MSE News: Thousands of tenants to get bedroom tax rebate

Morlock

princessdon wrote: »

I know many in private rents who wouldn't care if they needed to pay towards their rent as they are doing so anyway.

I know many in private rents who have spare bedrooms covered by LHA and are paying no bedroom tax.

northerntwo1

sh1305 wrote: »

How is it a better indication? It's not. Many won't qualify for DLA / PIP because they're expected to be able to self care. DLA ignores things like work. Many disabled people work and need reasonable adjustments to allow them to do this. Both of my parents are classed as disabled as per DDA / Equalities Act but neither are entitled to DLA. Yet, they both still have some form of physical disability.

So you classify a need for extra room if you discount care needs. I can't think of a single scenario that requires additional bedrooms without care but I'm happy to be educated.

Confuseddot

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Of course it should! There should be an income threshold for eligibility for SH in my opinion. After all, it was originally introduced for low income families that couldn't afford a mortgage. I don't see why that should be any different today.

In fact I'd go as far as doing annual checks and when a household raised above a certain level of income they were invited to leave SH and either buy or rent a property elsewhere.

Ok don't pass out or anything but I actually agree with what you saying.

Confuseddot

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Done. Perhaps you might also rethink your attack on me earlier this evening

I honestly don't get which one where you think I was attacking you on, perhaps if you point me to the post I can adjust.

~Chameleon~

Point scoring = no discussion/debate


This forum is so damned frustrating these days. Oh how I long for the beautiful days of it's creation.... where we were all just a huge family.... very little argument and bickering..... just sharing ideas and moneysaving tips.... and then the riff raff gained internet access *sigh*

nannytone_2

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Sorry, don't understand what you're saying.

if someone receives firect payments and employ someone for night care ... that person isnt living there, but they have a room for the purpose of providing that care ... then no reduction in HB would occur. as they are not claiming carers allowance and arent living at the property, then the SDP would still be paid

regbrown

Confuseddot wrote: »

Those figures covered those with a stutter as it covered those within equality act, show me some proof to back your argument that truely "disabled" are suffering and I will happily support you to the cows come home. Under those rules I would be considered disabled and certainly do not need a spare room of any way shape form.

hmm another one who for some reason thinks they should be the one to decide.

How about no? How about you show your a capable human and divert your energies towards those who are disabled, and not just the ones you deem not to be?

another broken response, yikes. What on earth goes through someone's head who thinks I care about their support? this is about you and your support for a policy which affects the disabled, apparently your quite fine with this. I suggest you focus your energies on the issues much closer to home. Normal, balanced and capable people do not form such views.

~Chameleon~

Confuseddot wrote: »

I honestly don't get which one where you think I was attacking you on, perhaps if you point me to the post I can adjust.

The first post of mine you commented on without having obviously read the conversation.

Indie_Kid

northerntwo1 wrote: »

So you classify a need for extra room if you discount care needs. I can't think of a single scenario that requires additional bedrooms without care but I'm happy to be educated.

Storage of medical equipment.

regbrown

northerntwo1 wrote: »

Of course. I'm a Tory supporter who works for DWP.

And I read the Daily Mail of course. Because only those can question the impact study.

the last category then, you did notice I mentioned 3?

no, because you focus on the % who do not satisfy your deluded standards of disability, not on those who do.

Which is broken, very very broken. You seem to be arguing the % rather than the issue, as if a certain % is somehow acceptable.

Yikes, what a stinking position to take.