housing benefit reduction. a solution but the council is blocking it!

Parva

Dunroamin wrote: »

What thread have you been reading?

The one where Nanny wanted to be moved to a 1 bedroom property to avoid this nasty new tax. Oh the irony that she is moving to that 1 bedroom property now AND has freed up a 2 bedroom property.

skintmacflint

Delighted to hear you've got things sorted, and hope you can be found a guide dog to work if and when you're ready to do so.

skintmacflint

Morlock wrote: »

We've been made bankrupt by a criminal banking and financial system, we haven't been living beyond our means, national wealth has been syphoned in to offshore tax havens. The poor are becoming increasingly poor, while the rich get even richer.



The Tories would happily scrap the minimum wage, employment rights, the human rights act and social security benefits. Of course, cuts and the erosion of workers' rights are not part of a sinister master plan, they are 'incentives' to work and 'opportunities' for wealth creators. :rotfl:

If you say so.

I'm sure any government would be delighted to set a new minimum wage of £50 per hour for all private sector workers and reduce working hours to 25 per week if it could. Of course as no company will set up in the UK and pay it , guess we're still stuck for the time being..

Unless you've got some bright ideas yourself to solve the problems caused by several developing economies competing for work in a global market. Or can think of some innovative way to shut down the legal tax avoidance schemes/loopholes which exist in a global banking system.

Thought not.

Dunroamin

Parva wrote: »

The one where Nanny wanted to be moved to a 1 bedroom property to avoid this nasty new tax. Oh the irony that she is moving to that 1 bedroom property now AND has freed up a 2 bedroom property.

What's ironic about that?

Georgiegirl256

Parva wrote: »

The one where Nanny wanted to be moved to a 1 bedroom property to avoid this nasty new tax. Oh the irony that she is moving to that 1 bedroom property now AND has freed up a 2 bedroom property.

Was ironic about that? Yes, a 2 bedroom property has been freed up for someone who needs it? Don't get where you are coming from with this?

Also, it is not a "nasty new tax", it's there for a purpose, and it's obviously working isn't it?

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Just goes to show how effective the bedroom tax will be in freeing up much needed social housing.

nannytone wrote: »

...i also know that the person moving into my flat is a single person with no children, as the HA asked them to give up the 1 bed place so that i could have it.
ok he works so wont claim HN.
but still not freeing up property for families...
or doesnt that matter if people are overcrowded as long as ge pays the rent himself?

As I have predicted, the property is not freed up but offered to a tenant who similarly under-occupies. This policy is not designed to free-up social housing, there is no guarantee that properties vacated are offered to tenants who fully-occupy.

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Hmmmmm.... (cough)Bullshlt(cough).

How so? Because you do not believe the policy is so inept? Start believing.

Morlock

ab.da54 wrote: »

Perhaps the person referred to, placed a bid on the empty one bed and was allocated it. The HA then approached him and asked if he would take the two bed instead?

It's not at all unusual for a single person to be offered a two-bedroom property, hence why many are now affected by the bedroom tax after having been offered the property as under-occupied from commencement of the tenancy.

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

So, again, existing tenants are given priority as a result of the bedroom tax. Glad you confirmed that as others on here were claiming there was no such priority.

There is no priority in many local authorities, in some there is, I understand that is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but it is a fact.

Morlock

skintmacflint wrote: »

If you say so.

Take for example HSBC, who made 30,000 workers redundant in order to protect their quarterly profit of £8 billion. Is it right that people working for a company that makes such a huge, partially taxpayer funded profit, employs workers who need to claim benefits?

It's the same for hundreds of other companies who make billions per year whilst taxpayers subsidise the workforce through the benefits system. The country is broke.:rotfl: