Downsize your Basildon Council home... and get £1,500

Southend Standard: Dave Murray, from the Basildon Residents Against Bedroom Tax Dave Murray, from the Basildon Residents Against Bedroom Tax

FAMILIES are being offered £1,500 cash incentives to downsize.

In addition, their removal costs will be paid for and their new homes decorated free of charge.

The scheme has been launched by Basildon Council in a bid to cut the council house waiting list.

The deal is being offered to people living in homes with spare bedrooms, in order to free them up for bigger families.

Phil Turner, the council’s deputy leader, said: “This is all about offering help to some of our most vulnerable residents.

“It is a sensible way to free up space on our housing register as there is a chronic lack of family homes within the borough.”

The new plan is geared towards the 896 Basildon tenants hit by the Government’s “bedroom tax” – which removes a percentage of housing benefit to people who are deemed to have spare rooms, leading to households falling into arrears.

The incentive was recently agreed by housing officials and the council has already had its first family sign up.

Mr Turner added: “The spare room subsidy is Government policy.

“Labour has said we shouldn’t evict anyone, but hopefully it doesn’t come to that. We need to collect the money – it’s law.”

There are thousands of people waiting for social housing in the borough, with the council looking at ways to ease demand – including only offering homes to residents who have a local connection of at least seven years.

An initial sum of £200,000 has been set aside for the downsizing scheme.

Basildon Council has issued almost 100 notices, seeking possession of properties occupied by tenants struggling to cope with the extra burden of the bedroom tax.

The authority will also offer help with removal costs to those who do not fit the criteria.

Reduced payments of £1,000 will be made for homeowners looking to downsize on a smaller scale – from two-bed to one-bedroom properties.

However, the deal is not available to any tenant in arrears.

Chris Miller, 32, of Butneys, Basildon, is desperate to downsize, but say the council will not help him. He said: “I would love to move, but the council won’t let me because of my rent arrears.”

Comments (162)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:24am Sat 8 Feb 14

Howard Cháse says...

Are there sufficient numbers of smaller vacant council houses to make this possible?
Are there sufficient numbers of smaller vacant council houses to make this possible? Howard Cháse

11:16am Sat 8 Feb 14

InTheKnowOk says...

Another area in which the Council will be wasting millions ...
Nobody should be offered money to get out of a rented Council owned place. They should be telling the tenant that if their circumstances have changed, for example, they no longer need a 3 bedroom house, then they will be down sized accordingly ...
Another area in which the Council will be wasting millions ... Nobody should be offered money to get out of a rented Council owned place. They should be telling the tenant that if their circumstances have changed, for example, they no longer need a 3 bedroom house, then they will be down sized accordingly ... InTheKnowOk

11:17am Sat 8 Feb 14

InTheKnowOk says...

Once a suitable property becomes available ..
Once a suitable property becomes available .. InTheKnowOk

11:22am Sat 8 Feb 14

essex_al says...

Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!! essex_al

11:25am Sat 8 Feb 14

Howard Cháse says...

If they get a shift on building up the demolished areas of Craylands and get round to finishing the almost twenty year so far regeneration of Five Links maybe the council can take control of enough properties to allow this to happen and also to cut huge numbers from the housing list by offering them new places in these locations
If they get a shift on building up the demolished areas of Craylands and get round to finishing the almost twenty year so far regeneration of Five Links maybe the council can take control of enough properties to allow this to happen and also to cut huge numbers from the housing list by offering them new places in these locations Howard Cháse

11:33am Sat 8 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

sounds like a winner to me.
sounds like a winner to me. profondo asbo

1:55pm Sat 8 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
[quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite! ThisYear

2:26pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Kim Gandy says...

£1500 cash incentive. But oh dear Chucky... you will have to pay it all back won't you. I mean, living there with three bedrooms all that time.

Pity about the six grand you spent on the kitchen just to impress the builder.

Still, never mind eh... there's still the bodysnatching business to fall back on.
£1500 cash incentive. But oh dear Chucky... you will have to pay it all back won't you. I mean, living there with three bedrooms all that time. Pity about the six grand you spent on the kitchen just to impress the builder. Still, never mind eh... there's still the bodysnatching business to fall back on. Kim Gandy

3:33pm Sat 8 Feb 14

jolllyboy says...

It is also the law that the councils are allowed discretion and if there are no smaller properties ie one bedroomed place then that is discretion ! Families are disrupted by this horrendous TAX because it means that if a child is redundant they no longer can move back home - and if under 25 the intention is for no housing benefit so ultimately this TAX will cause homelessness and hardship. Always the most vulnerable. Not everyone who is unemployed or on housing benefit is swinging the lead. Some are just in a low paid job.
It is also the law that the councils are allowed discretion and if there are no smaller properties ie one bedroomed place then that is discretion ! Families are disrupted by this horrendous TAX because it means that if a child is redundant they no longer can move back home - and if under 25 the intention is for no housing benefit so ultimately this TAX will cause homelessness and hardship. Always the most vulnerable. Not everyone who is unemployed or on housing benefit is swinging the lead. Some are just in a low paid job. jolllyboy

4:06pm Sat 8 Feb 14

essex_al says...

ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford. essex_al

5:29pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Basildon Lady says...

We need to see what Basildon's data is like on smaller properties really. I know first hand there a ton of families overcrowded in one and two bedroom flats but the people will not downsize.
We need to see what Basildon's data is like on smaller properties really. I know first hand there a ton of families overcrowded in one and two bedroom flats but the people will not downsize. Basildon Lady

6:07pm Sat 8 Feb 14

the25man says...

Once a family income reaches a certain amount then the family should be forced to give up there social house for the less fortunate. Drive round Council estates and look at the number of good quality cars there are so why shouldn't people made to pay for true housing costs and not let the rest of society pay for them.
Once a family income reaches a certain amount then the family should be forced to give up there social house for the less fortunate. Drive round Council estates and look at the number of good quality cars there are so why shouldn't people made to pay for true housing costs and not let the rest of society pay for them. the25man

8:06pm Sat 8 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
[quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought. ThisYear

8:18pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Nebs says...

If the council stopped granting planning permission to convert houses into flats there wouldn't be such a shortage of houses.
If the council stopped granting planning permission to convert houses into flats there wouldn't be such a shortage of houses. Nebs

8:22pm Sat 8 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

the25man wrote:
Once a family income reaches a certain amount then the family should be forced to give up there social house for the less fortunate. Drive round Council estates and look at the number of good quality cars there are so why shouldn't people made to pay for true housing costs and not let the rest of society pay for them.
*Once a family income reaches a certain amount then the family should be forced to give up there social house for the less fortunate*

How would this work?

For instance if people earn a certain amount but have debt to pay off leaving them just afloat, should they still be forced to leave their home?

If moving a person/couple/family then puts them under the poverty level should they be moved?

Is not the rent people pay the true housing costs in relation to where and what they reside in?

You suggestion raises more issues than it would cure.
[quote][p][bold]the25man[/bold] wrote: Once a family income reaches a certain amount then the family should be forced to give up there social house for the less fortunate. Drive round Council estates and look at the number of good quality cars there are so why shouldn't people made to pay for true housing costs and not let the rest of society pay for them.[/p][/quote]*Once a family income reaches a certain amount then the family should be forced to give up there social house for the less fortunate* How would this work? For instance if people earn a certain amount but have debt to pay off leaving them just afloat, should they still be forced to leave their home? If moving a person/couple/family then puts them under the poverty level should they be moved? Is not the rent people pay the true housing costs in relation to where and what they reside in? You suggestion raises more issues than it would cure. ThisYear

8:30pm Sat 8 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Basildon Lady wrote:
We need to see what Basildon's data is like on smaller properties really. I know first hand there a ton of families overcrowded in one and two bedroom flats but the people will not downsize.
Firstly, Im sure you would agree, there needs to be suitable accommodation to downsize to.
[quote][p][bold]Basildon Lady[/bold] wrote: We need to see what Basildon's data is like on smaller properties really. I know first hand there a ton of families overcrowded in one and two bedroom flats but the people will not downsize.[/p][/quote]Firstly, Im sure you would agree, there needs to be suitable accommodation to downsize to. ThisYear

11:29pm Sat 8 Feb 14

essex_al says...

ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!! essex_al

9:50am Sun 9 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

ThisYear wrote:
Basildon Lady wrote:
We need to see what Basildon's data is like on smaller properties really. I know first hand there a ton of families overcrowded in one and two bedroom flats but the people will not downsize.
Firstly, Im sure you would agree, there needs to be suitable accommodation to downsize to.
How about a caravan? We could litter the countryside with them.

Er........I think that's been tried. Not very popular.

Not sure why.

Tax: Paid on income
Income: something that has been earned
Earned: worked for.

If your benefit is reduced, it has been reduced because you never earned it in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Basildon Lady[/bold] wrote: We need to see what Basildon's data is like on smaller properties really. I know first hand there a ton of families overcrowded in one and two bedroom flats but the people will not downsize.[/p][/quote]Firstly, Im sure you would agree, there needs to be suitable accommodation to downsize to.[/p][/quote]How about a caravan? We could litter the countryside with them. Er........I think that's been tried. Not very popular. Not sure why. Tax: Paid on income Income: something that has been earned Earned: worked for. If your benefit is reduced, it has been reduced because you never earned it in the first place. RochfordRob

6:51pm Sun 9 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently..

You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home?

There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"?

Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family?

The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.
[quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!![/p][/quote]I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently.. You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home? There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"? Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family? The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE. ThisYear

7:00pm Sun 9 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently..

You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home?

There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"?

Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family?

The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.
they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!![/p][/quote]I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently.. You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home? There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"? Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family? The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.[/p][/quote]they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer profondo asbo

7:04pm Sun 9 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Basildon Lady wrote:
We need to see what Basildon's data is like on smaller properties really. I know first hand there a ton of families overcrowded in one and two bedroom flats but the people will not downsize.
Firstly, Im sure you would agree, there needs to be suitable accommodation to downsize to.
How about a caravan? We could litter the countryside with them.

Er........I think that's been tried. Not very popular.

Not sure why.

Tax: Paid on income
Income: something that has been earned
Earned: worked for.

If your benefit is reduced, it has been reduced because you never earned it in the first place.
In your snide stupidness you have actually hit on something that will one day be a fact. (imo)

There are more people in the USA living in Trailler (parks) than houses or flats (apartments). The countryside will indeed by the place for these parks.. That will probably be the case in this country over the next 100 years or so...the cities will be to commute to for work and the rich to live in..

The reduction taken from income tax is money taken for money that is owed..the bedroom tax is taken from money that is owed..it does not matter how that money is owed other than the fact it is...Are you suggesting that any money that is being taken as bedroom tax has to fit the criteria of not having been earned before it can be deducted?

I personally do not receive benefit and never have..I take it you thought I did because I oppose the B/Tax..

Is that how it is with you? You only oppose that which affects you?

On the point of "Earned" Why are people given benefits if they haven't earned them by being eligible to them?
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Basildon Lady[/bold] wrote: We need to see what Basildon's data is like on smaller properties really. I know first hand there a ton of families overcrowded in one and two bedroom flats but the people will not downsize.[/p][/quote]Firstly, Im sure you would agree, there needs to be suitable accommodation to downsize to.[/p][/quote]How about a caravan? We could litter the countryside with them. Er........I think that's been tried. Not very popular. Not sure why. Tax: Paid on income Income: something that has been earned Earned: worked for. If your benefit is reduced, it has been reduced because you never earned it in the first place.[/p][/quote]In your snide stupidness you have actually hit on something that will one day be a fact. (imo) There are more people in the USA living in Trailler (parks) than houses or flats (apartments). The countryside will indeed by the place for these parks.. That will probably be the case in this country over the next 100 years or so...the cities will be to commute to for work and the rich to live in.. The reduction taken from income tax is money taken for money that is owed..the bedroom tax is taken from money that is owed..it does not matter how that money is owed other than the fact it is...Are you suggesting that any money that is being taken as bedroom tax has to fit the criteria of not having been earned before it can be deducted? I personally do not receive benefit and never have..I take it you thought I did because I oppose the B/Tax.. Is that how it is with you? You only oppose that which affects you? On the point of "Earned" Why are people given benefits if they haven't earned them by being eligible to them? ThisYear

7:06pm Sun 9 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently..

You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home?

There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"?

Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family?

The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.
they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer
We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves!
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!![/p][/quote]I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently.. You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home? There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"? Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family? The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.[/p][/quote]they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer[/p][/quote]We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves! ThisYear

7:39pm Sun 9 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

On the point of "Earned" Why are people given benefits if they haven't earned them by being eligible to them?

As usual that doesn't really make sense, but hey, why break a habit?

Why? you need to ask? I shan't waste my time even trying.

Many of those recently arrived to 'enrich' us - a classic example. Haven't paid a bean - that is neither earned nor an entitlement.
On the point of "Earned" Why are people given benefits if they haven't earned them by being eligible to them? As usual that doesn't really make sense, but hey, why break a habit? Why? you need to ask? I shan't waste my time even trying. Many of those recently arrived to 'enrich' us - a classic example. Haven't paid a bean - that is neither earned nor an entitlement. RochfordRob

7:53pm Sun 9 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently..

You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home?

There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"?

Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family?

The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.
they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer
We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves!
how much tax do benefit claimants pay?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!![/p][/quote]I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently.. You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home? There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"? Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family? The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.[/p][/quote]they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer[/p][/quote]We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves![/p][/quote]how much tax do benefit claimants pay? profondo asbo

7:57pm Sun 9 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

and you can't count tax on cigarettes n alcohol.
and you can't count tax on cigarettes n alcohol. profondo asbo

10:54pm Sun 9 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
On the point of "Earned" Why are people given benefits if they haven't earned them by being eligible to them?

As usual that doesn't really make sense, but hey, why break a habit?

Why? you need to ask? I shan't waste my time even trying.

Many of those recently arrived to 'enrich' us - a classic example. Haven't paid a bean - that is neither earned nor an entitlement.
It doesn't make sense to you because it is a bit beyond you..

Ill try to explain; If a person has £20 coming to them for work and another person the same amount from a benefit.. and if that money is not payed via a tax then the result is the same..they are £20 short..regardless of where the money came from..

Income tax is deducted as a tax as is the spare-bedroom subsidy! They are both monies due which are withheld.

Now even if you dont agree surely you understand?

If not then forget about it.

Re: people 'recently arrived' how can you claim they are not entitled to benefits yet they receive them...isn't the criteria for receiving benefits entitlement?
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: On the point of "Earned" Why are people given benefits if they haven't earned them by being eligible to them? As usual that doesn't really make sense, but hey, why break a habit? Why? you need to ask? I shan't waste my time even trying. Many of those recently arrived to 'enrich' us - a classic example. Haven't paid a bean - that is neither earned nor an entitlement.[/p][/quote]It doesn't make sense to you because it is a bit beyond you.. Ill try to explain; If a person has £20 coming to them for work and another person the same amount from a benefit.. and if that money is not payed via a tax then the result is the same..they are £20 short..regardless of where the money came from.. Income tax is deducted as a tax as is the spare-bedroom subsidy! They are both monies due which are withheld. Now even if you dont agree surely you understand? If not then forget about it. Re: people 'recently arrived' how can you claim they are not entitled to benefits yet they receive them...isn't the criteria for receiving benefits entitlement? ThisYear

10:58pm Sun 9 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently..

You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home?

There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"?

Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family?

The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.
they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer
We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves!
how much tax do benefit claimants pay?
How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised.

https://www.gov.uk/t
axable-income/state-
benefits-that-are-ta
xable


State benefits that are taxable
The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are:

the State Pension
Jobseeker’s Allowance
Carer’s Allowance
Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based)
Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it)
Bereavement Allowance
Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme
Widowed Parent’s Allowance
Widow’s pension
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!![/p][/quote]I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently.. You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home? There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"? Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family? The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.[/p][/quote]they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer[/p][/quote]We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves![/p][/quote]how much tax do benefit claimants pay?[/p][/quote]How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable State benefits that are taxable The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are: the State Pension Jobseeker’s Allowance Carer’s Allowance Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based) Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it) Bereavement Allowance Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme Widowed Parent’s Allowance Widow’s pension ThisYear

7:40am Mon 10 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently..

You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home?

There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"?

Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family?

The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.
they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer
We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves!
how much tax do benefit claimants pay?
How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised.

https://www.gov.uk/t

axable-income/state-

benefits-that-are-ta

xable


State benefits that are taxable
The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are:

the State Pension
Jobseeker’s Allowance
Carer’s Allowance
Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based)
Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it)
Bereavement Allowance
Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme
Widowed Parent’s Allowance
Widow’s pension
as we already established, the state pension is not a benefit so your attempt at a "technical" answer was technically incorrect before we even get into the numbers of how many benefit claimants actually end up paying tax at all which in 99.9% (recurring) of cases is a big fat doughnut. the pension credit is a benefit as that is means tested
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!![/p][/quote]I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently.. You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home? There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"? Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family? The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.[/p][/quote]they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer[/p][/quote]We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves![/p][/quote]how much tax do benefit claimants pay?[/p][/quote]How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable State benefits that are taxable The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are: the State Pension Jobseeker’s Allowance Carer’s Allowance Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based) Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it) Bereavement Allowance Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme Widowed Parent’s Allowance Widow’s pension[/p][/quote]as we already established, the state pension is not a benefit so your attempt at a "technical" answer was technically incorrect before we even get into the numbers of how many benefit claimants actually end up paying tax at all which in 99.9% (recurring) of cases is a big fat doughnut. the pension credit is a benefit as that is means tested profondo asbo

9:37am Mon 10 Feb 14

angryofessex says...

Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again. angryofessex

11:27am Mon 10 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently..

You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home?

There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"?

Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family?

The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.
they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer
We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves!
how much tax do benefit claimants pay?
How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised.

https://www.gov.uk/t


axable-income/state-


benefits-that-are-ta


xable


State benefits that are taxable
The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are:

the State Pension
Jobseeker’s Allowance
Carer’s Allowance
Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based)
Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it)
Bereavement Allowance
Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme
Widowed Parent’s Allowance
Widow’s pension
as we already established, the state pension is not a benefit so your attempt at a "technical" answer was technically incorrect before we even get into the numbers of how many benefit claimants actually end up paying tax at all which in 99.9% (recurring) of cases is a big fat doughnut. the pension credit is a benefit as that is means tested
The tax on benefits is taken BEFORE the benefit is received..

