I was listening to a chat about the "bedroom tax" as it's known and there were some examples of pretty rough treatment to some disabled folk. No doubt there are those that try to take the p,iss but it struck me that HMG are willing to cough up £25,000 per resident of Helmand Province in Afghanistan but take away a tenner a week from some poor sod with terminal cancer because he has an extra room.

What has "society" come to?

David

 

just for a few quid less, what about the poor woman who's child was autistic they had a spare room for the care nurse for when she stayed the night, she was told she idn't need 3 bedrooms
that's whats wrong with this country we don't look after our own

 

Makes it sound like we are "giving" 25k to every helmand resident.

 

Do you have a link to back up your rant? Here are the actual facts (if you have a disabled child you will be allowed an extra bedroom)


http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/wel...rm/bedroom-tax


I wish people would stop moaning about everything

 

When there's no news you have to invent some
Apparently we were all a bit happier last year,

My god what a ground breaking discovery

 

it wasn't a rant for starters, i only remember seeing it on the news, and if you read your link properly, disabled people with adapted properties will be affected, i can understand the point in the new regs but if another smaller property is not available then the person/persons should not be punished
Who will be affected?

All claimants who are deemed to have at least one spare bedroom will be affected. This includes:

Separated parents who share the care of their children and who may have been allocated an extra bedroom to reflect this. Benefit rules mean that there must be a designated ‘main carer’ for children (who receives the extra benefit)
Couples who use their ‘spare’ bedroom when recovering from an illness or operation
Parents whose children visit but are not part of the household
Disabled people including people living in adapted or specially designed properties.

- See more at: http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/wel....QsVnNAw9.dpuf

 

Wish people would stop referring it to the 'bedroom tax' - it's pretty offensive.
Linking their 'housing bonus to the size of their housing needs' would perhaps be better, but less grabby. How about 'housing requirement grant'.

Seriously, if people actually used the correct terminology rather than the attention-grabbing and emotive terminolgy being used in most of the debate, it would completely change the tone of the questioning.

 

Agreed. It just doesn't make sense for taxpayers to fork out for a three bed house for a couple with one child!

 

can I have a nurse to stay in my "spare" room ?????

 

http://victoriousendeavours.files.wo...es_468x454.jpg

 

So explain to me why as a taxpayer I should fund extra rooms because other people have children and then can't maintain their marital relationship

 

**** 'em



Unless it's me in that situation of course Vote Tory and it's every man for himself, I did so will be looking after number 1

 

Some people are indeed in an unfortunate position and these new measures don't help, and in all likelihood it'll make things worse...

However, all you need to do is think about the hundreds of thousands of people living in far-worse accommodation on waiting lists who would jump at the chance to have 'only 2 bedrooms'. It's a balancing act; you need to accommodate those with atypical requirements, but equally important is finding accommodation for those who have been on the waiting list for years and are being kept out. To have houses half empty while that is going on is unjustifiable.

Of course what we need is more affordable housing but we are where we are.

 

this is the part i was on about not passengers that have decided to split up because the system makes them better off apart
Disabled people including people living in adapted or specially designed properties.

 

It seems to be far more important for our leaders to ingratiate themselves with the other world leaders when you think about it!

Les

 

If you regard housing as a commodity yes, like barrels of oil or potatoes. But you could say that people have a lot invested emotionally and socially in where they live. Also even if we say housing is a commodity where are all these 'correctly' sized houses for people to move into?

What about the 'communities' the government is always going on about?

Of course it is a tax or a de facto one. You have people living in social housing for years harming nobody, now that state is taking money off them. Rationalise it how you want.

 

So no middle class people are single parents Ding?

Where is this cost per room you keep going on about BTW? I've never seen rent charged like that for social housing.

Why not blame the stupidly high costs of rent in this country? Social housing costs almost nothing for people to live in from an economic point of view, most was built years ago. Why is the money cost of the rents so high?

 

So why should someone renting from the council have a spare room empty or doing nothing when there are families of three or four living in one/two bed room flats?

 

Why should people live in massive mansions? They could probably squeeze in dozens.

 

If lots of private households have always rented out rooms to pay the mortgage why shouldn't public do the same

 

Yes but these so called middle classes then don't go and ask for the tax payer to pay for the extra accomodation.

I'm not sure why you think social housing costs next to nothing? Do you not think it costs hundreds of millions to maintain?

 

I come on, are you deliberately trying to wind us up? The difference is that the mansion has been bought and paid for from taxed income. It hasn't been paid for by tax payers money

 

Blame our system of private property or failing that the manipulated property market pushing up rents. In the final analysis you are problematising the poorest and weakest for having an 'extra' room in their crummy houses, whilst other more powerful people have vast houses which are even more 'under occupied'. Who are the ones who are really the 'burden' on society?

 

How can somebody who buys a vast property with their own money be a burden? I don't see them as a burden on society at all, you are spouting the politics of envy and I'll have no part in it.

I'm not problematising the poorest but we all need to play by the same rules. I can only buy/rent what I can afford to pay. When I had a family I had to move from 'central' London to the burbs because there is no way I could afford a family home there. Why shouldn't people on HB move out of an area if the rents are too high?

If I had a one bed flat and then had a baby would my boss suddenly give me a rise so I could buy a 2 flat? Of course not. I would have to make an adult decision and either not have a baby or all us sleep in the same room. Hard working people make these tough decisions everyday. A segment of the population can't opt out of these responsibilities

 

Sounds like you are envious of people in social housing. Who is playing the politics of envy?

Some people live in big houses becaus they inherited that right, some because their money comes from owning capital...doing nothing but owning...how does that fit in with your bourgeois work ethic?

A few poor people in crumby social housing with a 'spare room' are hardly oppressing working people.

The biggest burdens on society are those who consume loads of resources. So yes if you live in a big house you are more of a burden than someone in a small house.

 

More nonsense. If somebody inherits a big house it's because their parents grafted and bought the property with taxed income. If their kids then benefit from this then good for them, I'll not begrudge them or be jealous. That is again the politics of envy on your part.

As for those who own capital, this capital has come from somewhere hasn't it? It hasn't just fallen out of the sky? Even if it had fallen out of the sky it wouldn't bother me. Some people are lucky, what can you do? I'd rather concentrate on making something of myself than being jealous that somebody else discovered oil in their back garden.

Your argument about someone in a big house being a huge burden on society because of their consumption is frankly juvenile and more in keeping with an O'level debating society. As such I won't even bother to respond.

 

And some because we worked bloody hard to get what they have


Those who sponge off the state then.

In a council house yes, private no.

 

Reduce income tax to next to nothing, everything you earn you keep and spend as you see fit

Reward initiative, hard work and graft - you generate wealth you keep it, you enjoy it, but your offspring do not as they have done nothing to earn it, save an accident of birth

So the downside is 100% inheritance tax, every generatation has to stand on its own two (financial) feet, no silo'd pillars of wealth doing fvck all for he common good

A true meritocracy, let the best drive humanity forward

 

Is this the sort of complete drivel you champagne socailists come up with at dinner parties these days??

All from the guy who moved out of London to a beautiful part of the country so that his children had access to excellent state education facilities. This move in part funded by the huge rent he gets from what must a multi million pound property in Notting Hill.

I see your children are benefiting from a true meritocracy


Seriously mate you are becoming the worst kind of champagne socailist

 

I can understand how disabled people who genuinely sleep in separate rooms feel the so called bedroom tax is unfair. My wife and I mostly sleep apart because she can no longer manage stairs. if I wasn't working I would probably feel a bit miffed if I had my award reduced for a bedroom I was actually using.