banks have an interest in the properties as they were used as collateral, but it is my name on the deeds, and in 18-24 years the banks will no longer have an interest in these particular properties as the mortgages will have been paid off.

As I said in the other thread, it is not the governments sponsibility to create employment on people's door steps. It is down to them individual's to get out there and find work. If you cannot live on the money you are currently earning, then get an additional job, get a better paying job or lower your standard of living.

again you assume that all housing benefit recipients are non working this is not the case!! there are a shit load of hard working families out there who do not earn enough to pay the rents that are being charged. then again theres also a load of landlords that use housing benefit claimants to subsidise their growing portfolio!! also the way i was brought up something is not owned until its paid for in full. your name might be on them deeds but i am quite sure you don't have them the lender does?? my grand parents lived in a council house for over 70 years and paid rent for that time, The government does have a responsibility to create jobs on as you say "peoples doorsteps" otherwise you get the situation like in london where only the well off can afford to live there despite that being the place where the work is.

You're right, the lender does hold the deeds. If something is not owned until it is paid for in full, then surely the same logic applies to people who expect to live in houses which are larger than they are entitled to? If they cannot afford them, then it is right that they move out.

 

These reductions are not huge either. In my example, is it unreasonable to expect an adult to find £1 per day? That is less than 4 packets of fags in a month.

 

I was bought up to believe that people create their own opportunities. The government is not in a position to create work, we don't live in a Communist state. Work is created by private companies. Part of the reason the economy is such a mess is that the previous Labour governments attempted to 'create' work by expanding the public sector.

 

we could go round in circles all day mate. but the until wages meet living costs then the the taxpayer will be subsidising business, 63% of all families receive benefits and 100% of all pensioners. if this was the case all universal benefits could be scrapped and the ones left means tested, that would only leave the pension bill to sort mind that is over 50% of the total benefits bill.

[unlacedgecko 1,466]

 

 

 

 

 

Grips my shit that its called a bedroom tax. Its not, as paulus pointed out its a benefit reduction. And a justified one in my mind. Why should tax payers pay for someone to have more bedrooms than they require? All this shite about people who have to move out of homes they have lived in for years fucks me off. Tough shit. Social housing should be allocated according to need, like military quarters. If you want to live in one house your entire life, regardless of need, then save up and buy it like most other people...

 

its morally wrong as it discriminates against social housing occupants that claim rent rebate and not all social housing tenants!! it also does not apply to private rented properties. The argument of under occupancy has some merits but there is not the smaller properties available for couples and single people to move into. then theres the point some couples have lived in the properties and paid rent for seventy years plus and so have arguably paid more into the economy than those who chose to buy rather than rent, back in the late seventies when the housing boom started we created a better than my neighbour culture because the bank owns my house rather than the council was thought to have a higher social standing, the situation with employment,mortgage availability and high house prices is now creating a situation where renting private or social housing is the only option for a lot of todays youngsters, i keep saying this, the only way to significantly reduce the benefit bill is to increase earning to a level that mirrors the true cost of living and solve the problem of pensions as over half of all benefits is paid to pensioners. not using benefits to buy votes would also help, ie the winter fuel payment etc.

Housing benefit claimants in privately rented properties are affected. I have recently had tenants move out of one of my houses as they had their housing benefit reduced. There were 4 adults living in a 3 bedroom house. The government was paying £425 per month and the total rent was £525. Between them 4 adults had to find £100 per month, that is less than £1 per adult per day. And they were unable to find that money, but they had plenty of cash for beer, fags, stock car racing etc.

If youngsters today don't want to live in privately rented houses or social housing, they should work hard and save up a deposit then get a mortgage. However, if people wish to rent that is there choice, but I object to them renting a larger house than they need, with my (tax payers) money.

A couple who have rented for 70 plus years in the same property will not have paid any more into the economy than a private owner if the renting couple have been in receipt of housing benefit the entire time. The bedroom tax is not a tax. Taxes are raised against income. It is a benefit reduction, affecting only those people in receipt of housing benefit.

