MSE News: Thousands of tenants to get bedroom tax rebate

nannytone_2

wildwestfan wrote: »

None of the pensioners I know sold their homes prior to being given a social housing tenancy. That would have been a very silly thing to do and I don't know many silly older people. A degree of wisdom often comes with age.

In my area as long as you meet the criteria for a property then you can bid on it. No one asks how much money you have or even if you own a property. Much easier for a lot of older people to move into rental rather than sell and have to look for another property. It's all about choices.

thats even better!
you support disabled people having housing benefit reduced if they have a spare room ( even if there isnt a smaller property to move into) yet advocate pensioners being given a SH property whilst owning a home that they live in....
priceless!!!!
pensioners can have not only however many excess bedrooms.... they can also have multiple properties.... as long as they pay ...
sod the overcrowded eh? let them rot inless you can punish a disabled person ....

~Chameleon~

wildwestfan wrote: »

None of the pensioners I know sold their homes prior to being given a social housing tenancy. That would have been a very silly thing to do and I don't know many silly older people. A degree of wisdom often comes with age.

So, you didn't write this?

Some older people are happy to sell their property and live in rented, especially if they can get social housing. No more worries about maintenance etc plus having money to give away or spend as they wish. I know several people who have done this.

~Chameleon~

wildwestfan wrote: »

You suggested that ALL pensioners have their rent paid by Housing Benefit. If they are happy in their big homes and are paying the rent themselves what is the issue? As far as I am concerned it is a simple issue that the taxpayer should not be paying for anyone to have spare rooms

And, as I said, how are they affording to pay for such a property out of their pensions? Ergo, they must be claiming HB, or at last a high proportion of them.

Jeez, it's like trying to extract teeth with some in this forum, merely going round and around in circles!

mojos.revenge

custardy wrote: »

they also have a strange choice in friends it seems

I don't actually know any of their other friends, so I can't comment, and as you don't either it's rather a foolish answer. Only to be expected I suspect.

wildwestfan

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

And, as I said, how are they affording to pay for such a property out of their pensions? Ergo, they must be claiming HB, or at last a high proportion of them.

Jeez, it's like trying to extract teeth with some in this forum, merely going round and around in circles!

Not necessarily. We have monthly pension income, after tax, of £2500. I reckon we could afford to pay rent if we needed to, even on a 4 bed property.

~Chameleon~

wildwestfan wrote: »

Not necessarily. We have monthly pension income, after tax, of £2500. I reckon we could afford to pay rent if we needed to, even on a 4 bed property.

That's you as a couple. How about single pensioners?

wildwestfan

I believe people can actually claim HB until their property sells. I still know several pensioners who have sold family homes once they were offered a social housing tenancy.

wildwestfan

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

That's you as a couple. How about single pensioners?

You just will not accept that pensioners can have a decent income in retirement. Certainly enough to pay their own way. My personal pension is over £1k a month plus extremely generous SRP. My other half would still get half my private one if I died plus her own SRP plus her own private one and of course vice versa. Think rent would still be manageable if need be.

nannytone_2

wildwestfan wrote: »

I believe people can actually claim HB until their property sells. I still know several pensioners who have sold family homes once they were offered a social housing tenancy.

you think thats acceptable?
what about the poor overcrowded families?
or is it just the disabled and unemployed peoples spare rooms that they need?

Confuseddot

regbrown wrote: »

Another one with a warped self view:
"Honesty,integrity,self sufficiency."
Hmm disagree on the first, second is a joke. There is zero integrity in attacking the disabled, god knows how you have come to the conclusion there is.

Seems to me your view of who you are and who you actually are don't quite match up.

On a broader point, I know a few people. Some are well adjusted, happy and capable people. None of these people would make any of the comments made on here that suggest this policy is fine. I also know plenty of damaged, broken and deluded people. They would be quite at home with some of the comments in favour.

Its a basic stance of decency, those with disabilities should not be targeted. This policy was formed with the direct knowledge that it would it affect the disabled, 66% of all those affected have a disability.

Most sane and capable people would throw it out at this point. They chose to continue it and a small minority of broken folk are defending it. Those people should genuinely ask themselves a few questions about how they have arrived at allowing themselves to be so egocentric and damaged that they can add more suffering to those who we should be supporting.

Where did the 66% figure come from ? How are people classed as disabled ? Most sane and capable people understand that having a stutter does not require an extra bedroom. You will probably find not many people disagree with hurting those who really need it but as of today I have not seen anything backing up your stories.