MSE News: Thousands of tenants to get bedroom tax rebate

bloolagoon

sniggings wrote: »

Not just them, my point was it's not even targeted, all married peple if they qualify for it will get it, a max of £200 is hardly going to keep a marriage together or convince 2 people to get married, it's affect will be zero on society but is costing £600 million, yet the bedroom tax has shown to affect more disabled people, is not making any difference to the avaiablity of social housing that can justify the cost and the savings it's making

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/10494187/Autumn-Statement-2013-How-the-married-tax-allowance-will-affect-you.html

The Tories love to use the family budget as an example, many times their example is flawed, but lets use their family budget analogy.

If you were wanting to save on the family budget would it make sense to buy the cheaper beans to save 2p but then get a taxi home instead of a bus? what the government are doing is creating real misery for thousands, which do not bring in any real savings, yet at the same time, giving a meaningless tax break of £600 million.

It's £4 a week for a very small number of people on a low income. Anyone not on BR tax is ineligible, so your millionaire theory is wholly false. Those on benefits will lose benefits at the rate of increased income. So a few families who are on a low income with 1 earner get a maximum of £4 a week.

Not quite the same as you portray. I suspect it's because the rowntree trust showed that this group are in the greatest poverty above anyone else. Though cohabiting partners should receive it too IMO.

sniggings

bloolagoon wrote: »

It's £4 a week for a very small number of people on a low income. Anyone not on BR tax is ineligible, so your millionaire theory is wholly false. Those on benefits will lose benefits at the rate of increased income. So a few families who are on a low income with 1 earner get a maximum of £4 a week.

Not quite the same as you portray. I suspect it's because the rowntree trust showed that this group are in the greatest poverty above anyone else. Though cohabiting partners should receive it too IMO.

I read the first line of your reply, I got as far as the millinare theory being false, no it's not, I made it clear I was saying the tax is not targeted so the rich will get it just as much as the poor, if you bothered to read the link I provided it clearly says the poor will not benefit as they will lose the same amount in benefits, so this is a tax break not for the poor as you are trying to make out.
Thanks for the discussion but when the other person goes out of their way to misunderstand the argument then it's the end of the discussion.

bloolagoon

sniggings wrote: »

I read the first line of your reply, I got as far as the millinare theory being false, no it's not, I made it clear I was saying the tax is not targeted so the rich will get it just as much as the poor, if you bothered to read the link I provided it clearly says the poor will not benefit as they will lose the same amount in benefits, so this is a tax break not for the poor as you are trying to make out.
Thanks for the discussion but when the other person goes out of their way to misunderstood the argument then it's the end of the discussion.

Married couples and civil partners will not receive the tax relief if one person earns over the basic rate threshold, currently £41,450. Photo: Alamy



From your article (under the wedding picture)

Confuseddot

bloolagoon wrote: »

The solution until such a time we have enough money to build smaller properties is for under 35's to share larger properties. The ones they vacate will go some way to helping the shortage. The problem is that society is very different from what it used to be when they were built. Families were together more with fewer lone parents, people stayed at home until self sufficient, families cared for disabled. You can react to society with things like benefit money but it's very difficult to suddenly find the money to demolish 3 bedroom houses and build 1 bedroom houses.

Housing issue is affecting everywhere not just the uk and not just renters. First time buyers, downsizers, wannabe upsizers and others are affected. It's an unsustainable bubble that is causing misery to many no matter what their circumstances are.

That's what I tried to say a few pages back but think you said it clearer my dad's cousins who are in there 60s and not married still stay in the 2 bed family home they were brought up in having never married and never occurred to them to move out.

Indie_Kid

wildwestfan wrote: »

I think the whole issue of who is or isn't disabled is at the centre of the issue. I think only those assessed as eligible for middle/high rate DLA or PIP or AA at either rate should be considered disabled.

Far too many people label themselves 'disabled' for fairly minor issues.

I disagree. Many people are classed as disabled but are expected to self care. Yet, they still have disabilities. Going by your logic, most people registered as partially sighted wouldn't be classed as disabled (despite having a disability which affects their ability to carry out daily activities) but are registered as disabled.

nannytone_2

i was registered blind in 1996 and have received the same level of support from social services for over 2 years, yet i was only awarded middle rate care in october last year.
did i need less help last september?
did i suddenly become MORE disabled because of the increased DLA award?
of course i didnt.
an award of DLA only means that you tick certain boxes, not that you are more disabled than the person who needs substantial help yet doesnt 'tick the moxes'

bloolagoon

What has being blind got to do with needing an extra room.

nannytone_2

bloolagoon wrote: »

What has being blind got to do with needing an extra room.

you trally need to read the thread properly.
many disabled people DO NOT need or want a spare room.
but there are no 1 bed properties for them to move to.
they are more likely tp NEDD to stay in the area where their support is, as this is what enables the to have some kind of life instead of becoming increasingly isolated

bloolagoon

nannytone wrote: »

you trally need to read the thread properly.
many disabled people DO NOT need or want a spare room.
but there are no 1 bed properties for them to move to.
they are more likely tp NEDD to stay in the area where their support is, as this is what enables the to have some kind of life instead of becoming increasingly isolated

I'm well aware what people with sight problems need but the points raised were that in order to determine the extra room needed for those with disabled that DLA should be used. Vision problems don't require an extra room so on those grounds they should be exempt.

Indie_Kid

bloolagoon wrote: »

I'm well aware what people with sight problems need but the points raised were that in order to determine the extra room needed for those with disabled that DLA should be used. Vision problems don't require an extra room so on those grounds they should be exempt.

Sight impaired people may need an extra room to store equipment, such as CCTV.