MSE News: Thousands of tenants to get bedroom tax rebate

mojos.revenge

custardy wrote: »

Never said otherwise. 2 years is nothing
Had it been a greater period then you would wonder why you hadn't looked to move earlier.

As I previously stated, my house has been adapted to cater for my disability, to me that is reason enough. Apart from that, if I don't want to move, and am prepared to pay the excess then it makes no difference, however that doesn't mean that I think that the circumstances around it is fair.

regbrown

paddedjohn wrote: »

Wow, a day and a half and 127 posts and none of the poster police have been on trying to get the thread moved to DT.


Why do the disabled always say that they need the spare room for their equipment? surely any stuff the need would be readily accessable down the stairs, in the hall, in the kitchen, bedroom etc.

Why do you care so much? I know several disabled folk, one guy has spare room for his exercising device which is required to train his upper body strength as he's in a wheelchair permanently. That cant go anywhere else.

Lets not make ourselves the judge of what those with disabilities need, just not punish them if they do need the space. I am kinda ashamed to even have to say this, they aren't the cause of our mess and should not be targeted in such a way, the govts own impact assessment knew full well this policy would mainly be affecting those with a disability (63% of all affected).

How you get this information and still push such a policy is beyond me. This is from someone who has no problem with the policy as an idea to free up property, but the way its been done is alas as we expected from this bunch, utterly repugnant.

regbrown

princessdon wrote: »

Don't let fact get in the way of a private renters bash. They all live in larger homes, more rooms than needed you know.

ah this is brilliant. Are you a troll?

nannytone_2

paddedjohn wrote: »

Wow, a day and a half and 127 posts and none of the poster police have been on trying to get the thread moved to DT.


Why do the disabled always say that they need the spare room for their equipment? surely any stuff the need would be readily accessable down the stairs, in the hall, in the kitchen, bedroom etc.

many disabled people dont need, or want the spare room.
what they do need however, is their support network.
in most cases, moving to a smaller property ( if they are even lucky enough to have that option) would mean moving away from their support.
so its a case of having the support and struggling to pay for necessities, or having the necessities but not having the support.

princessdon

regbrown wrote: »

who knows why but its coming across that you do

hehe, you have morals. Those morals make the disabled have a harder life, that's not morals, its just delusion.

But there are plenty like you who can self justify the suffering of others and while that's a shame, it makes me a little glad I'm this side of the computer screen.

Luckily this policy is widely despised and seen for what it is, you can tell the rage the current bunch bawl at it being called a tax. Which says so much that they worry more about their PR than those in such a predicament.

Ah well, I can only hope sanity returns to policy at some time in the future.

It's actually very popular

Especially with private renters.

Indie_Kid

paddedjohn wrote: »

Why do the disabled always say that they need the spare room for their equipment? surely any stuff the need would be readily accessable down the stairs, in the hall, in the kitchen, bedroom etc.

Except there's a lack of space.

regbrown

nannytone wrote: »

many disabled people dont need, or want the spare room.
what they do need however, is their support network.
in most cases, moving to a smaller property ( if they are even lucky enough to have that option) would mean moving away from their support.
so its a case of having the support and struggling to pay for necessities, or having the necessities but not having the support.

well as those made of stone say "tough". Who cares, they are probably just faking it anyway, or whatever other guff they quote to explain their broken little minds...

As I say, most sane folk see it for what it is, so that's quite a good sign for us as a society. Alas you will still get a few deluded sociopaths though, and they tend to shout quite loudly

regbrown

princessdon wrote: »

It's actually very popular

Especially with private renters.

and you know this how?

Honestly, I cant really trust anything you say, I'm still not even sure your for real

mojos.revenge

jacques_chirac wrote: »

You are choosing to stay in your property as a lifestyle choice, you cannot expect the tax payer to fund that choice. It is understandable that you would not want to move to an area that is not so nice, but you cannot argue that no alternative is available to you when it is.

That is easy to say when is doesn't affect you, however, as I said none of the places available are suitable, that is why they haven't been discussed. I cannot live in a flat, I either need a one bedroomed house, or a bungalow, the HA have accepted this.
As you can clearly read I am paying over £100 a month and am happy to do so. May complaint is that IF there is NO option to move to, then people should not be forced to pay the excess, most councils and housing associations have agreed that they just don't have the properties to offer, it's a cheap to build a 3 bed and a 1 so why would they when a higher rent can be achieved. If I could be offered a one bedroom bungalow tomorrow I would move.
You make it sound as though tenants should have no rights, opinions or legitimate requests, we are not zoo animals, we are human beings, some having been dealt rough cards, I am making the best of what I have, and paying what I am expected to, there is no crime in wanting something that you can't have.

nannytone_2

regbrown wrote: »

and you know this how?

Honestly, I cant really trust anything you say, I'm still not even sure your for real

sjes real and very consistant.
in her defence, she honestly believes what she is saying about fairness.
she believes that by making things harder for SH tenants it is making it fairer for disabled private tenants. in a skewed way i do see her point.
but is she had a broken leg and to be fair, i broke her other leg too ...

she might realise how unjust her solution is
it is never right to vicyimise one leg because the other leg is victimised too