It is clear the benefits mentioned are taxed..ergo people on these benefits pay tax from them...then there is the other tax they will pay in their everyday lives..

Tax is king...we all pay it.

Those who like to specify a certain tax as being the mainstay of the country, delude themselves in their effort to delude others...

Tax is tax is tax..
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!![/p][/quote]I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently.. You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home? There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"? Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family? The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.[/p][/quote]they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer[/p][/quote]We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves![/p][/quote]how much tax do benefit claimants pay?[/p][/quote]How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable State benefits that are taxable The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are: the State Pension Jobseeker’s Allowance Carer’s Allowance Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based) Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it) Bereavement Allowance Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme Widowed Parent’s Allowance Widow’s pension[/p][/quote]as we already established, the state pension is not a benefit so your attempt at a "technical" answer was technically incorrect before we even get into the numbers of how many benefit claimants actually end up paying tax at all which in 99.9% (recurring) of cases is a big fat doughnut. the pension credit is a benefit as that is means tested[/p][/quote]The tax on benefits is taken BEFORE the benefit is received.. It is clear the benefits mentioned are taxed..ergo people on these benefits pay tax from them...then there is the other tax they will pay in their everyday lives.. Tax is king...we all pay it. Those who like to specify a certain tax as being the mainstay of the country, delude themselves in their effort to delude others... Tax is tax is tax.. ThisYear

11:28am Mon 10 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

angryofessex wrote:
Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past?

Can you?
[quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you? ThisYear

11:38am Mon 10 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently..

You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home?

There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"?

Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family?

The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.
they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer
We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves!
how much tax do benefit claimants pay?
How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised.

https://www.gov.uk/t



axable-income/state-



benefits-that-are-ta



xable


State benefits that are taxable
The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are:

the State Pension
Jobseeker’s Allowance
Carer’s Allowance
Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based)
Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it)
Bereavement Allowance
Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme
Widowed Parent’s Allowance
Widow’s pension
as we already established, the state pension is not a benefit so your attempt at a "technical" answer was technically incorrect before we even get into the numbers of how many benefit claimants actually end up paying tax at all which in 99.9% (recurring) of cases is a big fat doughnut. the pension credit is a benefit as that is means tested
The tax on benefits is taken BEFORE the benefit is received..

It is clear the benefits mentioned are taxed..ergo people on these benefits pay tax from them...then there is the other tax they will pay in their everyday lives..

Tax is king...we all pay it.

Those who like to specify a certain tax as being the mainstay of the country, delude themselves in their effort to delude others...

Tax is tax is tax..
nonsense. the benefit is paid gross. you appear to be deluded
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!![/p][/quote]I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently.. You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home? There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"? Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family? The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.[/p][/quote]they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer[/p][/quote]We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves![/p][/quote]how much tax do benefit claimants pay?[/p][/quote]How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable State benefits that are taxable The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are: the State Pension Jobseeker’s Allowance Carer’s Allowance Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based) Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it) Bereavement Allowance Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme Widowed Parent’s Allowance Widow’s pension[/p][/quote]as we already established, the state pension is not a benefit so your attempt at a "technical" answer was technically incorrect before we even get into the numbers of how many benefit claimants actually end up paying tax at all which in 99.9% (recurring) of cases is a big fat doughnut. the pension credit is a benefit as that is means tested[/p][/quote]The tax on benefits is taken BEFORE the benefit is received.. It is clear the benefits mentioned are taxed..ergo people on these benefits pay tax from them...then there is the other tax they will pay in their everyday lives.. Tax is king...we all pay it. Those who like to specify a certain tax as being the mainstay of the country, delude themselves in their effort to delude others... Tax is tax is tax..[/p][/quote]nonsense. the benefit is paid gross. you appear to be deluded profondo asbo

11:50am Mon 10 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently..

You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home?

There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"?

Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family?

The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.
they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer
We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves!
how much tax do benefit claimants pay?
How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised.

https://www.gov.uk/t




axable-income/state-




benefits-that-are-ta




xable


State benefits that are taxable
The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are:

the State Pension
Jobseeker’s Allowance
Carer’s Allowance
Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based)
Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it)
Bereavement Allowance
Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme
Widowed Parent’s Allowance
Widow’s pension
as we already established, the state pension is not a benefit so your attempt at a "technical" answer was technically incorrect before we even get into the numbers of how many benefit claimants actually end up paying tax at all which in 99.9% (recurring) of cases is a big fat doughnut. the pension credit is a benefit as that is means tested
The tax on benefits is taken BEFORE the benefit is received..

It is clear the benefits mentioned are taxed..ergo people on these benefits pay tax from them...then there is the other tax they will pay in their everyday lives..

Tax is king...we all pay it.

Those who like to specify a certain tax as being the mainstay of the country, delude themselves in their effort to delude others...

Tax is tax is tax..
nonsense. the benefit is paid gross. you appear to be deluded
Are you suggesting that people receive a benefit and then from it pay the tax owed on it?
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!![/p][/quote]I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently.. You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home? There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"? Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family? The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.[/p][/quote]they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer[/p][/quote]We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves![/p][/quote]how much tax do benefit claimants pay?[/p][/quote]How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable State benefits that are taxable The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are: the State Pension Jobseeker’s Allowance Carer’s Allowance Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based) Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it) Bereavement Allowance Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme Widowed Parent’s Allowance Widow’s pension[/p][/quote]as we already established, the state pension is not a benefit so your attempt at a "technical" answer was technically incorrect before we even get into the numbers of how many benefit claimants actually end up paying tax at all which in 99.9% (recurring) of cases is a big fat doughnut. the pension credit is a benefit as that is means tested[/p][/quote]The tax on benefits is taken BEFORE the benefit is received.. It is clear the benefits mentioned are taxed..ergo people on these benefits pay tax from them...then there is the other tax they will pay in their everyday lives.. Tax is king...we all pay it. Those who like to specify a certain tax as being the mainstay of the country, delude themselves in their effort to delude others... Tax is tax is tax..[/p][/quote]nonsense. the benefit is paid gross. you appear to be deluded[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that people receive a benefit and then from it pay the tax owed on it? ThisYear

11:52am Mon 10 Feb 14

angryofessex says...

ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you? angryofessex

12:01pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored?

Cant the same then be said about income tax?

Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?
[quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?[/p][/quote]You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand? ThisYear

12:26pm Mon 10 Feb 14

angryofessex says...

ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?
You are, aren’t you?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?[/p][/quote]You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?[/p][/quote]You are, aren’t you? angryofessex

12:34pm Mon 10 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently..

You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home?

There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"?

Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family?

The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.
they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer
We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves!
how much tax do benefit claimants pay?
How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised.

https://www.gov.uk/t





axable-income/state-





benefits-that-are-ta





xable


State benefits that are taxable
The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are:

the State Pension
Jobseeker’s Allowance
Carer’s Allowance
Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based)
Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it)
Bereavement Allowance
Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme
Widowed Parent’s Allowance
Widow’s pension
as we already established, the state pension is not a benefit so your attempt at a "technical" answer was technically incorrect before we even get into the numbers of how many benefit claimants actually end up paying tax at all which in 99.9% (recurring) of cases is a big fat doughnut. the pension credit is a benefit as that is means tested
The tax on benefits is taken BEFORE the benefit is received..

It is clear the benefits mentioned are taxed..ergo people on these benefits pay tax from them...then there is the other tax they will pay in their everyday lives..

Tax is king...we all pay it.

Those who like to specify a certain tax as being the mainstay of the country, delude themselves in their effort to delude others...

Tax is tax is tax..
nonsense. the benefit is paid gross. you appear to be deluded
Are you suggesting that people receive a benefit and then from it pay the tax owed on it?
what tax is owed? everyone has a personal allowance of £9,440 per annum on which no tax is payable. those on jobseekers are unlikely to trouble the tax scorer except when they pay duty on their cigarettes!
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!![/p][/quote]I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently.. You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home? There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"? Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family? The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.[/p][/quote]they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer[/p][/quote]We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves![/p][/quote]how much tax do benefit claimants pay?[/p][/quote]How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable State benefits that are taxable The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are: the State Pension Jobseeker’s Allowance Carer’s Allowance Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based) Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it) Bereavement Allowance Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme Widowed Parent’s Allowance Widow’s pension[/p][/quote]as we already established, the state pension is not a benefit so your attempt at a "technical" answer was technically incorrect before we even get into the numbers of how many benefit claimants actually end up paying tax at all which in 99.9% (recurring) of cases is a big fat doughnut. the pension credit is a benefit as that is means tested[/p][/quote]The tax on benefits is taken BEFORE the benefit is received.. It is clear the benefits mentioned are taxed..ergo people on these benefits pay tax from them...then there is the other tax they will pay in their everyday lives.. Tax is king...we all pay it. Those who like to specify a certain tax as being the mainstay of the country, delude themselves in their effort to delude others... Tax is tax is tax..[/p][/quote]nonsense. the benefit is paid gross. you appear to be deluded[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that people receive a benefit and then from it pay the tax owed on it?[/p][/quote]what tax is owed? everyone has a personal allowance of £9,440 per annum on which no tax is payable. those on jobseekers are unlikely to trouble the tax scorer except when they pay duty on their cigarettes! profondo asbo

3:16pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?
Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth.

Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit.

Tax on tax = nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?[/p][/quote]You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?[/p][/quote]Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth. Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit. Tax on tax = nonsense. Alekhine

3:25pm Mon 10 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?
You are, aren’t you?
Yes he is.

Sadly.
[quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?[/p][/quote]You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?[/p][/quote]You are, aren’t you?[/p][/quote]Yes he is. Sadly. RochfordRob

4:04pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Stamper2 says...

Unbelievable

So now us taxpayers are giving these scroungers £1500 free of charge, plus other benefits. That is what we are all paying Council Tax for!

Why don't these bums stop having loads of children and get jobs like the rest of us. They are clearly specialised in sponging off of society.
Unbelievable So now us taxpayers are giving these scroungers £1500 free of charge, plus other benefits. That is what we are all paying Council Tax for! Why don't these bums stop having loads of children and get jobs like the rest of us. They are clearly specialised in sponging off of society. Stamper2

7:32pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?
You are, aren’t you?
It would seem you are boxed in and dont know how to reply...So we can take it It is a tax..i thank you.
[quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?[/p][/quote]You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?[/p][/quote]You are, aren’t you?[/p][/quote]It would seem you are boxed in and dont know how to reply...So we can take it It is a tax..i thank you. ThisYear

7:40pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?
Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth.

Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit.

Tax on tax = nonsense.
Rater then drift off and correct you on some of your claims Ill stick to the issue of the BT being a tax.

Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory..
that is the commonality of the issue.

The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is...it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is due by way of tax.

There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?[/p][/quote]You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?[/p][/quote]Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth. Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit. Tax on tax = nonsense.[/p][/quote]Rater then drift off and correct you on some of your claims Ill stick to the issue of the BT being a tax. Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory.. that is the commonality of the issue. The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is...it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is due by way of tax. There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion. ThisYear

7:41pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?
You are, aren’t you?
Yes he is.

Sadly.
Join the debate...if you can.
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?[/p][/quote]You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?[/p][/quote]You are, aren’t you?[/p][/quote]Yes he is. Sadly.[/p][/quote]Join the debate...if you can. ThisYear

7:44pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Stamper2 wrote:
Unbelievable

So now us taxpayers are giving these scroungers £1500 free of charge, plus other benefits. That is what we are all paying Council Tax for!

Why don't these bums stop having loads of children and get jobs like the rest of us. They are clearly specialised in sponging off of society.
What makes you think they are not taxpayers? You perhaps think they live in council houses while being CEO's of large corporations Or offshore multimillionaires? Or TV Celebs..

We all pay tax in one shape or form.

£1500 would barely cover the removal fee.
[quote][p][bold]Stamper2[/bold] wrote: Unbelievable So now us taxpayers are giving these scroungers £1500 free of charge, plus other benefits. That is what we are all paying Council Tax for! Why don't these bums stop having loads of children and get jobs like the rest of us. They are clearly specialised in sponging off of society.[/p][/quote]What makes you think they are not taxpayers? You perhaps think they live in council houses while being CEO's of large corporations Or offshore multimillionaires? Or TV Celebs.. We all pay tax in one shape or form. £1500 would barely cover the removal fee. ThisYear

8:36pm Mon 10 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

ThisYear wrote:
Stamper2 wrote:
Unbelievable

So now us taxpayers are giving these scroungers £1500 free of charge, plus other benefits. That is what we are all paying Council Tax for!

Why don't these bums stop having loads of children and get jobs like the rest of us. They are clearly specialised in sponging off of society.
What makes you think they are not taxpayers? You perhaps think they live in council houses while being CEO's of large corporations Or offshore multimillionaires? Or TV Celebs..

We all pay tax in one shape or form.

£1500 would barely cover the removal fee.
the assumption (which is totally logical) is that they are benefit claimants so they are unlikely to be tax payers. your assertion that the average benefit claimant is a taxpayer is illogical and low probability therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stamper2[/bold] wrote: Unbelievable So now us taxpayers are giving these scroungers £1500 free of charge, plus other benefits. That is what we are all paying Council Tax for! Why don't these bums stop having loads of children and get jobs like the rest of us. They are clearly specialised in sponging off of society.[/p][/quote]What makes you think they are not taxpayers? You perhaps think they live in council houses while being CEO's of large corporations Or offshore multimillionaires? Or TV Celebs.. We all pay tax in one shape or form. £1500 would barely cover the removal fee.[/p][/quote]the assumption (which is totally logical) is that they are benefit claimants so they are unlikely to be tax payers. your assertion that the average benefit claimant is a taxpayer is illogical and low probability therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. profondo asbo

8:41pm Mon 10 Feb 14

essex_al says...

ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently..

You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home?

There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"?

Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family?

The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.
I do wish people would get their facts right, before they start complaining.

The spare room subsidy would not effect me, as I own my property, so I can have as many spare rooms as I choose.

Pensioners are exempt from the spare room subsidy.

People who are working are exempt from the spare room subsidy.

The only people that it effects are those not working, who are living in houses bigger than their needs, paid for by those of us who are working.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!![/p][/quote]I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently.. You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home? There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"? Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family? The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.[/p][/quote]I do wish people would get their facts right, before they start complaining. The spare room subsidy would not effect me, as I own my property, so I can have as many spare rooms as I choose. Pensioners are exempt from the spare room subsidy. People who are working are exempt from the spare room subsidy. The only people that it effects are those not working, who are living in houses bigger than their needs, paid for by those of us who are working. essex_al

8:43pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?
Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth.

Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit.

Tax on tax = nonsense.
Rater then drift off and correct you on some of your claims Ill stick to the issue of the BT being a tax.

Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory..

that is the commonality of the issue.

The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is...it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is due by way of tax.

There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion.
Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory.. that is the commonality of the issue.
....
No, it looks like you have been taken in by all those vocal campaigners who call it a tax because that makes it easier to campaign against.

It is a reduction of housing allowance based on under occupancy / number of spare rooms. At whatever level it is paid, the allowance is paid for entirely out of tax i.e it is the government's money budgeted to meet this need. Why would any government tax its own money? Where would the tax go, back to government?

Yes, there are people paying income tax and receiving reduced housing allowance.

Most people think more efficient use of council housing is a good thing. Why should there be under occupancy in large council houses while families wait in bed and breakfast accommodation?
....
The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is
...
No it is not. Income tax funds government from trade, manufacturing and a large variety of service industries which bring in the money in the first instance. What you call the "spare room subsidy" is really just recycling tax which has already been paid. Moving it from one pocket to another in the same pair of trousers. They could'not be more different.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?[/p][/quote]You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?[/p][/quote]Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth. Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit. Tax on tax = nonsense.[/p][/quote]Rater then drift off and correct you on some of your claims Ill stick to the issue of the BT being a tax. Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory.. that is the commonality of the issue. The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is...it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is due by way of tax. There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion.[/p][/quote]Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory.. that is the commonality of the issue. .... No, it looks like you have been taken in by all those vocal campaigners who call it a tax because that makes it easier to campaign against. It is a reduction of housing allowance based on under occupancy / number of spare rooms. At whatever level it is paid, the allowance is paid for entirely out of tax i.e it is the government's money budgeted to meet this need. Why would any government tax its own money? Where would the tax go, back to government? Yes, there are people paying income tax and receiving reduced housing allowance. Most people think more efficient use of council housing is a good thing. Why should there be under occupancy in large council houses while families wait in bed and breakfast accommodation? .... The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is ... No it is not. Income tax funds government from trade, manufacturing and a large variety of service industries which bring in the money in the first instance. What you call the "spare room subsidy" is really just recycling tax which has already been paid. Moving it from one pocket to another in the same pair of trousers. They could'not be more different. Alekhine

8:52pm Mon 10 Feb 14

essex_al says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?
Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth.

Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit.

Tax on tax = nonsense.
Rater then drift off and correct you on some of your claims Ill stick to the issue of the BT being a tax.

Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory..

that is the commonality of the issue.

The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is...it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is due by way of tax.

There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion.
The spare room subsidy is not a compulsory payment, as the claimant does not give any of his/her hard earned money to the government in tax, as the policy only applies to those not earning.

Therefore, the statement 'There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion' is nonsense. If you pay income tax, you are not effected by the spare room. If you are effected by the spare room subsidy, you are not earning and therefore not paying income tax.

The two are mutually exclusive.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?[/p][/quote]You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?[/p][/quote]Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth. Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit. Tax on tax = nonsense.[/p][/quote]Rater then drift off and correct you on some of your claims Ill stick to the issue of the BT being a tax. Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory.. that is the commonality of the issue. The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is...it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is due by way of tax. There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion.[/p][/quote]The spare room subsidy is not a compulsory payment, as the claimant does not give any of his/her hard earned money to the government in tax, as the policy only applies to those not earning. Therefore, the statement 'There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion' is nonsense. If you pay income tax, you are not effected by the spare room. If you are effected by the spare room subsidy, you are not earning and therefore not paying income tax. The two are mutually exclusive. essex_al

9:49pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Stamper2 says...

