2 ricch boys

Dave_C_2

colin13 wrote: »

as i keep saying but ur not listening,,IT DONT AFFECT ME,,BUT ONE THING I AINT IS A SCROUNGER,,AND YES A BUNGALOW WOULD BE BETTER,BUT GETTING A MORGAGE WOULD BE NI ON IMPOSSIBLE,,SO NEED TO SAY WHERE I AM,AND GET MORE AIDS TO HELP ME ABOUT HOUSE

Colin,
Just a word on posting etiquette:
Please stop SHOUTING it doesn't help your side of any discussion.
It also wouldn't hurt if you installed an on-line spell checker such as this onefor Internet Explorer. Also the proper way to use commas is one at a time with a space afterwords. It's not about spelling and grammar police, it's more to help you get your message across.

I have read posts by other MS sufferers and they seem to manage quite well.

Back to the topic in hand:
I agree broadly with this but must disagree about the two bedroom penalty. Single bedroom properties are rare, so why should people be penalised for living in a 2-bed house when no alternative is available? Perhaps penalise if they are offered a single bed property and refuse.

As for pensioners not being penalised, this is acceptable to me as the overall idea is to get people off benefit and into work. An option not available to pensioners.

Dave

bargainbetty

A friend of mine works full time in London, and earns approx £30k p.a. She rents a studio flat in a half decent area, within commuting distance (but still pays almost £1200k per year in travel. She has to pay her own bills: council tax, food, heat, light etc and the studio flat is as much as she can get. It has a small bathroom and a kitchenette, no garden.

Why exactly should her taxes be used to pay for empty bedrooms for people who do not need them? I do agree that people shouldn't be charged if there are no available options, (or have a introductory period of 12 months to give people time to make changes) but individuals should take some responsibility for looking at options.

People on DLA, the very elderly/vulnerable etc should be protected from moves that might be damaging to them, but this whole 'I've lived here for 20 years, raised my kids here, memories etc' waffle isn't relevant. The state is not responsible for paying for storage space. If you are under 65 when this policy starts, you're probably fit enough to move unless your doctor says otherwise.

I'm a huge supporter of the safety net the social security system provides, but it is not infinite, nor should it be so.

Robin_TBW

colin13 wrote: »

as i keep saying but ur not listening,,IT DONT AFFECT ME,,BUT ONE THING I AINT IS A SCROUNGER,,AND YES A BUNGALOW WOULD BE BETTER,BUT GETTING A MORGAGE WOULD BE NI ON IMPOSSIBLE,,SO NEED TO SAY WHERE I AM,AND GET MORE AIDS TO HELP ME ABOUT HOUSE

This part reminds me of a particular South Park episode. :rotfl:

Dave_C wrote: »

Colin,
Just a word on posting etiquette:
Please stop SHOUTING it doesn't help your side of any discussion.
It also wouldn't hurt if you installed an on-line spell checker such as this onefor Internet Explorer. Also the proper way to use commas is one at a time with a space afterwords. It's not about spelling and grammar police, it's more to help you get your message across.

I have read posts by other MS sufferers and they seem to manage quite well.

:T

JohalaReewi

In the private sector, if you want more rooms than you need you have to pay for them either by buying them, or paying more rent. Or you could move to an area with cheaper properties where you can get more for your money.

If someone is being subsidised to live in a house that is bigger than they need and that subsidy is removed or reduced, then that person either has to make up the shortfall to keep the extra rooms, or give the extra rooms up.

bosseyed

colin13 wrote: »

Robin,as already told you,have MS ,with bad tremor,again SORRY I. HAVE AN ILLNESS THAT CAUSES ME TO PRESS WRONG BUTTONS BY MISTAKE,GET A !!!!!!! LIFE

You seem to be managing to tap in some insults with no issues though. So thats good then.

And I think the 'bedroom tax' is pretty sensible in theory. If its administered correctly then I don't see why there is any cause for complaint. If you want more spare rooms then you have to pay for it - exactly the same as those of us who aren't on HB.

mazza111

bargainbetty wrote: »

People on DLA, the very elderly/vulnerable etc should be protected from moves that might be damaging to them, but this whole 'I've lived here for 20 years, raised my kids here, memories etc' waffle isn't relevant. The state is not responsible for paying for storage space. If you are under 65 when this policy starts, you're probably fit enough to move unless your doctor says otherwise.

