Customize

Bedroom Tax In Uk

Discussion in 'Think Tank' started by Anonymous, Apr 1, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    This is going to make a lot of people homeless and also starve, is there anything anyone can do to make the government change its mind.
    This has never happened anywhere in UK history.
    People are already being turned out of their homes, and as for taking in lodgers to have to pay the difference, it is ridiculous because if you live in a council or housing association property, one of the tenancy rules are you are not allowed to sub let, or you will be evicted. One of my friends has had to downsize already to a one bedroom even if her sons may return to their home in the future. It is causing more hassle than it is worth and will make the people of the Uk, more poorer and make more go on benefit than what David Cameron thinks it will do.
    I noticed one the group of Anonymous at Downing Street London when the march was on. I hope something can be done and fast.
  2. Anonymous Member

    Any links for this plz?
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

  4. Anonymous Member

    Thanks for these.
  5. Anonymous Member

    Other links include : http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/29/bedroom-tax-worthy-stalin-poverty-tsar
    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013...tax-housing-benefit-claimants-punished-for-sp
    And I've included this one so that anyone who lives outside the Uk can have some sort of understanding about social and " affordable housing" as they like to put it.
    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2012/07/18/housing-in-the-uk-unaffordable?link=related and
    http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-f...ross-britain-campaign-against-housing-benefit

    I would also just like to add that "affordable housing" is based on the new builds of 2006-7 which are basically prefabs or properties that wouldn't be able to with stand a hurricane, who are owned by housing associations and their repairs policy does not exist, (when I say this I basically mean you can phone them and phone them and phone them when a repair needs to be done and nothing happens) and the rent charged for these properties would be for example: £182.00 week or £250.00 a week depending on how many bedrooms you have and also the area you live. But the problem is older properties built in the 40's, 50's and 60's, are a lot cheaper and on rents such as between £60.00 a week to £150.00 a week. So how they figure it is affordable to families who are either overcrowded or need emergency housing, (when one get's put on the housing register), is beyond me.
    So now most people who live in "affordable housing", which according the prime minister David Cameron is also "sustainable", because of the high rents and council tax, cannot afford anything else and now this "bedroom tax" is in addition to already over-the-top rents.
  6. Anonymous Member

    As always lowest man on the totem poll suffers when governments wield their mighty red pens. They appear to have left human decency out of the equation.
  7. Anonymous Member

    Thank you all for taking the time to look at this. I am most grateful.
  8. WMAnon Member

    I've heard about this one and you're right, it is a load of horseshit. Have you looked into any of the existing groups that are opposing this?
  9. Malory Member

    • Like Like x 5
  10. Anonymous Member

    Thanks Malory, that was awesome.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Kilia Member

    Good grief!!
  12. Anonymous Member

  13. Anonymous Member


    Nonsense.

    1. It's not a tax.

    2. What it is is, the state refusing to pay for people on benefits to live in larger houses than they need.

    3. So they can choose between moving to a smaller house (which will still be paid for by the state) or paying some rent, themselves, on part of the bigger-than-they-need house.

    4. So if anything this will help with homelessness, in that it will free up publicly-funded housing for people who don't have anywhere to live, rather than paying for people who have a house to have more room than they need.

    Solution for most people:

    Get a job. Pay for your own house. Stop moaning about the state no longer paying for you to have a spare room.

    Genuine problem that needs sorting:

    The disability side of this hasn't been thought-out at all well. The rules should be changed so that people who need extra space because of a disability (e.g. they can't share a bedroom with their partner because of bulky medical equipment, or they need to have a carer live-in and the carer needs a room to sleep in) - so that those people get the extra space they need.

    Suggestion for anons:

    Read around this issue. There's a lot of propaganda here in the UK about this 'tax' (which is in fact not a tax).
  14. WMAnon Member

    It's not a "tax" but it is an unfair burden on people who are already in difficult circumstances. Many people can't find smaller places to move into in their area, which can mean losing what little income they already have, in addition to the appalling way people with disabilities are being treated.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  15. Anonymous Member

    I don't agree that no longer having the state pay for them to have a spare room is an 'unfair burden'.

    That's a matter of opinion, obviously.

    Agreed.
  16. WMAnon Member

    Making people move is a burden. I'm willing to agree to disagree on how unfair it might be in general, but I don't think it's really appropriate to add more problems for people who are already in a bad place.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    I guess so.

    But on the other hand, they get their rent paid for them.