Can everyone make their comments without repeating everything else someone else has said before? This is making the string of comments much longer than it needs to be.
Can everyone make their comments without repeating everything else someone else has said before? This is making the string of comments much longer than it needs to be. Stamper2

10:17pm Mon 10 Feb 14

yagetme says...

essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?
Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth.

Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit.

Tax on tax = nonsense.
Rater then drift off and correct you on some of your claims Ill stick to the issue of the BT being a tax.

Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory..


that is the commonality of the issue.

The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is...it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is due by way of tax.

There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion.
The spare room subsidy is not a compulsory payment, as the claimant does not give any of his/her hard earned money to the government in tax, as the policy only applies to those not earning.

Therefore, the statement 'There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion' is nonsense. If you pay income tax, you are not effected by the spare room. If you are effected by the spare room subsidy, you are not earning and therefore not paying income tax.

The two are mutually exclusive.
Are you seriously stating that you think that everyone affected by Bedroom Tax is unemployed?

Sorry if I've missed your point, but last time I checked Government figures stated 94% of all Housing Benefit claims are from working people.
[quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?[/p][/quote]You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?[/p][/quote]Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth. Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit. Tax on tax = nonsense.[/p][/quote]Rater then drift off and correct you on some of your claims Ill stick to the issue of the BT being a tax. Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory.. that is the commonality of the issue. The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is...it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is due by way of tax. There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion.[/p][/quote]The spare room subsidy is not a compulsory payment, as the claimant does not give any of his/her hard earned money to the government in tax, as the policy only applies to those not earning. Therefore, the statement 'There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion' is nonsense. If you pay income tax, you are not effected by the spare room. If you are effected by the spare room subsidy, you are not earning and therefore not paying income tax. The two are mutually exclusive.[/p][/quote]Are you seriously stating that you think that everyone affected by Bedroom Tax is unemployed? Sorry if I've missed your point, but last time I checked Government figures stated 94% of all Housing Benefit claims are from working people. yagetme

10:32pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?
Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth.

Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit.

Tax on tax = nonsense.
Rater then drift off and correct you on some of your claims Ill stick to the issue of the BT being a tax.

Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory..


that is the commonality of the issue.

The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is...it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is due by way of tax.

There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion.
The spare room subsidy is not a compulsory payment, as the claimant does not give any of his/her hard earned money to the government in tax, as the policy only applies to those not earning.

Therefore, the statement 'There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion' is nonsense. If you pay income tax, you are not effected by the spare room. If you are effected by the spare room subsidy, you are not earning and therefore not paying income tax.

The two are mutually exclusive.
Your post claims are ludicrously wrong.

Of course the tax both income and bedroom tax are compulsory..you have to pay them by legislation (I hesitate to say by law)

Are you really suggesting that if you pay income tax you do not have to pay the bedroom tax?

So a 60 year old working man claiming working tax credits, whilst living in a 3 bedroom council house, would be exempt from paying the BT because he pays income tax?

Can you provide either a link or citation to that?
[quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?[/p][/quote]You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?[/p][/quote]Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth. Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit. Tax on tax = nonsense.[/p][/quote]Rater then drift off and correct you on some of your claims Ill stick to the issue of the BT being a tax. Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory.. that is the commonality of the issue. The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is...it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is due by way of tax. There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion.[/p][/quote]The spare room subsidy is not a compulsory payment, as the claimant does not give any of his/her hard earned money to the government in tax, as the policy only applies to those not earning. Therefore, the statement 'There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion' is nonsense. If you pay income tax, you are not effected by the spare room. If you are effected by the spare room subsidy, you are not earning and therefore not paying income tax. The two are mutually exclusive.[/p][/quote]Your post claims are ludicrously wrong. Of course the tax both income and bedroom tax are compulsory..you have to pay them by legislation (I hesitate to say by law) Are you really suggesting that if you pay income tax you do not have to pay the bedroom tax? So a 60 year old working man claiming working tax credits, whilst living in a 3 bedroom council house, would be exempt from paying the BT because he pays income tax? Can you provide either a link or citation to that? ThisYear

10:48pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.
if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?
It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?
You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?
Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth.

Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit.

Tax on tax = nonsense.
Rater then drift off and correct you on some of your claims Ill stick to the issue of the BT being a tax.

Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory..


that is the commonality of the issue.

The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is...it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is due by way of tax.

There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion.
Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory.. that is the commonality of the issue.
....
No, it looks like you have been taken in by all those vocal campaigners who call it a tax because that makes it easier to campaign against.

It is a reduction of housing allowance based on under occupancy / number of spare rooms. At whatever level it is paid, the allowance is paid for entirely out of tax i.e it is the government's money budgeted to meet this need. Why would any government tax its own money? Where would the tax go, back to government?

Yes, there are people paying income tax and receiving reduced housing allowance.

Most people think more efficient use of council housing is a good thing. Why should there be under occupancy in large council houses while families wait in bed and breakfast accommodation?
....
The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is
...
No it is not. Income tax funds government from trade, manufacturing and a large variety of service industries which bring in the money in the first instance. What you call the "spare room subsidy" is really just recycling tax which has already been paid. Moving it from one pocket to another in the same pair of trousers. They could'not be more different.
Income and bedroom tax is of course compulsory...by legislation. You do not have a legal right NOT to pay it if you fit the criteria to pay it.

I have been taken in by nothing; People are having a certain amount of money they are entitled to taken away to pay for the privilege of keeping their homes..they are TAXED this money!

If they do not pay it they will be penalised.

It is you who has been taken in by the spin placed on this by the government.

People partially pay for the privilege to smoke, drink, eat, drive etc etc..by way of tax!

Money taken by the government to be paid to the government is tax..the money the people pay is THIER money not government money...they are entitled to it (regardless how) or it wouldn't be their money!

For instance, If a person is entitled to housing benefit to pay rent on a council house.. then that is the government providing money to pay back to the government...moving money "from one pocket to another in the same pair of trousers" BUT the money before it goes back belongs to the claimant!

If they do not use it for what it was claimed then that is their choice because its their money.

They dont have this choice with the BT...they have to pay it because it is a tax.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: Oh no, Not the old “we are all tax payers” one again.[/p][/quote]if you dont think that is correct then say why, rather than implying it has been disproven in the past? Can you?[/p][/quote]It is obvious to anybody that tax paid from benefits can only be a negative contribution. You’re not the LL bloke are you?[/p][/quote]You feel money taken from a persons benefits as tax is something that can be ignored? Cant the same then be said about income tax? Does it matter who I am..can you deal with the issue at hand?[/p][/quote]Income tax = money that is taken from earnings for productive work. You remember work? That thing that generates trade, creates jobs and makes wealth. Benefits = money that has ALREADY BEEN taken as tax. Don't concern yourself over where it comes from. Use your sense of entitlement to think of it as yours, although actually it is part of the DSS budget and government can allocate it however it sees fit. Tax on tax = nonsense.[/p][/quote]Rater then drift off and correct you on some of your claims Ill stick to the issue of the BT being a tax. Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory.. that is the commonality of the issue. The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is...it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is due by way of tax. There are people paying income tax AND bedroom tax by compulsion.[/p][/quote]Income tax is taken...bedroom tax is taken...compulsory.. that is the commonality of the issue. .... No, it looks like you have been taken in by all those vocal campaigners who call it a tax because that makes it easier to campaign against. It is a reduction of housing allowance based on under occupancy / number of spare rooms. At whatever level it is paid, the allowance is paid for entirely out of tax i.e it is the government's money budgeted to meet this need. Why would any government tax its own money? Where would the tax go, back to government? Yes, there are people paying income tax and receiving reduced housing allowance. Most people think more efficient use of council housing is a good thing. Why should there be under occupancy in large council houses while families wait in bed and breakfast accommodation? .... The 'spare room subsidy' is a compulsory payment in the same way Income tax is ... No it is not. Income tax funds government from trade, manufacturing and a large variety of service industries which bring in the money in the first instance. What you call the "spare room subsidy" is really just recycling tax which has already been paid. Moving it from one pocket to another in the same pair of trousers. They could'not be more different.[/p][/quote]Income and bedroom tax is of course compulsory...by legislation. You do not have a legal right NOT to pay it if you fit the criteria to pay it. I have been taken in by nothing; People are having a certain amount of money they are entitled to taken away to pay for the privilege of keeping their homes..they are TAXED this money! If they do not pay it they will be penalised. It is you who has been taken in by the spin placed on this by the government. People partially pay for the privilege to smoke, drink, eat, drive etc etc..by way of tax! Money taken by the government to be paid to the government is tax..the money the people pay is THIER money not government money...they are entitled to it (regardless how) or it wouldn't be their money! For instance, If a person is entitled to housing benefit to pay rent on a council house.. then that is the government providing money to pay back to the government...moving money "from one pocket to another in the same pair of trousers" BUT the money before it goes back belongs to the claimant! If they do not use it for what it was claimed then that is their choice because its their money. They dont have this choice with the BT...they have to pay it because it is a tax. ThisYear

11:44pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Income and bedroom tax is of course compulsory...by legislation. You do not have a legal right NOT to pay it if you fit the criteria to pay it.
...
Then don't fit the criteria and you will not pay. The idea is to make more efficient use of social housing. i use "pay" as a loose term here as housing assistance is a benefit not a tax. How can you "pay" what you never earned in the first place? Again, why are large council houses under occupied while families wait in bed and breakfast accommodation?
...
I have been taken in by nothing; People are having a certain amount of money they are entitled to taken away to pay for the privilege of keeping their homes..they are TAXED this money!
....
You do have an overarching sense of entitlement. If you want some security, get a job and buy what you can afford. Risking repetition, this is a benefit, it is state money, why would the government tax itself? Where would the tax go?
....
If they do not pay it they will be penalised.
....
The benefit has been reduced, time to look for alternative sources of income or alternative accommodation.
....
It is you who has been taken in by the spin placed on this by the government.
....
We are coming out of a long recession or is that just spin too?
....
People partially pay for the privilege to smoke, drink, eat, drive etc etc..by way of tax!
....
What has any of that got to do with housing benefit? Are you saying smoking, drinking and driving are entitlements?
....
Money taken by the government to be paid to the government is tax..the money the people pay is THIER money not government money...they are entitled to it (regardless how) or it wouldn't be their money!
....
Its not their money. Its state money which the state budgets to cover a need. Times change and needs change. A tricky balancing act with a reduced number of workers. FFS WAKE UP!
...
For instance, If a person is entitled to housing benefit to pay rent on a council house.. then that is the government providing money to pay back to the government...moving money "from one pocket to another in the same pair of trousers" BUT the money before it goes back belongs to the claimant!
...
Its that word "entitled again. What entitles anybody to under occupy a large council house if more suitable accommodation is available? Pleased that you have finally admitted that government is providing the funding (which in your example is returning to the government). Perhaps you can explain why you believe the government is taxing itself?
.....
If they do not use it for what it was claimed then that is their choice because its their money.
....
It is always their choice to lose the house through non-payment of rent. Or are you saying the benefit was too large originally?
....
They dont have this choice with the BT...they have to pay it because it is a tax.
....
Its a reduction to the original benefit, which judging from your last was too large anyway. What is being taxed? You are still saying the government is taxing its own money.
Income and bedroom tax is of course compulsory...by legislation. You do not have a legal right NOT to pay it if you fit the criteria to pay it. ... Then don't fit the criteria and you will not pay. The idea is to make more efficient use of social housing. i use "pay" as a loose term here as housing assistance is a benefit not a tax. How can you "pay" what you never earned in the first place? Again, why are large council houses under occupied while families wait in bed and breakfast accommodation? ... I have been taken in by nothing; People are having a certain amount of money they are entitled to taken away to pay for the privilege of keeping their homes..they are TAXED this money! .... You do have an overarching sense of entitlement. If you want some security, get a job and buy what you can afford. Risking repetition, this is a benefit, it is state money, why would the government tax itself? Where would the tax go? .... If they do not pay it they will be penalised. .... The benefit has been reduced, time to look for alternative sources of income or alternative accommodation. .... It is you who has been taken in by the spin placed on this by the government. .... We are coming out of a long recession or is that just spin too? .... People partially pay for the privilege to smoke, drink, eat, drive etc etc..by way of tax! .... What has any of that got to do with housing benefit? Are you saying smoking, drinking and driving are entitlements? .... Money taken by the government to be paid to the government is tax..the money the people pay is THIER money not government money...they are entitled to it (regardless how) or it wouldn't be their money! .... Its not their money. Its state money which the state budgets to cover a need. Times change and needs change. A tricky balancing act with a reduced number of workers. FFS WAKE UP! ... For instance, If a person is entitled to housing benefit to pay rent on a council house.. then that is the government providing money to pay back to the government...moving money "from one pocket to another in the same pair of trousers" BUT the money before it goes back belongs to the claimant! ... Its that word "entitled again. What entitles anybody to under occupy a large council house if more suitable accommodation is available? Pleased that you have finally admitted that government is providing the funding (which in your example is returning to the government). Perhaps you can explain why you believe the government is taxing itself? ..... If they do not use it for what it was claimed then that is their choice because its their money. .... It is always their choice to lose the house through non-payment of rent. Or are you saying the benefit was too large originally? .... They dont have this choice with the BT...they have to pay it because it is a tax. .... Its a reduction to the original benefit, which judging from your last was too large anyway. What is being taxed? You are still saying the government is taxing its own money. Alekhine

7:46am Tue 11 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

tax on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are taxes on consumption and therefore voluntary. a benefit claimant that smokes and drinks is mis-allocating their resources (i use the term "their" in the loosest possible sense as it is those that pay tax on income and NI that fund "their"). nobody forces you to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. income tax is not voluntary alas
tax on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are taxes on consumption and therefore voluntary. a benefit claimant that smokes and drinks is mis-allocating their resources (i use the term "their" in the loosest possible sense as it is those that pay tax on income and NI that fund "their"). nobody forces you to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. income tax is not voluntary alas profondo asbo

10:24am Tue 11 Feb 14

angryofessex says...

profondo asbo wrote:
tax on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are taxes on consumption and therefore voluntary. a benefit claimant that smokes and drinks is mis-allocating their resources (i use the term "their" in the loosest possible sense as it is those that pay tax on income and NI that fund "their"). nobody forces you to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. income tax is not voluntary alas
Agree, although the taxes on petrol are not voluntary in most cases. I pay tax on petrol to enable me to get to work so I can pay even more tax. Tax on fags is indeed voluntary, that is unless you purchase from your local Bacy Baron, in which case the treasury receive nothing at all.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: tax on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are taxes on consumption and therefore voluntary. a benefit claimant that smokes and drinks is mis-allocating their resources (i use the term "their" in the loosest possible sense as it is those that pay tax on income and NI that fund "their"). nobody forces you to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. income tax is not voluntary alas[/p][/quote]Agree, although the taxes on petrol are not voluntary in most cases. I pay tax on petrol to enable me to get to work so I can pay even more tax. Tax on fags is indeed voluntary, that is unless you purchase from your local Bacy Baron, in which case the treasury receive nothing at all. angryofessex

2:44pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
Income and bedroom tax is of course compulsory...by legislation. You do not have a legal right NOT to pay it if you fit the criteria to pay it.
...
Then don't fit the criteria and you will not pay. The idea is to make more efficient use of social housing. i use "pay" as a loose term here as housing assistance is a benefit not a tax. How can you "pay" what you never earned in the first place? Again, why are large council houses under occupied while families wait in bed and breakfast accommodation?
...
I have been taken in by nothing; People are having a certain amount of money they are entitled to taken away to pay for the privilege of keeping their homes..they are TAXED this money!
....
You do have an overarching sense of entitlement. If you want some security, get a job and buy what you can afford. Risking repetition, this is a benefit, it is state money, why would the government tax itself? Where would the tax go?
....
If they do not pay it they will be penalised.
....
The benefit has been reduced, time to look for alternative sources of income or alternative accommodation.
....
It is you who has been taken in by the spin placed on this by the government.
....
We are coming out of a long recession or is that just spin too?
....
People partially pay for the privilege to smoke, drink, eat, drive etc etc..by way of tax!
....
What has any of that got to do with housing benefit? Are you saying smoking, drinking and driving are entitlements?
....
Money taken by the government to be paid to the government is tax..the money the people pay is THIER money not government money...they are entitled to it (regardless how) or it wouldn't be their money!
....
Its not their money. Its state money which the state budgets to cover a need. Times change and needs change. A tricky balancing act with a reduced number of workers. FFS WAKE UP!
...
For instance, If a person is entitled to housing benefit to pay rent on a council house.. then that is the government providing money to pay back to the government...moving money "from one pocket to another in the same pair of trousers" BUT the money before it goes back belongs to the claimant!
...
Its that word "entitled again. What entitles anybody to under occupy a large council house if more suitable accommodation is available? Pleased that you have finally admitted that government is providing the funding (which in your example is returning to the government). Perhaps you can explain why you believe the government is taxing itself?
.....
If they do not use it for what it was claimed then that is their choice because its their money.
....
It is always their choice to lose the house through non-payment of rent. Or are you saying the benefit was too large originally?
....
They dont have this choice with the BT...they have to pay it because it is a tax.
....
Its a reduction to the original benefit, which judging from your last was too large anyway. What is being taxed? You are still saying the government is taxing its own money.
Your advice to someone who has to pay the bedroom tax is not to fit the criteria and then they wont have to pay...isn't that a bit like suggesting if someone doesn't want to fit the criteria for income tax they shouldn't work?

You seem rather confused about when money belongs to a person and when it doesn't...money paid to a body be it wages or benefits belongs to that person...it is theirs to do with as they will..when some is deducted it is deducted as a tax..a tax to pay for something else as you suggest with income tax..just what does the bedroom tax pay towards? The building of new homes?

If the idea was to "make more efficient use of social housing" can you say how paying money makes that work?

People languish in B&Bs because Thatcher allowed council housing to be bought and they have never been replaced in any large number since.

You assume too much..I have no overarching anything..An entitlement is just that and you wouldn't receive if you wasn't entitled...please dont project your attitudes onto me..Just because I oppose something and defend against it does follow that im effected by it..I have a job..I pay tax..I am my own boss and I save a lot of money on christmas company parties..

