Re: Revolution : Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:10 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Like many government plans, the idea behind it is sound, the implementation is shocking.

Fair enough, I've not looked into the detail.

Re: Revolution : Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:20 pm  

Saddened! wrote: I cant believe people seriously oppose the plans to tax spare rooms in council properties? Its not a tax, you have to stop calling it a tax, its not a tax, tax on properties, it sends Tories into spasms of fear at what happened last time, its not a tax, just like JSA isn't a wage, its not. What it is is an ill conceived plan to cut benefits payments, nothing more. Remember June 2010 when the newly elected Cameron sent his Ministers away and told them to come back with plenty of ideas on how to cut their public spending budgets ? They went away and spoke to all manner of advisors, civil servants, and university graduates like themselves, you know, people with real life experience, and they came back with a whole long list of ideas, some of which were even reasonable, some were a bit impractical, and others were just "Fekk off, they'll never stand for that". Well, nearly three years on and the country is still borrowing more money than ever and they've gone down the lists again and now its time for the ones that were on the "Fekk off, they'll never stand for that" list, with a new foudn confidence that if you just blame all of these people then the rest will agree, a sort of Jeremy Kyle Does Politics. The proof of the pudding is in this newspaper article, ok so its The Mirror and you wouldn't expect them to agree, but read it anyway ... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-farce-just-50-1745529 Even if The Mirror is 100% out in its numbers then its still a national disgrace that is being perpetrated on the most vulnerable in our society where they have no choice but to hand back some of their housing benefit simply because there is nothing else on offer. Its not selfishness that makes people have one or even two spare bedrooms in their council house, its circumstances and the fact that there is no other size dwelling available, if there were tens of thousands of one bed accomodation standing empty because no-one would take it then the anti-council tenant rhetoric would have some standing, but the fact is that its a perfect benefit cut because there is no get-out clause.

Saddened! wrote: I cant believe people seriously oppose the plans to tax spare rooms in council properties? Its not a tax, you have to stop calling it a tax, its not a tax, tax on properties, it sends Tories into spasms of fear at what happened last time, its not a tax, just like JSA isn't a wage, its not. What it is is an ill conceived plan to cut benefits payments, nothing more. Remember June 2010 when the newly elected Cameron sent his Ministers away and told them to come back with plenty of ideas on how to cut their public spending budgets ? They went away and spoke to all manner of advisors, civil servants, and university graduates like themselves, you know, people with real life experience, and they came back with a whole long list of ideas, some of which were even reasonable, some were a bit impractical, and others were just "Fekk off, they'll never stand for that". Well, nearly three years on and the country is still borrowing more money than ever and they've gone down the lists again and now its time for the ones that were on the "Fekk off, they'll never stand for that" list, with a new foudn confidence that if you just blame all of these people then the rest will agree, a sort of Jeremy Kyle Does Politics. The proof of the pudding is in this newspaper article, ok so its The Mirror and you wouldn't expect them to agree, but read it anyway ... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-farce-just-50-1745529 Even if The Mirror is 100% out in its numbers then its still a national disgrace that is being perpetrated on the most vulnerable in our society where they have no choice but to hand back some of their housing benefit simply because there is nothing else on offer. Its not selfishness that makes people have one or even two spare bedrooms in their council house, its circumstances and the fact that there is no other size dwelling available, if there were tens of thousands of one bed accomodation standing empty because no-one would take it then the anti-council tenant rhetoric would have some standing, but the fact is that its a perfect benefit cut because there is no get-out clause.

Re: Revolution : Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:08 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

...its a perfect benefit cut because there is no get-out clause.

Spot on.
When will people realise that the Conservative agenda is not economics-driven but is ideology-driven?
They are trying to do what even the evil witch Maggie wouldn't have dared to do, which is to eradicate the last vestiges of the welfare state, state ownership and state responsibilities.
Give them enough time and it won't just be the NHS that gets privatised but ieverything... all emergency services, schools, roads, national security, you name it... everything.
They will deny it but they will be lying in the same way that Cameron lied about the NHS.

They are, of course, helped by decades of Thatcher, Major and Blair all trying to under-tax each other so that tax is now a dirty word.
Tax is part of our contribution towards a better country for all ... and that "for all" bit is the part that the mean and selfish bstrds in the Conservative Party hate most of all.