    So to me it seems reasonable.

    I guess it depends why they're not working.

    If they're physically unable to, then you have a point, and I agree. Society should pay for them to have a good standard of living, because an accident or illness could happen to any of us at any time.

    If they can't be bothered to find a job (and I'm thinking of a relative of mine here) then while I don't want them to starve - and particularly I don't want their kids to starve as it's in no way their fault - I don't see why they should have a higher standard of living than many of the taxpayers who pay their (the people on housing benefit's) rent.

    Peppa and George share a bedroom:

    View attachment images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSeQtVq453r0KL25gPqHMhdep6ROcvTp
    and Daddy Pig goes out to work, so is clearly a taxpayer. Why should Daddy Pig pay (through taxation) for other people's children to have a bedroom each, when his own don't?

    (The Pig Family are, I'm asserting, representative of the average British family. I'm not sure if this is true but it amuses me).
  18. WMAnon Member

    Just because Daddy Pig goes to work doesn't mean he makes enough to pay taxes. He may even be getting assistance himself. I don't know what the "working poor" numbers are in the UK (they're huge in the US, it's awful), but they're a very vulnerable population, even moreso than the able-bodied unemployed, because the slightest shift in their circumstances can mean losing their job.
  19. Anonymous Member

    Deficit spending is destroying the welfare state.
    Deficit spending is destroying the economy.
    Deficit spending is destroying the fabric of society
    Deficit spending hurts poor people
    Deficit spending rewards rich and connected people.

    Deficit Spending = Willful Stupidity
  20. Anonymous Member

    Well, he works with technical drawings of some kind. I think he's an architect or maybe a structural engineer. White-collar, definitely.

    (Peppa and George visit Daddy Pig at work. I've seen that episode far too many times. They also make a paper plane - this is in a different episode - from one of his important large blue pieces of work paper, which looks to me like some kind of technical drawing of a house).


    Daddy Pig definitely isn't on benefits - the Pig family is a standard middle-class white-collar British household. Which in the UK means definitely not receiving any benefits except for child benefit, which every parent gets (although this is soon to change - as of the 4th of this month, I think).

    It's an interesting question, how many people on housing benefit are actually in work of some kind. Mostly they're not, I think. If you work then you lose your benefits. (This is actually a big problem, for obvious reasons - to try to get round this, it's a sliding scale - I'm oversimplifying a little).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor#US_compared_to_Europe

    [IMG]

    If that ^ is correct then mostly they're not in work, in the UK. Quite different to the USA.

    Here's an interesting article on this issue:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/17/life-britain-working-poor

    with 'working poor' levels of income and expenditure:

    so this family - which the Guardian (voice of the bleeding-hearted liberals in the UK, speaking as one myself) sees as "working poor" - do not receive housing benefit.

    They do get Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, but that's not what the 'bedroom tax' debate is about.

    It strikes me that this 'working poor' family would benefit more from a tax cut (or from a rise in the benefits which they can get while working) than they would benefit from the unemployed family down the road having a spare room. (Just MHO).
  21. Malory Member

    It's not.

    Semantics so the Tories can keep shouting they don't believe in taxation. This is a levy on the poorest in our society.

    Yes, God forbid anyone have an empty box room.

    Problem is there are no smaller properties for people to move into or they're living in a house which has been adapted for their disabilities. Some people are being forced into privately rented accommodation where they don't have secure tenancy and yet the cost in housing benefit is greater than what was being paid for social housing.

    No it won't. The people being evicted from their social housing are going to be homeless instead.

    Where are these jobs? Stop believing the bullshit that people choose to live on benefits because existing on the poverty line is no life.

    Genuine problem that needs sorting:

    But it's not getting sorted and it's not going to be sorted. For fuck's sake we're in a society where the terminally ill are losing sickness benefits and being told to go and stack shelves 35 hours a week for unemployment benefits.

    I've read a lot and I agree there's a lot of propaganda flying about. The stories about benefit claimants getting thousands of pounds, living in mansions and owning fancy televisions is laughable.

    There was a very, very small number of people in London getting huge amounts of housing benefit - money that went into the pockets of private landlords. Thing is property prices in the city are insane. I could rent a luxury house and gardens here for what friends of mine pay for a flat there. For George Osborne to use figures like that the way he did today is disingenuous at best.

    The fact is people on benefits receive the absolute minimum to live on. Income Support doesn't pay for luxuries and when £71 a week is all you have to live on you simply cannot afford to have £10 a week taken off that.

    It doesn't affect me personally since I own outright, but I'm disgusted at what's going on.

    Meanwhile the top earners are going to enjoy a tax cut of five pence in the pound.
    • Like Like x 2
  22. Malory Member

    A large part of the benefit bill goes on tax credits and housing benefit to working people.

    Rents are high because social housing was sold off in the 80s and never replaced. A lot of those houses are now owned by private landlords who charge twice as much as council rates because there's no rent controls.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Anonymous Member

    It's not a trivial difference.

    A tax is when the state takes away part of your earnings.

    A benefit is when the state gives you something.

    This is not a tax - it's a reduction in benefits.

    The specific benefit - of having a house larger than one needs - is not something I think the rest of the population should be paying for.

    To portray the state's unwillingness to continue to fund people beyond their actual needs as a 'tax' is to use the techniques of propaganda.



    "Welcome to the real world", is what I would say to them.

    This puts them equal with people who are not living on housing benefit.



    Is that actually true? I have my doubts. Feel free to link to evidence of this actually happening and I'll take a read.



    I can only speak from my own experience - I've been made redundant and not had any trouble finding work (I'm aware that my experience is not necessarily that of others... but still...).

    Right now I'm trying to hire someone and it's very difficult to find anyone that's available to work. Truly.




    Yes, of course those stories are laughable. I don't believe them.

    I also don't believe that thousands of people are going to be made homeless.

    I'm inclined to disbelieve the ludicrous propaganda on both sides of this issue.

    They're being moved to smaller houses, is my understanding. The smaller houses aren't necessarily where they want them to be, but beggars (literally) can't be choosers.




    I agree that's a bad thing.


    (I've not commented on the disability issue because I agree that it's fucked-up and should be changed).
  24. WMAnon Member

    I think we can all agree that the version of this which is going forward now is horseshit and needs to be prevented. Anon's point that there is a way to fix the bill so that benefits are reduced to those who will not be unduly burdened is totally valid, I just think it's more important to stop it while it's broken, and then try again later with a better version if it's so damn important.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  25. Anonymous Member

  26. Malory Member

    Again, it's semantics. Bedroom tax is just a snappier way of saying under-occupancy penalty, same as poll tax was used instead of community charge and pasty tax instead of simplification of VAT on takeaway food. I use slang a lot in the informal setting of forums but if I were face-to-face with Ian Duncan Smith and telling him he's an evil bastard then I'd use the more formal phrasing.



    They still get housing benefit if they're renting privately. Some will even get more benefit as the rent will be higher which, in turn, is creating the trap of not being able to get a job which pays more than benefits.



    I'm sure the figures will be available once people start getting evicted for arrears. That counts as making oneself intentionally homeless so there will be no emergency accommodation.


    It's going to be more difficult for some people than others but the figures do show more jobless than jobs available.



    The stories are seeping into the national consciousness though, mind you that does seem to be changing a bit but the politicians are very good at their propaganda. Fact is there aren't enough smaller homes available for people to move if they want to.

    Please don't refer to people on benefits as beggars. Many are already working low-paid jobs and others have paid enough into the system to be entitled to retain some dignity when they need the safety-net of social welfare.

    Even more fucked up when so many disabled people are being taken off sickness benefits and told they're fit to work.

    I truly despair at what's happening and the thing is the politicians aren't listening.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    There are no jobs in the Uk. The unemployment is on the rise every day. I, myself am disabled and need a live in carer but I am being made to move to a smaller property. So please check your research before you start judging!!!
  28. Anonymous Member

    They do not represent any british family. Usually the one's affected are the one's that have 4 or 5 children, are overcrowded in their homes already and need bigger homes, but are being refused because the government want more people in smaller homes regardless of situation. The family is usually either not earning at all, through the mother and father being made redundant due to the recession or they are in very low paid jobs, and have no other way but to rely on benefits because they wouldn't be able to pay bills and put food on the table for their kids otherwise. So this problem has just made family life harsher.
  29. Anonymous Member

    I would like to point out that if anyone thinks that most british people are just on benefits for the sake of it, they want to try living over here first and see how they cope with a family and in council property. Or disabled and having your pride trampled on through having to go on benefit whether you like it or not. When there has been an industrial accident at work or an accident that has happened to someone or if someone has just contracted a fatal disease and can't work.... there are some you know that this applies to, well this is the last thing we need to have to deal with, on top of everything else like having to prove to the government in the first place why we need help.
  30. Anonymous Member