Why would the government tax itself...it doesn't...when the government allots the money to the recipient it is no longer government money..thats where you are falling down.

Where does the money go from the bedroom tax? Well your opinion is it goes to "make more efficient use of social housing" Id like to see how you have come to that conclusion.

The problem is not adequate accommodation for those stricken by the tax and so they are in a Heller situation (see what I did there?) to tell people to move and expect them to when there is nowhere to move to is really stupid and irresponsible.

"Coming out of a long recession" LOL..Yeah right...not in our life time...keep swallowing the guff..

Im saying smoking and drinking are taxable yet are not compulsory..why would something that is compulsory if your fit the bill not be considered a tax...

You ask me to wake up and accept your misunderstand of the matter while other mainstream parties also consider the compulsory payment for spare rooms as a tax...its you who need to pull the blanket of your head and get real...the tories are not for the likes of you no matter how you may aspire to be of their kind..lol...the top percentage of tories must look down at the others and laugh at their delusions of being as one with them...fools.

What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement.. OH and of course if they are willing to pay tax money to the government for the house.

The fact they have the money in their possession is the proof it is their money...not forgetting (regardless of the rather bizarre claim that if you pay income tax you are exempt from paying bedroom tax) that many people work and pay the BT..are you also saying that their wages belongs to the government too?

The government is taking money from benefit recipients and working people as a tax for the spare rooms in their house/flat..

Benefit money when paid to the person is not government money! Along the same lines wage money isnt..
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Income and bedroom tax is of course compulsory...by legislation. You do not have a legal right NOT to pay it if you fit the criteria to pay it. ... Then don't fit the criteria and you will not pay. The idea is to make more efficient use of social housing. i use "pay" as a loose term here as housing assistance is a benefit not a tax. How can you "pay" what you never earned in the first place? Again, why are large council houses under occupied while families wait in bed and breakfast accommodation? ... I have been taken in by nothing; People are having a certain amount of money they are entitled to taken away to pay for the privilege of keeping their homes..they are TAXED this money! .... You do have an overarching sense of entitlement. If you want some security, get a job and buy what you can afford. Risking repetition, this is a benefit, it is state money, why would the government tax itself? Where would the tax go? .... If they do not pay it they will be penalised. .... The benefit has been reduced, time to look for alternative sources of income or alternative accommodation. .... It is you who has been taken in by the spin placed on this by the government. .... We are coming out of a long recession or is that just spin too? .... People partially pay for the privilege to smoke, drink, eat, drive etc etc..by way of tax! .... What has any of that got to do with housing benefit? Are you saying smoking, drinking and driving are entitlements? .... Money taken by the government to be paid to the government is tax..the money the people pay is THIER money not government money...they are entitled to it (regardless how) or it wouldn't be their money! .... Its not their money. Its state money which the state budgets to cover a need. Times change and needs change. A tricky balancing act with a reduced number of workers. FFS WAKE UP! ... For instance, If a person is entitled to housing benefit to pay rent on a council house.. then that is the government providing money to pay back to the government...moving money "from one pocket to another in the same pair of trousers" BUT the money before it goes back belongs to the claimant! ... Its that word "entitled again. What entitles anybody to under occupy a large council house if more suitable accommodation is available? Pleased that you have finally admitted that government is providing the funding (which in your example is returning to the government). Perhaps you can explain why you believe the government is taxing itself? ..... If they do not use it for what it was claimed then that is their choice because its their money. .... It is always their choice to lose the house through non-payment of rent. Or are you saying the benefit was too large originally? .... They dont have this choice with the BT...they have to pay it because it is a tax. .... Its a reduction to the original benefit, which judging from your last was too large anyway. What is being taxed? You are still saying the government is taxing its own money.[/p][/quote]Your advice to someone who has to pay the bedroom tax is not to fit the criteria and then they wont have to pay...isn't that a bit like suggesting if someone doesn't want to fit the criteria for income tax they shouldn't work? You seem rather confused about when money belongs to a person and when it doesn't...money paid to a body be it wages or benefits belongs to that person...it is theirs to do with as they will..when some is deducted it is deducted as a tax..a tax to pay for something else as you suggest with income tax..just what does the bedroom tax pay towards? The building of new homes? If the idea was to "make more efficient use of social housing" can you say how paying money makes that work? People languish in B&Bs because Thatcher allowed council housing to be bought and they have never been replaced in any large number since. You assume too much..I have no overarching anything..An entitlement is just that and you wouldn't receive if you wasn't entitled...please dont project your attitudes onto me..Just because I oppose something and defend against it does follow that im effected by it..I have a job..I pay tax..I am my own boss and I save a lot of money on christmas company parties.. Why would the government tax itself...it doesn't...when the government allots the money to the recipient it is no longer government money..thats where you are falling down. Where does the money go from the bedroom tax? Well your opinion is it goes to "make more efficient use of social housing" Id like to see how you have come to that conclusion. The problem is not adequate accommodation for those stricken by the tax and so they are in a Heller situation (see what I did there?) to tell people to move and expect them to when there is nowhere to move to is really stupid and irresponsible. "Coming out of a long recession" LOL..Yeah right...not in our life time...keep swallowing the guff.. Im saying smoking and drinking are taxable yet are not compulsory..why would something that is compulsory if your fit the bill not be considered a tax... You ask me to wake up and accept your misunderstand of the matter while other mainstream parties also consider the compulsory payment for spare rooms as a tax...its you who need to pull the blanket of your head and get real...the tories are not for the likes of you no matter how you may aspire to be of their kind..lol...the top percentage of tories must look down at the others and laugh at their delusions of being as one with them...fools. What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement.. OH and of course if they are willing to pay tax money to the government for the house. The fact they have the money in their possession is the proof it is their money...not forgetting (regardless of the rather bizarre claim that if you pay income tax you are exempt from paying bedroom tax) that many people work and pay the BT..are you also saying that their wages belongs to the government too? The government is taking money from benefit recipients and working people as a tax for the spare rooms in their house/flat.. Benefit money when paid to the person is not government money! Along the same lines wage money isnt.. ThisYear

2:55pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
tax on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are taxes on consumption and therefore voluntary. a benefit claimant that smokes and drinks is mis-allocating their resources (i use the term "their" in the loosest possible sense as it is those that pay tax on income and NI that fund "their"). nobody forces you to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. income tax is not voluntary alas
Can you show how people paying income tax fund benefit claimants 'resources'?
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: tax on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are taxes on consumption and therefore voluntary. a benefit claimant that smokes and drinks is mis-allocating their resources (i use the term "their" in the loosest possible sense as it is those that pay tax on income and NI that fund "their"). nobody forces you to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. income tax is not voluntary alas[/p][/quote]Can you show how people paying income tax fund benefit claimants 'resources'? ThisYear

3:01pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

angryofessex wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
tax on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are taxes on consumption and therefore voluntary. a benefit claimant that smokes and drinks is mis-allocating their resources (i use the term "their" in the loosest possible sense as it is those that pay tax on income and NI that fund "their"). nobody forces you to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. income tax is not voluntary alas
Agree, although the taxes on petrol are not voluntary in most cases. I pay tax on petrol to enable me to get to work so I can pay even more tax. Tax on fags is indeed voluntary, that is unless you purchase from your local Bacy Baron, in which case the treasury receive nothing at all.
Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax?

And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive.

Fuel tax is indeed voluntary. You could bike/walk/run/cartwh
eel to work.
[quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: tax on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are taxes on consumption and therefore voluntary. a benefit claimant that smokes and drinks is mis-allocating their resources (i use the term "their" in the loosest possible sense as it is those that pay tax on income and NI that fund "their"). nobody forces you to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. income tax is not voluntary alas[/p][/quote]Agree, although the taxes on petrol are not voluntary in most cases. I pay tax on petrol to enable me to get to work so I can pay even more tax. Tax on fags is indeed voluntary, that is unless you purchase from your local Bacy Baron, in which case the treasury receive nothing at all.[/p][/quote]Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Fuel tax is indeed voluntary. You could bike/walk/run/cartwh eel to work. ThisYear

3:50pm Tue 11 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

"I am my own boss and I save a lot of money on christmas company parties."

Yeah, right. Standing on your own in a phone box with a light ale and bag of crisps ain't exactly gonna break the bank is it?
"I am my own boss and I save a lot of money on christmas company parties." Yeah, right. Standing on your own in a phone box with a light ale and bag of crisps ain't exactly gonna break the bank is it? RochfordRob

5:36pm Tue 11 Feb 14

angryofessex says...

ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
profondo asbo wrote: tax on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are taxes on consumption and therefore voluntary. a benefit claimant that smokes and drinks is mis-allocating their resources (i use the term "their" in the loosest possible sense as it is those that pay tax on income and NI that fund "their"). nobody forces you to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. income tax is not voluntary alas
Agree, although the taxes on petrol are not voluntary in most cases. I pay tax on petrol to enable me to get to work so I can pay even more tax. Tax on fags is indeed voluntary, that is unless you purchase from your local Bacy Baron, in which case the treasury receive nothing at all.
Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Fuel tax is indeed voluntary. You could bike/walk/run/cartwh eel to work.
Thanks for that. I shall start my 50 mile walk around the M25 now; get into work nice and early.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: tax on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are taxes on consumption and therefore voluntary. a benefit claimant that smokes and drinks is mis-allocating their resources (i use the term "their" in the loosest possible sense as it is those that pay tax on income and NI that fund "their"). nobody forces you to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. income tax is not voluntary alas[/p][/quote]Agree, although the taxes on petrol are not voluntary in most cases. I pay tax on petrol to enable me to get to work so I can pay even more tax. Tax on fags is indeed voluntary, that is unless you purchase from your local Bacy Baron, in which case the treasury receive nothing at all.[/p][/quote]Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Fuel tax is indeed voluntary. You could bike/walk/run/cartwh eel to work.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that. I shall start my 50 mile walk around the M25 now; get into work nice and early. angryofessex

5:45pm Tue 11 Feb 14

angryofessex says...