Re: Revolution : Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:51 pm  

The reality of the shirkers and skivers and the bedroom tax.
My mate, unemployed presently.
Renting a modestly small two-bedroom cottage. (I know for a fact there are no one bedroom properties available in the town).
His rent is £85 a week. (lets say £340 a month for convenience).
He recieves a housing benefit of £276 every four weeks.
A deficit of £64 which he now has no alternative but to pay out of his Job-Seekers allowance.
He receives £71 a week JSA so lets say £284 a month.
£284 a month minus £64 a month he has to put too for rent.
Doing the math that leaves him with £224 a month.
That'll be £56 a week to feed, clothe and pay his water rates, electricity and gas bills.

But hey up, wait on a minute.
He has an extra small box bedroom in the property and has now been told the newly vaunted bedroom tax will involve a £13 weekly reduction in his housing benefit.
That'll now leave him £43 a week to feed, clothe and pay his water rates, electricity and gas bills.

But hey up, wait on a minute.
He's now been informed by his local council that he will have to pay 25% of his council tax. Something that used to be paid for him when unemployed.
I think it works out at roughly £20 a month he will now have to contribute, so roughly another £5 a week he never previously had to pay.

£38 a week to feed, clothe pay his water rates, gas and electricity bill.

But he doesn't want a job, honest.
He's living a life of Riley.

No wonder he keeps his bedroom curtains fooking shut!

Re: Revolution : Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:31 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

He has an extra small box bedroom in the property and has now been told the newly vaunted bedroom tax will involve a £13 weekly reduction in his housing benefit.

Have a read of that link I gave to the Daily Mirror, there might be a glimmer of hope if its true about the definition of a habitable room vs a "box room", if that wins an appeal then a good percentage of the victims of this persecution may have a get out clause.

Of course it means that their local council may also have been overcharging them for years for something they called a bedroom that was actually just a cupboard - an 8 foot square 3rd bedroom would not qualify as a bedroom.

Re: Revolution : Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:03 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Have a read of that link I gave to the Daily Mirror, there might be a glimmer of hope if its true about the definition of a habitable room vs a "box room", if that wins an appeal then a good percentage of the victims of this persecution may have a get out clause.

Of course it means that their local council may also have been overcharging them for years for something they called a bedroom that was actually just a cupboard - an 8 foot square 3rd bedroom would not qualify as a bedroom.

Just read it.
Apparently only applies to council and housing association tenants?
Didn't realise that.

He'll be happy but disgusting Tory scumbags all the same.

Re: Revolution : Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:32 pm  

Like Saddened, I don't know the precise ins and outs of the policy.

What I will say, though, is that it is unfair that I cannot afford a spare room but have to subsidise other peoples' spare rooms.

This sounds like the kind of policy which will throw up the odd harsh or exceptional case, however I actually think the government are right to address this issue.

Re: Revolution : Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:42 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

Like Saddened, I don't know the precise ins and outs of the policy.

What I will say, though, is that it is unfair that I cannot afford a spare room but have to subsidise other peoples' spare rooms.

This sounds like the kind of policy which will throw up the odd harsh or exceptional case, however I actually think the government are right to address this issue.

And not the hundreds of thousands of our poorest citizens that JC's link refers too?

Re: Revolution : Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:50 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

Like Saddened, I don't know the precise ins and outs of the policy.

What I will say, though, is that it is unfair that I cannot afford a spare room but have to subsidise other peoples' spare rooms.

This sounds like the kind of policy which will throw up the odd harsh or exceptional case, however I actually think the government are right to address this issue.

"But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth."

Re: Revolution : Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:50 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

And not the hundreds of thousands of our poorest citizens that JC's link refers too?

Figures can be distorted to say almost anything.

One such 'poorest citizen' is begging for sympathy in my local rag this week. He has children from a previous (unmarried) relationship,who stay with him and his new (unmarried) partner for only 3 nights a week. Therefore, the bedroom he needs for his first lot of nice bloke children is to be 'taxed' because, officially, they are not counted when calculating his housing benefit.

Behind nearly every story is a social failure. Sometimes it's the State's fault; more often than not it's the claimant's. The one thing which is certain is that 100% of the welfare bill is picked up by the taxpayer, who may have their own problems to deal with.