MSE News: Thousands of tenants to get bedroom tax rebate

NYM

Morlock wrote: »

The majority of disabled people live in social housing, not the private sector. A policy which affects the spare room of those in social housing will disproportionately affect the disabled, as this policy does with a huge majority of affected claimants being registered disabled.

Not doubting you, but are there any official statistics in support of that claim ?

Confuseddot

regbrown wrote: »

Hmm now you are truly deluded. Listen, just because you dont deem these people as disabled is utterly irrelevant. Something has gone very wrong that you believe you are personally the judge on such issues.

You went on about stuttering to allow yourself the repugnant stance of dismissing the whole lot. Please, dont ever lower yourself to my level, I could not stand being equated to someone who allows themselves to support such a policy.

You need to really ask yourself some deep questions about just how you have arrived at the point where you are happy for ANY % of disabled people to be targeted in such a way. I know of no capable and balanced people who could form such a view.

Look, sod this online rubbish, focus on the other issues that are screaming out.

The data used in the impact study is flawed and therefore it cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.


Given that disabled people are similarly effected by the introduction of the housing rates in private rentals this should also be abolished too but you have issues with this do you not ?

spacey2012

I agree, Bedroom tax is a silly name.

Lets call it the Nick Clegg tax.
So people don't forget who had the casting vote on this at the next election.

regbrown

Confuseddot wrote: »

The data used in the impact study is flawed and therefore it cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.


Given that disabled people are similarly effected by the introduction of the housing rates in private rentals this should also be abolished too but you have issues with this do you not ?

Again, according to you. I am confused as to why you think anyone should trust your opinion on such matters.

I honestly could not care less what you think if your capable of nitpicking the response, you know damn well that % includes people with very serious disabilities but you block that out to distract away attention.

Your rubbish might be swallowed by some folk, but I am not one of them, its screaming out. Justify away, I don't give a toss about convincing you of anything, just know damn well what that says about you as a human being.

Confuseddot

regbrown wrote: »

Again, according to you. I am confused as to why you think anyone should trust your opinion on such matters.

I honestly could not care less what you think if your capable of nitpicking the response, you know damn well that % includes people with very serious disabilities but you block that out to distract away attention.

Your rubbish might be swallowed by some folk, but I am not one of them, its screaming out. Justify away, I don't give a toss about convincing you of anything, just know damn well what that says about you as a human being.

Does it make you feel big and clever by personally attacking people ? You may disagree with others opinion but there is never any excuse for some of your vile comments but as you would say that says more about you as a human being than anything else.


Questioning other peoples random spouting of "facts" when they don't have full understanding on how those "facts" where produced shows that I am unwilling to swallow any rubbish.


Again I will reiterate I will support any genuinely disabled person fight regardless of said persons landlord.

regbrown

Confuseddot wrote: »

Does it make you feel big and clever by personally attacking people ? You may disagree with others opinion but there is never any excuse for some of your vile comments but as you would say that says more about you as a human being than anything else.


Questioning other peoples random spouting of "facts" when they don't have full understanding on how those "facts" where produced shows that I am unwilling to swallow any rubbish.


Again I will reiterate I will support any genuinely disabled person fight regardless of said persons landlord.

yep, it tells you I am sick to the back teeth of broken folk justifying their repugnant views. Glad you don't like it, that's kind of the point.

You hold views which are currently supporting a policy which is causing stress to one of the groups who should be given our full support, just because your warped mind doesn't deem it valid.

I would be horrified if someone who could hold such views approved of anything I said.

Its so telling that your upset about me pointing out a few things yet you spend so much effort defending a policy which will affect the weakest in society. I don't expect you to publicly admit what that says about you, but suffice to say its pretty damn clear to me.

sniggings

Confuseddot wrote: »

Does it make you feel big and clever by personally attacking people ? You may disagree with others opinion but there is never any excuse for some of your vile comments but as you would say that says more about you as a human being than anything else.


Questioning other peoples random spouting of "facts" when they don't have full understanding on how those "facts" where produced shows that I am unwilling to swallow any rubbish.


Again I will reiterate I will support any genuinely disabled person fight regardless of said persons landlord.

regbrown has never made any vile comments on here.

I :T him/her for staying so calm and I'm really impressive with how he/she cuts through the bull !!!! and gets to the heart of the matter.

Confuseddot

regbrown wrote: »

yep, it tells you I am sick to the back teeth of broken folk justifying their repugnant views. Glad you don't like it, that's kind of the point.

You hold views which are currently supporting a policy which is causing stress to one of the groups who should be given our full support, just because your warped mind doesn't deem it valid.

I would be horrified if someone who could hold such views approved of anything I said.

Its so telling that your upset about me pointing out a few things yet you spend so much effort defending a policy which will affect the weakest in society. I don't expect you to publicly admit what that says about you, but suffice to say its pretty damn clear to me.

I never said I didn't like it or that it upset me. It just that it says a lot about you that you can't express your views without personally attacking people who have the audacity not to 100% agree with you.


In reality nearly every policy will effect the weakest in society as by definition they rely on the government more than others.

regbrown

Confuseddot wrote: »

I never said I didn't like it or that it upset me. It just that it says a lot about you that you can't express your views without personally attacking people who have the audacity not to 100% agree with you.


In reality nearly every policy will effect the weakest in society as by definition they rely on the government more than others.

Whatever makes you feel better, I just wont roll over and accept whatever guff people want to say to justify repugnant policy which will make the lives of those people harder. I have sadly seen the consequences their medical policy has had on good and decent people, I will indeed not sit quietly while damaged people defend their horrific policies.

skintmacflint

~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.

As soon as something is given a means tested limit tag , people are encouraged to ensure they don't go over it. So many will stay trapped on low income level to hold onto their secure tenancy. Called the benefit trap.See it all the time on threads with worried posts about work hours and inheritances.

Also suggesting no pensioner in social housing pays their own rent from work pensions or other wise is a fairly narrow view. Many do, my mother did when she was alive.

To suggest any pensioner who can currently afford to pay their own rent should be forced into private rentals is a nonsense. Means someone who worked all ther life , recieves a small pension on retirement , which enables them to cover their rent but not much more , as in my mother's case would face the insecurity of moving every 6 to 12 months , in private rentals in their twilight years.
.
Meanwhile someone who remains on some form of means tested benefit, or keeps their income low into retirement gets the lifetime security of a council house. No wonder the UK is in such a mess.

Seems you're suggesting only those on benenfits should ever get access to secure housing. Not surprising no government or council, has building much needed social housing as a priority. They'll never see any income back from them in rents, if only those on HB in the main get living in them. When I was young you needed proof of employment and character references to get a council house. Changed days indeed. .lol