    For all you disbelievers out there, you wanna try living in the UK and see how you cope under these laws while you've either got families or whilst you are disabled and can't work like so many of you think we can. The jobs that were available were taken or selected illegally to be given to all the asylum seekers and gypsies that past prime ministers have allowed to come over here in previous years, with their million pound houses and mobile phones and quad cores etc, etc.. The jobs people have had, whether it be blue collar or white collar, but mainly blue when they are receiving some kind of benefit as extra help, they mainly haven't got any longer as most factories and shops and warehouses have mostly closed down or come to a stop. As you know Britain doesn't manufacture any more. We live off cheap imports from other countries. The UK doesn't stand together like the Americans do or other countries and haven't a clue what team work is. So whilst the elite have planned all this and are going to be taking more away in the future as is their master plan, don't expect it to get better. Because for all us poor people we are pretty much f***ked.
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Anonymous Member

    Thank you for this link. It really does prove my point...
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Anonymous Member


    This example is besides the point, if any family has got a mortgage, then they are not receiving housing benefit. Check the truth people before you print rubbish. So therefore bedroom tax wouldn't apply them.
  33. Malory Member

    • Like Like x 1
  34. Anonymous Member

    The real reason why this penalty or "bedroom tax" has taken place is because benefits equal out to be the same as the defense budget. And the government wants to put a permanant stop on it.
    Also why I said that people will be made homeless, is because those of us who can't afford to pay this bedroom tax, have been given an ultimatum, pay or you will be evicted. Also when you are a council or housing association tenant, you can't just move to where you want to go, as the landlord owns the right of that and you have to get permission, as well as there has to be smaller places available.

    So basically what is happening is this:
    Bedroom Tax came out on 01/04/2013.
    People on Housing Benefit were sent letters to let them know they would have to pay a percentage if they have an extra room
    Then we were sent letters if we didn't pay, what would happen
    Then there was leaflets sent to us telling us to get out of it, we could take in lodgers, or downsize or have more children.
    Below contradicts this particular idea of taking in lodgers.
    (Note: all housing association and council tenants are not allowed to take in lodgers as that is classed as "subletting" and we would be fined for that). It is part of our tenancy agreement, we are not allowed to do it.
    So people who are wanting to move or downsize, have to get permission of their landlord either (housing association or the council), then they have to ask permission if they have to move to a different council or housing association, then they have to wait for an answer which takes weeks. (I've got to move myself and I still haven't received an acknowledgement letter from my landlord. I can't physically move until I do). I've been waiting more than 2 months now. So all this waiting that we have to do from 01/04/2013, means we will still have to pay, because another clause states that if we are in arrears with our rent account, we can't move at all. However, other people may find it tougher to move depending where they are living and depending on their own circumstances, and also depending on where they end up living.
  35. Anonymous Member

    Words are important.

    Calling it a tax - when it isn't a tax - is propaganda.

    Below, you're telling me off for using the term 'beggars' for people who make their living begging from others.

    So clearly you do accept that the distinctions between different words are important - you're merely favouring the terms that favour your side of the debate.



    That wasn't my point.

    My point was that benefits claimants who rent privately have the same rights as wage-earners who rent.

    It's not a terrible and unjustifiable hardship to be in the same boat as the rest of the population.



    Again, it's semantics. Beggars is just a snappier way of saying people who live off the wages of others, same as poll tax was used instead of community charge and pasty tax instead of simplification of VAT on takeaway food. I use slang a lot in the informal setting of forums but if I were face-to-face with Ian Duncan Smith and telling him he's an evil bastard then I'd use the more formal phrasing.

    (In other words: I don't agree that you're the person who gets to control the appropriate terminology for this debate. I'll say what I like).


    So: Explain to me again why Daddy Pig should work so that other people (who don't work) have a higher standard of living than him and his family?

    By "higher standard of living" I don't mean the ridiculous stories about benefits claimants living in palaces - I no more believe them than you do - I'm referring to ideas such as that it's unacceptable for siblings to share a bedroom. Peppa and George share a bedroom - why should Daddy Pig work extra hours to ensure that other people's children don't share a bedroom?
  36. Anonymous Member

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...fare-state-make-work-pay?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
  37. Anonymous Member

    Racist nonsense.
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Anonymous Member

  39. Anonymous Member

  40. Anonymous Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins