Under Occupancy (Bedroom tax)

lighting_up_the_chalice

MathewJ wrote: »

The big picture here my Lady... is I am providing jobs for people, and taking people off the UK's dependency/social care list.

So ignoring (and I agree with you) my personal tax bill not giving me any more or less voice - we all have one vote. I am doing something about the problem.

Your tax has a £ value - and in real business and economics it's the zeros that matter.

A voice and opinion is something most of us are born with - what matters is those who WALK the TALK and can do something about it - rather than ramble on about their tax being spent on crap.

When you can show a 20+ person, £1m contribution to our system - feel free to ramble on about your 'bubble'

Until that day - I would like to keep this 'ON topic' about the current debacle that our government is forcing through to appease our middle class minds.

Think outside your bubble for a moment - lose your job, lose your savings and forget about your silver spoon inheritance - then climb out of the pit while others sneer down at you?

Are the schools STILL on holiday?

lighting_up_the_chalice

MathewJ wrote: »

The big picture here my Lady... is I am providing jobs for people, and taking people off the UK's dependency/social care list.

So ignoring (and I agree with you) my personal tax bill not giving me any more or less voice - we all have one vote. I am doing something about the problem.

OK. I'll play along with your little fantasy...

Far from doing something ABOUT the problem, you are just ADDING to it. You choose to exploit your employees for your own selfish gain, keeping people FROM employment to protect your bottom line.

Unlike you, I wouldn't wish to deny anyone the opportunity of employment, which may explain why I am keen on measures that encourage people to find employment, rather than dump them on the unemployment heap as you would do.

Still, I'm sure you have some shiny trinkets to stare at.

MathewJ

paddedjohn wrote: »

You are chatting cr4p now, if the child resides at the house then they will have their own room or shared room with a sibling but if the child is staying over at their dads/mums then why should a bedroom be paid for there aswell.

I don't think you are talking about the same issue?

The bulk of the situations this law effects are with split families with kids.

There will always be one 'primary carer' who has a house with a permanent room for the child.
However the other parent who may have the child or children for 3 days a week will only have 1 bedroom. All the 'benefit' is given to the primary carer - even if this is a 4/3 ratio. The one that gets the child benefit gets 100% of the housing allowance.
The child benefit can not be split 4/3 days a week - someone has to have 100%, very often this leaves the outcast partner with one room and no way of spending a weekend living with their children - despite the courts insisting on it.
Unless of course we all go camping, or dogging with our kids as suggested by some of our previous posters. They see camping every weekend as a normal solution to 100,000+ families, during winter, summer or any season that they can think of.

I seriously hope the post about 'what's wrong with that' was in jest - or I may have to spam it to Mi5.

Dogger69

MathewJ wrote: »

I don't think you are talking about the same issue?

The bulk of the situations this law effects are with split families with kids.

There will always be one 'primary carer' who has a house with a permanent room for the child.
However the other parent who may have the child or children for 3 days a week will only have 1 bedroom. All the 'benefit' is given to the primary carer - even if this is a 4/3 ratio. The one that gets the child benefit gets 100% of the housing allowance.
The child benefit can not be split 4/3 days a week - someone has to have 100%, very often this leaves the outcast partner with one room and no way of spending a weekend living with their children - despite the courts insisting on it.
Unless of course we all go camping, or dogging with our kids as suggested by some of our previous posters. They see camping every weekend as a normal solution to 100,000+ families, during winter, summer or any season that they can think of.

I seriously hope the post about 'what's wrong with that' was in jest - or I may have to spam it to Mi5.

I'm beginning to think you have had a few too many shandies. But for the final time:

You have failed to say what is wrong with an adult parent sharing a bedroom with one of their children.

You have failed to say what is wrong with using a lounge as a temp bedroom, either for child or parent.

Viable solutions that you appear incapable of considering.

bloolagoon

MathewJ wrote: »

I don't think you are talking about the same issue?

The bulk of the situations this law effects are with split families with kids.

There will always be one 'primary carer' who has a house with a permanent room for the child.
However the other parent who may have the child or children for 3 days a week will only have 1 bedroom. All the 'benefit' is given to the primary carer - even if this is a 4/3 ratio. The one that gets the child benefit gets 100% of the housing allowance.
The child benefit can not be split 4/3 days a week - someone has to have 100%, very often this leaves the outcast partner with one room and no way of spending a weekend living with their children - despite the courts insisting on it.
Unless of course we all go camping, or dogging with our kids as suggested by some of our previous posters. They see camping every weekend as a normal solution to 100,000+ families, during winter, summer or any season that they can think of.

I seriously hope the post about 'what's wrong with that' was in jest - or I may have to spam it to Mi5.

Only 1 claims benefits so both parents are on benefits (state supporting) and you think a dad crashing on a sofa is wrong?

Tell that to families working and paying way over the odds in private rents to move every 6 months after paying rent over local rates so parents count every penny. Sure their taxes should pay for weekend dads to have 2 spare rooms on benefits with a holiday home paid on benefits too. Do you live in the real world!

MathewJ

bloolagoon wrote: »

To pay £500,000 in tax in 20 years you earn £185,000 plus, perhaps you can give your excess money to a charity to help those you favour?

Meanwhile I will favour those with coppers left in private rents who dream of paying £10 a week for their room with secure tenancy.

You need to live in our world not upper class superiority.

Buddy the real world is I have 20 people paying their rent and mortgages, feeding their kids and paying their way.

They don't have to worry about the £6,000 monthly advertising bill (I've been a digital marketing manager since Google was born, I don't waste my PPC cash), the shop rent of £1000 a month and the 20x staff having holidays, maternity leave, pension schemes and sick leave. Oh yeh - and who has to do the work when they had too much booze the night before and can't be bothered to turn up the next day. (just another fraud in my opinion)

Oh - it's me who has to take on those risks and bills, and it's my neck on the line, and I'm the one working 70 hours a week (I worked Jan> April 2013 70hrs a week for £0)

Would you work 4 months at 70 hours a week for nothing? I've not had a holiday for 5 years, but I need to drive this business and support this country and my family as best I can.
My way out is 'effort' and forward planning - not to rely on a bail out.

My mission in life is to deliver world class service - and world class products, so far it's all going to plan, but I risked everything.

What did you do?

MathewJ

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

OK. I'll play along with your little fantasy...

Far from doing something ABOUT the problem, you are just ADDING to it. You choose to exploit your employees for your own selfish gain, keeping people FROM employment to protect your bottom line.

Unlike you, I wouldn't wish to deny anyone the opportunity of employment, which may explain why I am keen on measures that encourage people to find employment, rather than dump them on the unemployment heap as you would do.

Still, I'm sure you have some shiny trinkets to stare at.

Nope- I have a £182k mortgage on a house worth £240k, I owe £19k on credit cards (interest free) I pay £400 a month in maintenance. I gave up my corporate job to start a new venture with all these debts. (I had an expensive ex wife - it's over ok!)
No trinkets (my car has done over 130k miles), but we are employing people and expanding.
I fail to see how you think I am denying anyone employment when we are employing people??? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Least of all dumping anyone on the heap. I'm not some 'rapist' banker taking the world for a ride.
I do think it's bedtime for me - too much rage, not enough care. Or those posting without thinking?
But maybe not enough factual background to consider anothers opinion.
Now you have the facts - maybe you will see me 'as seen' and not some silver spooned child.

Also if someone earns 180k a year, outside of the banking industry then I would congratulate them - you don't earn that by opening mailshots, or dreaming - you have to be focused and slightly mad, you exclude normal life for a while and sacrifice everything.

Do it - don't moan about it. Least of all don't slag people off for trying?
Bed time....:beer:

ArtoDeeto

Tough !!!!

FBaby

Perhaps the bedroom tax will provide an even greater motivation for people to clamber out of welfare dependency. Wouldn't THAT be a positive thing?

I think that is the key to all that debate. Surely a dad who can't afford to have a room for his kids to come and stay over will do anything to get a job to do so? In the meantime, if the kids are small, they can sleep in the bed whist he sleeps on the sofa. If they are older and they are uncomfortable with this arrangement, he can see them all day right until bedtime which would be later. On the basis of this arrangement being temporary until better accommodation can be afforded, surely this is not going to ruin his relationship with his children.

When it comes to finding incentives to better yourself, is there much better then being able to offer a roof over your kids' head. I really am utterly dismay how people losing all motivation to better themselves, instead relying and expecting others to do it for them.

haras_nosirrah

if people had 5 year tenancies rather than tenancies for life then this would all be sorted. People wouldn't grow ridiculously attached to their houses as they would know they weren't theirs but as the tenancy is a reasonable length they would be encouraged to look after it, people would be able to upsize easier as those who no longer needed the properties or had spare bedrooms would be moved on and if people still needed the properties the tenancies would be renewed. I don't understand why people who once needed help get a cheap house for life regardless of their income or circumstances in later life. I think the system can be likened to bed blocking in the nhs - thousands on trollies in the corridor while perfectly healthy people lie in the wards going - why should I leave? Someone my husband works with lives in a 1 bed flat with his wife, twin one year olds and mother in law as they can't afford a larger property and earn just over the threshold for help (lives in brighton) that's overcrowding