MSE News: Thousands of tenants to get bedroom tax rebate

princessdon

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Results for what? People bashing private renters? I'm not quite sure what you're alluding to here. Perhaps give us a few examples for clarity?

Bashing takes many forms. I'm not supporting the bedroom tax for all (I don't think a spare room for children is needed) but by not supporting that group I am in essence bashing it.

Find anyone that supports ALL disabled who need a spare room being given that benefit. There is none

Plenty for "bedroom tax" no one for LHA.


To me that's bashing. In the same way I accept I bash SH when I don't support their claim it was wrong. (Although I don't support disabled being hit).

Can you find many sites and news articles that want disabled on LHA to get the 2 room rate or working disabled to receive a rent credit?

Indie_Kid

sniggings wrote: »

I think you are reading too much into the fact that some disabled people live in private rentals without a spare room, if they needed one so badly they wouldn't have moved into the one bedroom place, would they, they must be able to cope.

Peoples needs change.

I wouldn't mind if we had run out of ideas to save money but it seems the tories look at the poor and disabled first, before the rich, look how concerned they got when those on over £50,000 a year got upset about loosing family allowance, they backed down and now they can get it up to £60,000 but yet we make a disabled/poor person pay for a spare bloody bedroom.

Agreed

nannytone_2

so because you think its unfair that no one is speaking up on behalf of private renters, its ok for everyone to kick the SH tenants too?

yjrtrd dp,r dlrerf ;pgov yjrtr

ove left the above in cos its something else.... even for mw!
decipher that one princess

sniggings

sh1305 wrote: »

Peoples needs change.



Agreed

of course needs change, but I go on to say that even if they need a share bedroom most could "cope" without one, I just see no reason to argue that you have to lower peoples standards that are in social housing to match those that are just "coping".

~Chameleon~

sniggings wrote: »

.

I wouldn't mind if we had run out of ideas to save money but it seems the tories look at the poor and disabled first, before the rich, look how concerned they got when those on over £50,000 a year got upset about loosing family allowance, they backed down and now they can get it up to £60,000 but yet we make a disabled/poor person pay for a spare bloody bedroom.

And how many spare bedrooms is the tax payer paying for when MP's claim expenses for second properties regardless of the fact they live within a reasonable commuting distance of parliament?

They also have a larger daily food allowance than most jobseekers are allowed per week!

princessdon

nannytone wrote: »

so because you think its unfair that no one is speaking up on behalf of private renters, its ok for everyone to kick the SH tenants too?

yjrtrd dp,r dlrerf ;pgov yjrtr

ove left the above in cos its something else.... even for mw!
decipher that one princess

Surprised at your response. A while ago a dr did a "daylight" eyesight test. You thought it was wrong - and yes it was.

There are times treating people differently is wrong. That was wrong (all should be offered outside eye tests) and this is wrong.

And yes I suspect very little can change my opinion on this.

To me it's against principles to think its right for person a but not person b purely because they have a different landlord.

Anyway bed time - no doubt i will read many posts telling me I'm wrong tomorrow :rotfl:

~Chameleon~

princessdon wrote: »

Bashing takes many forms. I'm not supporting the bedroom tax for all (I don't think a spare room for children is needed) but by not supporting that group I am in essence bashing it.

Find anyone that supports ALL disabled who need a spare room being given that benefit. There is none

Plenty for "bedroom tax" no one for LHA.


To me that's bashing. In the same way I accept I bash SH when I don't support their claim it was wrong. (Although I don't support disabled being hit).

I'm not sure I understand your way of thinking or your interpretation of "bashing".

nannytone_2

princessdon wrote: »

Surprised at your response. A while ago a dr did a "daylight" eyesight test. You thought it was wrong - and yes it was.

There are times treating people differently is wrong. That was wrong (all should be offered outside eye tests) and this is wrong.

And yes I suspect very little can change my opinion on this.

To me it's against principles to think its right for person a but not person b purely because they have a different landlord.

Anyway bed time - no doubt i will read many posts telling me I'm wrong tomorrow :rotfl:

i did think the outdoor sight test was unfair ... but i wouldnt have felt any better if they then decided to remove the HRM from the other person.
making the other person worse off, wouldnt make me any better off would it?
and the same goes for the u turn on the reduction in housing benefit for families with disabled kiddies.
by your standards i shoyld have been campaigning for them to have to pay it.

i think i am fair minded. being glad for someone who has had their life made easier doesnt make my life easier.
but it doesnt make it any harder either, so why not just be glad for someone else?

skintmacflint

sniggings wrote: »

I think you are reading too much into the fact that some disabled people live in private rentals without a spare room, if they needed one so badly they wouldn't have moved into the one bedroom place, would they, they must be able to cope.


Is that your opinion again, based on your vast experince of life then? Could be they just couldn't get or afford 2 rooms for all you know.

fact is, once you have given something to someone, taking it away without a very justified and fair reason will always be cruel.

So what about the change which meant people on CB ESA in the WRAG group lose it after 365 days despite still being ill, and aren't eligible for ESA IB because their partner works even if it's only 24 hours at NMW. ?

Was that fair and did you protest as loudly about this welfare change which sees these people lose £400 per month overnight? Much bigger drop than any HB reduction for having a spare or 2 spare rooms I'd imagine?

Just curious, as I can't understand why, when so many other welfare benenfits have been changed or decreased , HB reduction in the social sector has caused so much more uproar than any of the rest. Unless it's perhaps due to the high number affected.?

custardy

princessdon wrote: »

Like under 35 getting a room not shared room?

Like 70% of properties being above the rate

Like needing a month up front

Like moving if the LL wants


Yeah what an unfair set up SH have because a few get an extra room.

You mean like many people need to live with as they cant get social housing?
Or is it I'm alright Jack,off you go to private lets?