The 70s culture of better than my neighbour is justified in my mind. We live in a free market economy and a capitalist society. Should people wish to spend their money on property that is there prerogative. It is not the case that the bank owns the property rather than the council. I own my properties, not the banks. I have loans taken out which I used to initially pay for the properties. The banks have an interest in the properties as they were used as collateral, but it is my name on the deeds, and in 18-24 years the banks will no longer have an interest in these particular properties as the mortgages will have been paid off.

As I said in the other thread, it is not the governments sponsibility to create employment on people's door steps. It is down to them individual's to get out there and find work. If you cannot live on the money you are currently earning, then get an additional job, get a better paying job or lower your standard of living.

again you assume that all housing benefit recipients are non working this is not the case!! there are a shit load of hard working families out there who do not earn enough to pay the rents that are being charged. then again theres also a load of landlords that use housing benefit claimants to subsidise their growing portfolio!! also the way i was brought up something is not owned until its paid for in full. your name might be on them deeds but i am quite sure you don't have them the lender does?? my grand parents lived in a council house for over 70 years and paid rent for that time, The government does have a responsibility to create jobs on as you say "peoples doorsteps" otherwise you get the situation like in london where only the well off can afford to live there despite that being the place where the work is.

You're right, the lender does hold the deeds. If something is not owned until it is paid for in full, then surely the same logic applies to people who expect to live in houses which are larger than they are entitled to? If they cannot afford them, then it is right that they move out.

These reductions are not huge either. In my example, is it unreasonable to expect an adult to find £1 per day? That is less than 4 packets of fags in a month.

I was bought up to believe that people create their own opportunities. The government is not in a position to create work, we don't live in a Communist state. Work is created by private companies. Part of the reason the economy is such a mess is that the previous Labour governments attempted to 'create' work by expanding the public sector.

we could go round in circles all day mate. but the until wages meet living costs then the the taxpayer will be subsidising business, 63% of all families receive benefits and 100% of all pensioners. if this was the case all universal benefits could be scrapped and the ones left means tested, that would only leave the pension bill to sort mind that is over 50% of the total benefits bill.

Agree to disagree sounds good to me. Gonna take dogs out then head to bed...

[paulus 26]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grips my shit that its called a bedroom tax. Its not, as paulus pointed out its a benefit reduction. And a justified one in my mind. Why should tax payers pay for someone to have more bedrooms than they require? All this shite about people who have to move out of homes they have lived in for years fucks me off. Tough shit. Social housing should be allocated according to need, like military quarters. If you want to live in one house your entire life, regardless of need, then save up and buy it like most other people...

its morally wrong as it discriminates against social housing occupants that claim rent rebate and not all social housing tenants!! it also does not apply to private rented properties. The argument of under occupancy has some merits but there is not the smaller properties available for couples and single people to move into. then theres the point some couples have lived in the properties and paid rent for seventy years plus and so have arguably paid more into the economy than those who chose to buy rather than rent, back in the late seventies when the housing boom started we created a better than my neighbour culture because the bank owns my house rather than the council was thought to have a higher social standing, the situation with employment,mortgage availability and high house prices is now creating a situation where renting private or social housing is the only option for a lot of todays youngsters, i keep saying this, the only way to significantly reduce the benefit bill is to increase earning to a level that mirrors the true cost of living and solve the problem of pensions as over half of all benefits is paid to pensioners. not using benefits to buy votes would also help, ie the winter fuel payment etc.

Housing benefit claimants in privately rented properties are affected. I have recently had tenants move out of one of my houses as they had their housing benefit reduced. There were 4 adults living in a 3 bedroom house. The government was paying £425 per month and the total rent was £525. Between them 4 adults had to find £100 per month, that is less than £1 per adult per day. And they were unable to find that money, but they had plenty of cash for beer, fags, stock car racing etc.

If youngsters today don't want to live in privately rented houses or social housing, they should work hard and save up a deposit then get a mortgage. However, if people wish to rent that is there choice, but I object to them renting a larger house than they need, with my (tax payers) money.

A couple who have rented for 70 plus years in the same property will not have paid any more into the economy than a private owner if the renting couple have been in receipt of housing benefit the entire time. The bedroom tax is not a tax. Taxes are raised against income. It is a benefit reduction, affecting only those people in receipt of housing benefit.

