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

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

now i understand.
you want all benefits claimants to suffer equally!

funny how that always means bringing everyone DOWN though isnt it

No. I want everybody, benefits claimant or otherwise, to be treated equally. Which is the whole point of having a published, freely available, open, properly consulted and challengeable allocations policy. The policy you so neatly sidestepped.

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Hmmmmmm.... Equating a 14% reduction in Housing Benefit for those who wish to keep a spare bedroom, to the murder of 6 million minorities? That's some imagination you have there!

so everyone being hit by the 14% reduction in housing benefit it being hit because they wish to have a spare bedroom?
not because the smaller 1 bed properties dont exist in sufficient numbers in either the social or prvate secr
tors?

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

It shouldn't though take any time to see that calling mazza's daughter a cog in the machine and suggesting it was her job to move out and if she didn't, the system/housing plan would fail was at the least, unfortunate; and also down on planet earth , mistaken.

Unfortunate, but true. If all the small cogs decided to work only in their own selfish self interest, the machine would break. That's why we have a parliament and a judiciary.

clemmatis wrote: »

I am not at all happy about any person, any group, or any section of the community living in poor housing. And poor people shouldn't be expected to subsidise anybody. But nor should social housing tenants be made scapegoats for a social and political failure to provide sufficient social housing, while those in grace-and-favour houses and apartments and those who "under-occupy" property they own or rent, but do not claim benefits, go unscathed.

Under-occupation is one element of the under supply. That cannot be denied. People who own/rent bigger properties are already paying a bedroom tax through higher rents/mortgages/running costs.... and have been for decades. However, I wouldn't have issue with, say, the 25% CT discount being reduced for houses with more than 1 bedroom, if that would help. Social Housing tenants aren't the whole story, but they ARE part of it.

clemmatis wrote: »

And if social housing tenants are to be pushed to downsize, let them be treated as a member of this forum was: let them be helped to find a flat, let them be helped with the cost of moving, and so on.

They are.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

so everyone being hit by the 14% reduction in housing benefit it being hit because they wish to have a spare bedroom?
not because the smaller 1 bed properties dont exist in sufficient numbers in either the social or prvate secr
tors?

If you are unprepared to compromise, your options will always be limited.

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

No. I want everybody, benefits claimant or otherwise, to be treated equally. Which is the whole point of having a published, freely available, open, properly consulted and challengeable allocations policy. The policy you so neatly sidestepped.

but this supposed equality, however desireable. simply can't happen while the homes arent available for people to live in.
you say people are living in sub standard overcrowded private lets. and that is wrong.
so instead you want to move other people into the substandard accomodation to free up a bedroom in a social housing property?

whule there isnt enough smaller properties then penalising people because they CANNOT move anywhere else isnt equalityit is making people suffer hardship purely because they have no alternative.

how does penalising the single disabled person in a 2 bed f;at help the situation of the family in the substandard overcrowded provate let?
it doesnt.
it just makes sure that everyone siffers when the answer is to provide more housing.

it offends me that yiy keep bringing up the poor over crowded families when at the same time you arent concerned about them when people are over occupying but paying full rent.
if you are so concerned about them then surely anyone who under occupys should be on your target list, and not just those that receive benefit.
so your hardly treating people equally are you?
and thats just because you cant 'punish' those that are in the fortunate position to be able to pay their own rent

Jamie_Carter

nannytone wrote: »

so i am selfishly struggling to manage on my income now that i have to pay 1/5 of my cash income towards housing?

there are 2 1 bed prperties... how often do you think they will become available? there are only 2 properties to mutually exchange with ( the same 2 properties)
so either a single person or childless couple. so another few yerars before either would want to move.

you get told the answer to you problem is to downsize, then get called for trying to do what youve been told you should be doing!

You only pay 1/5 of your [STRIKE]tax payers money[/STRIKE] income towards housing??:eek:...Lucky you

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

If you are unprepared to compromise, your options will always be limited.

that gem again.
you thought it acceptable for a blind person to move 20 miles away, to a place theyve never been with no one they know.
thats your opinion and thats fine.
but what you arent grasping is that if everyone that needed to move to a 1 bed place tried ....
there are not sufficient numbers of 1 bed properties in the entire country in both social or private housing to accomodate them all.

what do you suggest?
i suppose emigrating would be a suitable option?
or should people be penalised for thinking that was uneasonable?

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

but this supposed equality, however desireable. simply can't happen while the homes arent available for people to live in.
you say people are living in sub standard overcrowded private lets. and that is wrong.
so instead you want to move other people into the substandard accomodation to free up a bedroom in a social housing property?

whule there isnt enough smaller properties then penalising people because they CANNOT move anywhere else isnt equalityit is making people suffer hardship purely because they have no alternative.

how does penalising the single disabled person in a 2 bed f;at help the situation of the family in the substandard overcrowded provate let?
it doesnt.
it just makes sure that everyone siffers when the answer is to provide more housing.

it offends me that yiy keep bringing up the poor over crowded families when at the same time you arent concerned about them when people are over occupying but paying full rent.
if you are so concerned about them then surely anyone who under occupys should be on your target list, and not just those that receive benefit.
so your hardly treating people equally are you?
and thats just because you cant 'punish' those that are in the fortunate position to be able to pay their own rent

Those paying their own rent should, of course, be faced with the same sanction as those reliant on HB. Perhaps larger SH should attract a higher level of rent?...... Oh.... Hang on..... It does!

Jamie_Carter

nannytone wrote: »

but this supposed equality, however desireable. simply can't happen while the homes arent available for people to live in.
you say people are living in sub standard overcrowded private lets. and that is wrong.
so instead you want to move other people into the substandard accomodation to free up a bedroom in a social housing property?

whule there isnt enough smaller properties then penalising people because they CANNOT move anywhere else isnt equalityit is making people suffer hardship purely because they have no alternative.

how does penalising the single disabled person in a 2 bed f;at help the situation of the family in the substandard overcrowded provate let?
it doesnt.
it just makes sure that everyone siffers when the answer is to provide more housing.

it offends me that yiy keep bringing up the poor over crowded families when at the same time you arent concerned about them when people are over occupying but paying full rent.
if you are so concerned about them then surely anyone who under occupys should be on your target list, and not just those that receive benefit.
so your hardly treating people equally are you?
and thats just because you cant 'punish' those that are in the fortunate position to be able to pay their own rent

Just stop moaning, and bid like others have to.

If there isn't a social housing shortage in your area, as you state, then you will win.

nannytone_2

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You only pay 1/5 of your [STRIKE]tax payers money[/STRIKE] income towards housing??:eek:...Lucky you

i dont pay any now dear.

but people having to pay £20 out off £100, or even £14 out of £71 isnt the same as 1/5 to someone on a healthy income

dont give me the taxpayers money line.

you and your family probably benefited from the 30 years of tax that i paid.
the only difference is that i contributed gladly to people worse off than myself.