Appealing the Bedroom Tax

angrybuffalo

can you describe what you mean by a very generous package?

ab.da54

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

The point is it is done across the board so it is fairer there is no discrimination against particular groups. The private sector had it done across the board. There are enough problems there with the sizing criteria without bringing it in to the Social sector as well!

£5 is half of £10 and a lot less than some will pay if the 25% kicks in.

That is if the objective is to save money?

You haven't answered how this proposed plan won't be saving any money and, as you have mentioned a few times now, that it won't save any money, I'm interested in why.

angrybuffalo

same question to you - what do you mean by a generous benefit package?

ab.da54

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Sorry didn't answer you first question above ab.da54 I can't prove it catagorically but when you take into account the disabled figures (whether we agree on them or not) many of these will probably end up being exempted given now the case law. Then you take into account costs to LA's in administering the mess. The saving is pretty small in the overall scheme of things.

I saw on another thread somewhere removing £10 xmas bonus to all saved twice the amount can't remember the exact figure off the top of my head because it would include all the pensioners as well.

Ah, sorry, you have answered.

So you don't know that the scheme won't cost any money. Thank you.

mysterywoman10

ab.da54 wrote: »

Ah, sorry, you have answered.

So you don't know that the scheme won't cost any money. Thank you.

That's true I don't but realistically it wasn't the easiest way to save money was it?

The motives are not saving money in this instance IMO.

angrybuffalo

Dunroamin wrote: »

I think that, if you add up all the benefits you receive and then gross it up, you might understand what some of us mean by saying that the benefits package that families receive is generous.

Also, if you a 14% reduction of HB, it cannot possibly be a 10% reduction of your total benefits; that just doesn't add up.

Please be specific about what you mean by generous package, otherwise I will think you don't know what you are talking about.

the reduction of housing benefits is 14% of rent.

ab.da54

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

That's true I don't but realistically it wasn't the easiest way to save money was it?

The motives are not saving money in this instance IMO.

I do agree that it has not been the best way to do things.

Honestly, I think it has been pushed as a way for them to save money. Whether or not they do remains to be seen, but possibly they will.

skintmacflint

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I think there is more than one way to object to these things and you would have to ask them that, I have posted on their page that they should have done the same for LHA, have you? Some of us do do things and I would happily support such a campaign, you could start it as well?

.

Duh? Possibly because as a retired tax paying homeowner who pays full council tax, I don't presume to know whether this a better , fairer and more acceptable alternative to everyone receiving HB. And whether it achieves all the other disparity backround reasons behind it.

You're the campaigner allegedly with all the info, and access to all the better alternatives previously put to the government which they rejected. Put your money where your mouth is.

I'll accept whatever changes personally come my way more council tax, more income tax even if it means moving home , if it ensures future generations have a fair chance at life. Which is beginning to look less and less likely by the day.

mysterywoman10

skintmacflint wrote: »

Duh? Possibly because as a retired tax paying homeowner who pays full council tax, I don't presume to know whether this a better , fairer and more acceptable alternative to everyone receiving HB. And whether it achieves all the other disparity backround reasons behind it.

You're the campaigner allegedly with all the info, and access to all the better alternatives previously put to the government which they rejected. Put your money where your mouth is.

I'll accept whatever changes personally come my way more council tax, more income tax even if it means moving home , if it ensures future generations have a fair chance at life. Which is beginning to look less and less likely by the day.

Good for you!
No I don't have all the info I merely proposed what might have been an alternative to this very unfair tax.

It's well documented all the objections raised by national charities, Lords with amendments etc. they were rejected and they used finanical priveledge to push the bill through. Simple googling will prove that

Errata

they used finanical priveledge to push the bill through. Simple googling will prove that

I don't understand, and I don't know where to google. Could you provide links to the 'financial privilege'?