The 70s culture of better than my neighbour is justified in my mind. We live in a free market economy and a capitalist society. Should people wish to spend their money on property that is there prerogative. It is not the case that the bank owns the property rather than the council. I own my properties, not the banks. I have loans taken out which I used to initially pay for the properties. The banks have an interest in the properties as they were used as collateral, but it is my name on the deeds, and in 18-24 years the banks will no longer have an interest in these particular properties as the mortgages will have been paid off.

As I said in the other thread, it is not the governments sponsibility to create employment on people's door steps. It is down to them individual's to get out there and find work. If you cannot live on the money you are currently earning, then get an additional job, get a better paying job or lower your standard of living.

again you assume that all housing benefit recipients are non working this is not the case!! there are a shit load of hard working families out there who do not earn enough to pay the rents that are being charged. then again theres also a load of landlords that use housing benefit claimants to subsidise their growing portfolio!! also the way i was brought up something is not owned until its paid for in full. your name might be on them deeds but i am quite sure you don't have them the lender does?? my grand parents lived in a council house for over 70 years and paid rent for that time, The government does have a responsibility to create jobs on as you say "peoples doorsteps" otherwise you get the situation like in london where only the well off can afford to live there despite that being the place where the work is.

You're right, the lender does hold the deeds. If something is not owned until it is paid for in full, then surely the same logic applies to people who expect to live in houses which are larger than they are entitled to? If they cannot afford them, then it is right that they move out.

These reductions are not huge either. In my example, is it unreasonable to expect an adult to find £1 per day? That is less than 4 packets of fags in a month.

I was bought up to believe that people create their own opportunities. The government is not in a position to create work, we don't live in a Communist state. Work is created by private companies. Part of the reason the economy is such a mess is that the previous Labour governments attempted to 'create' work by expanding the public sector.

we could go round in circles all day mate. but the until wages meet living costs then the the taxpayer will be subsidising business, 63% of all families receive benefits and 100% of all pensioners. if this was the case all universal benefits could be scrapped and the ones left means tested, that would only leave the pension bill to sort mind that is over 50% of the total benefits bill.

Agree to disagree sounds good to me. Gonna take dogs out then head to bed...

 

sleep thats a luxury the poor cannot afford

[dare 1,103]

Some what agree with the bedroom tax idea. Can't see why people should be allowed spare rooms when other families are in need. Like its been said if you want your one house forever work hard and buy it? I'm thinking like this as we waited years to get a move into a bigger property. That said its just pissing on the poor again ain't it? Throw money at us and its not a problem you can keep the rooms you don't need. Pisses me off alot more when these Somalians come over and have 5+ kids and get f**k off sized houses. They don't have to worry about bedroom tax they breed like rabbits. How many of their kids do you think grow up and go to work aswell?

 

Only way to get a council place in my area is to knock out kids. If the council offer you places you can only refuse a certain number of times. I wouldn't want to live in any old shithole that they offer. Also think if I'm going to work why would I want to be living the same as those who don't. Find if people pay for something they look after it better. Couldn't afford to rent private in my area and don't see the point in paying off someone else's mortgage. Saving money at the moment not just for a mortgage, more just not wasting money type thing. Not sure where I'd want to move though. My area you'd be looking at average of 350k for a 3bedroom place and nothing fancy.

[j j m 6,541]

what gets me is my mate said give me a one bedroom flat im willing to moove they said we havnt got one available so why should he have to pay the bedroom tax its not his fault hes willing to leave and they havnt got another property to move him in to,and theres thousounds in the same situation,if this goverment get back in next year i will show my bum in fenwicks window at xmas ha ha

[dare 1,103]

Never knew that they'd have to pay even if willing to too take anywhere with less rooms. That does seem abit harsh. Prehaps stick a silly hat on and claim you believe in a man in the sky? Say hello to the new pray room lol probably a human right for it. Of course most will be scared to offend you incase you use the race card dispite it being a religion.

[scothunter 12,609]

well i was lead to believe we elect a goverment to generate jobs and look after our affairs. the only jobs they generate are ones for the boys,and the only affairs the tories were interested in was with rent boys lol

[R.A.W 1,987]

 

 

Grips my shit that its called a bedroom tax. Its not, as paulus pointed out its a benefit reduction. And a justified one in my mind. Why should tax payers pay for someone to have more bedrooms than they require? All this shite about people who have to move out of homes they have lived in for years fucks me off. Tough shit. Social housing should be allocated according to need, like military quarters. If you want to live in one house your entire life, regardless of need, then save up and buy it like most other people...

If there were enough 2 bedroom properties about in my area I'd agree mate but the government brought about a tax knowing full well that that there isn't enough ....................... Which is unfair..............................................

 

Why tax the poorest people at the time when they need help the most? especially when google are dodging paying like fork and allowed to get away with it.

 

 

 

If people had somewhere to move too then fair enough but come on .

Why should people remain in the area? There are enough houses in the country to put them in. If someone has to move to a new place a few counties away what's the problem? It's not like they have to stay in the area for their job is it?

 

Again, it's not a tax, it's a benefit reduction.

 

I whole heartedky agree with you on the a google point though. If a company has significant holdings of real estate and/or personnel in this country then they should have to pay corporation tax on the % of their profits at least equal to the % of their company present in the auk.

 

 

I'm not sure of the exact figures but i'll bet my bottom dollar there isn't enough 1 or two bed properties in the country fill the demand . People have no choice that's my point

[scothunter 12,609]

well our council dont thats for sure.they even admitted it in the local paper.however they are building more property,but in joint venture with some housing association.oh and there not one bedroom flats/houses they are building either. 3/4 bedrooms. there was a nice grass area with oak trees that were decades old.chopped down and built over.The first application was refused,but they second time around it got approval lol not complaining as such,well depends who they house in them.we need housing thats for sure. really shouldnt have flogged them all off years ago.

[j j m 6,541]

I agree they shouldnt of sold so many houses off

[arctic skua 28]

2500 council tenants have applied to downsize to a one bedroom property in this area ,only 20_25 1 bed/properties exist. All are already occupied. Brother in law has been on list for 4 years now and has to pay bedroom tax. Could UNLACEDGECKO come up and solve our little problem for us, or phone our MP SIR JOHN THURSO and get it fixed. Thank You.

[Guest ragumup]

Ukip would scrap the bed room tax....

[gonetoearth 5,144]

I sat and and watched both leaders of the so called goverment and opposition partys rallying speaches One rambled on with no written speach thinking he was ny bevan When really he is A niel kinnock The other had a speech written for him Full of unfunny quips nither are leaders just filling gaps till a real leader comes along , while the class that fights the wars and works to pay the taxes suffers at the hands of a gang of imposters dig an even bigger hole for us to get out of , will the bedroom tax be abolished. Did labour on getting into power after thatcher abolish the anti trade union laws did they change the councill tax My arse they did edwood the younger looks like a scout leader With rocky balboa's accent could not lead scouts never mind the country While grey dave keeps looking over his shoulder in fear of ossman blackadder. , and dorris the oh look at me play the fool like me like me Johnson , Vote ukip carnt be any worse

Edited October 4, 2013 by gonetoearth

[northern lad 2,292]

Grips my shit that its called a bedroom tax. Its not, as paulus pointed out its a benefit reduction. And a justified one in my mind. Why should tax payers pay for someone to have more bedrooms than they require? All this shite about people who have to move out of homes they have lived in for years fucks me off. Tough shit. Social housing should be allocated according to need, like military quarters. If you want to live in one house your entire life, regardless of need, then save up and buy it like most other people...

I have lived in the same private rented house for 5 years ,the last 2 my wife has become ill,is now registered disabled and I have had to stop work to care for her full time,we have just been hit for 50 quid a month bedroom tax as we have a "spare" room,this is the one I sleep in regularly due to the wifes condition,I paid tax and worked all my life ,yet according to you this is justified.Regarding social housing there is about 15 houses within 100yds of my front garden that are being kept empty ,ready for African asylum seekers,so we cant have one....hence we will accept our well deserved shafting from the government, hope your next shits a pineapple ,you feckin retard....