I'm a huge supporter of the safety net the social security system provides, but it is not infinite, nor should it be so.

This move only protects those on MRC of DLA at the moment. Whether they will change this or not is another story. So a person who can't walk, has given up a 1b flat to have a wheelchair friendly flat, will still have to pay the difference.

I do believe in the tax btw, just not in it's present form

bargainbetty

mazza111 wrote: »

This move only protects those on MRC of DLA at the moment. Whether they will change this or not is another story. So a person who can't walk, has given up a 1b flat to have a wheelchair friendly flat, will still have to pay the difference.

I do believe in the tax btw, just not in it's present form

I know, I said 'should be protected'. I think people who require live in carers or who need seperate bedrroms for medical reasons SHOULD be given protection. I think there will be a slew of legal appeals on these which might prompt a revision of the policy. I certainly hope so.

mazza111

bargainbetty wrote: »

I know, I said 'should be protected'. I think people who require live in carers or who need seperate bedrroms for medical reasons SHOULD be given protection. I think there will be a slew of legal appeals on these which might prompt a revision of the policy. I certainly hope so.

I hope they do bargainbetty. It's sad for all those who have to sleep in different rooms because of their illness too. My mam n dad slept in separate bedrooms towards their later years as they managed to disturb each other. Dad still went in and had a wee cuddle before he went through to his own bed, and then brought her breakfast in bed every morning. It didn't mean they loved each other any less. Sadly my old dad isn't with us any more. Unfortunately the way I've read it, people who live with their spouse won't qualify for the extra bedroom. I do hope I've read it wrong.

It's like the dd. She can't walk, bar a few steps, but only gets LRC, don't get me wrong, she's glad of it. But she'll need to find 14% of her rent as from April. Until they give her the right level of care. She should qualify for the amount of care I'm having to give now, but we'll need to wait and see.

Fire_Fox

colin13 wrote: »

cameron and osborne,are determined to squeeze the life out the poor in this country,this new bedroom tax,is all wwrong,you could have stayed in the house and brought up ur family there and grankids come and stay,but all thgese posh boys see are numbers,memoriess etc dont coiunt,,where are all the decent houses that people have to downsize to,,of course there are loads,all in decent areas,,mr camerom and osborne,come into the real world,were us poor,and often hard working people live,,a hard days graft woulb be a shock to your system

There are numerous empty apartments in many parts of the country, not council but private lets for which people can still claim benefits to rent. Nobody has the automatic right to live in a decent area, working or otherwise we have live within our means. Why should social housing tenants get special privileges not afforded to private tenants? Social housing is not simply allocated on need: many who live in it no longer require that safety net, plenty who could really do with it haven't a cat in hell's chance of being allocated whilst others selfishly hog them.

Whilst I have never and will never vote Tory, I rather suspect Cameron and Osborne work very hard and deal with a high level of stress. They run the country, they aren't just drones. It's not their money that is being wasted with all these empty bedrooms, it's the taxpayers, many of whom are hard working, many on a low income, many in horrible areas. I don't see why some poor teen in London grafting for minimum wage should be paying taxes so folks on benefits can have the luxury of a spare bedroom or two. Anyone not on benefits has the choice of paying the extra or moving on. I would note I don't support those with significant health issues or disabilities having to move.

securityguy

It would be interesting to know how many of the people whining about the actions of a Tory government in 2013 actually bothered to vote Labour in 2010. The groups worst affected by the actions of the Tories --- the young, the unemployed, those with disabilities --- don't vote in anything like the same solid bloc as the affluent and older. Aside from them gullible fools who voted Lib Dem and were then surprised to learn that they're unprincipled opportunists, those that claim they "don't vote because there's no difference" are in many cases finding out, to their cost, that there is in fact a difference.

Those under thirty are being shafted by the Tories. Less than half of under thirties voted.