ThisYear wrote:
Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive.

Be careful LL, Incoherent sentences like that could land you a job at the Echo.
ThisYear wrote: Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Be careful LL, Incoherent sentences like that could land you a job at the Echo. angryofessex

6:44pm Tue 11 Feb 14

jokerbri says...

http://speye.wordpre
ss.com/2014/02/08/th
e-bedroom-tax-is-dea
d-heres-why/
http://speye.wordpre ss.com/2014/02/08/th e-bedroom-tax-is-dea d-heres-why/ jokerbri

6:46pm Tue 11 Feb 14

jokerbri says...

Court say no bedroom tax
http://speye.wordpre
ss.com/2014/02/08/th
e-bedroom-tax-is-dea
d-heres-why/
Court say no bedroom tax http://speye.wordpre ss.com/2014/02/08/th e-bedroom-tax-is-dea d-heres-why/ jokerbri

6:58pm Tue 11 Feb 14

costa-del-blowfly says...

What about people who pay road tax?

Sorry, couldn't resist.
What about people who pay road tax? Sorry, couldn't resist. costa-del-blowfly

8:28pm Tue 11 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive.

Be careful LL, Incoherent sentences like that could land you a job at the Echo.
I wouldn't worry, he'll re-arrange them and use them in another 'argument' elsewhere. It's the same old b******s regurgitated ad infinitum, you know, the worst record you ever heard going on and on and on and on - in circles.

As for council tax or whatever this issue is, should be like car rental - the bigger you rent, the more you pay.

Simple really.
[quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: ThisYear wrote: Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Be careful LL, Incoherent sentences like that could land you a job at the Echo.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't worry, he'll re-arrange them and use them in another 'argument' elsewhere. It's the same old b******s regurgitated ad infinitum, you know, the worst record you ever heard going on and on and on and on - in circles. As for council tax or whatever this issue is, should be like car rental - the bigger you rent, the more you pay. Simple really. RochfordRob

8:49pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Your advice to someone who has to pay the bedroom tax is not to fit the criteria and then they wont have to pay...isn't that a bit like suggesting if someone doesn't want to fit the criteria for income tax they shouldn't work?
...
How ironic given the link just posted by jokerbri, spot on advice yes - but we can all guess you don't fit the criteria for income tax.

Meantime you have some strange notion that possession and under occupancy of a house you do not own is sufficient reason to keep a family that deserve it more in bed and breakfast accommodation. How does that sit with your socialist principles?

The difference between wages and benefits is wages are earned by people who contribute something to the economy.

No ideas for solutions, of course not, you can always blame Thatcher but that was over 30 years ago and what did Labour do during their years apart from raid pensions.

Want some more good advise - get back into that phone box, 1980 just called and it wants its newspaper back.

Oh, almost forgot, - its a benefit.
Your advice to someone who has to pay the bedroom tax is not to fit the criteria and then they wont have to pay...isn't that a bit like suggesting if someone doesn't want to fit the criteria for income tax they shouldn't work? ... How ironic given the link just posted by jokerbri, spot on advice yes - but we can all guess you don't fit the criteria for income tax. Meantime you have some strange notion that possession and under occupancy of a house you do not own is sufficient reason to keep a family that deserve it more in bed and breakfast accommodation. How does that sit with your socialist principles? The difference between wages and benefits is wages are earned by people who contribute something to the economy. No ideas for solutions, of course not, you can always blame Thatcher but that was over 30 years ago and what did Labour do during their years apart from raid pensions. Want some more good advise - get back into that phone box, 1980 just called and it wants its newspaper back. Oh, almost forgot, - its a benefit. Alekhine

9:47pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
"I am my own boss and I save a lot of money on christmas company parties."

Yeah, right. Standing on your own in a phone box with a light ale and bag of crisps ain't exactly gonna break the bank is it?
Thats your notion of a Christmas party?

Poor soul..

Understandable though.. 'they' dont invite you back?
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: "I am my own boss and I save a lot of money on christmas company parties." Yeah, right. Standing on your own in a phone box with a light ale and bag of crisps ain't exactly gonna break the bank is it?[/p][/quote]Thats your notion of a Christmas party? Poor soul.. Understandable though.. 'they' dont invite you back? ThisYear

9:52pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
profondo asbo wrote: tax on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are taxes on consumption and therefore voluntary. a benefit claimant that smokes and drinks is mis-allocating their resources (i use the term "their" in the loosest possible sense as it is those that pay tax on income and NI that fund "their"). nobody forces you to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. income tax is not voluntary alas
Agree, although the taxes on petrol are not voluntary in most cases. I pay tax on petrol to enable me to get to work so I can pay even more tax. Tax on fags is indeed voluntary, that is unless you purchase from your local Bacy Baron, in which case the treasury receive nothing at all.
Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Fuel tax is indeed voluntary. You could bike/walk/run/cartwh eel to work.
Thanks for that. I shall start my 50 mile walk around the M25 now; get into work nice and early.
Is that any more problematic than having to downsize to accommodation that doesn't exist?

Or pay to remain in your home.

Along those lines; you could always get a taxi and pay to get to work..
[quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: tax on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are taxes on consumption and therefore voluntary. a benefit claimant that smokes and drinks is mis-allocating their resources (i use the term "their" in the loosest possible sense as it is those that pay tax on income and NI that fund "their"). nobody forces you to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. income tax is not voluntary alas[/p][/quote]Agree, although the taxes on petrol are not voluntary in most cases. I pay tax on petrol to enable me to get to work so I can pay even more tax. Tax on fags is indeed voluntary, that is unless you purchase from your local Bacy Baron, in which case the treasury receive nothing at all.[/p][/quote]Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Fuel tax is indeed voluntary. You could bike/walk/run/cartwh eel to work.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that. I shall start my 50 mile walk around the M25 now; get into work nice and early.[/p][/quote]Is that any more problematic than having to downsize to accommodation that doesn't exist? Or pay to remain in your home. Along those lines; you could always get a taxi and pay to get to work.. ThisYear

9:54pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive.

Be careful LL, Incoherent sentences like that could land you a job at the Echo.
You didn't understand the post?

Which part and Ill explain it in more simple terms for you.
[quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: ThisYear wrote: Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Be careful LL, Incoherent sentences like that could land you a job at the Echo.[/p][/quote]You didn't understand the post? Which part and Ill explain it in more simple terms for you. ThisYear

10:00pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

jokerbri wrote:
Court say no bedroom tax
http://speye.wordpre

ss.com/2014/02/08/th

e-bedroom-tax-is-dea

d-heres-why/
*Paragraph 14 of the judgment then goes on to say:

“The Tribunal finds that neither of the two smallest rooms are bedrooms. They do not contain beds, they are not used for sleeping*

Proof this was a bedroom tax and not 'spare room subsidy'!
[quote][p][bold]jokerbri[/bold] wrote: Court say no bedroom tax http://speye.wordpre ss.com/2014/02/08/th e-bedroom-tax-is-dea d-heres-why/[/p][/quote]*Paragraph 14 of the judgment then goes on to say: “The Tribunal finds that neither of the two smallest rooms are bedrooms. They do not contain beds, they are not used for sleeping* Proof this was a bedroom tax and not 'spare room subsidy'! ThisYear

10:03pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive.

Be careful LL, Incoherent sentences like that could land you a job at the Echo.
I wouldn't worry, he'll re-arrange them and use them in another 'argument' elsewhere. It's the same old b******s regurgitated ad infinitum, you know, the worst record you ever heard going on and on and on and on - in circles.

As for council tax or whatever this issue is, should be like car rental - the bigger you rent, the more you pay.

Simple really.
Oh go away...your pencil has been blunted..you cant get away with racial slur anymore and even your racial slant is now mild to the effect of being redundant.

*Simple really* Yes you are.
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: ThisYear wrote: Can we take it, by your lack of mention of it, that you realise your bizarre notion that paying income tax makes you exempt from pay bedroom tax? And that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Be careful LL, Incoherent sentences like that could land you a job at the Echo.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't worry, he'll re-arrange them and use them in another 'argument' elsewhere. It's the same old b******s regurgitated ad infinitum, you know, the worst record you ever heard going on and on and on and on - in circles. As for council tax or whatever this issue is, should be like car rental - the bigger you rent, the more you pay. Simple really.[/p][/quote]Oh go away...your pencil has been blunted..you cant get away with racial slur anymore and even your racial slant is now mild to the effect of being redundant. *Simple really* Yes you are. ThisYear

10:48pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
Your advice to someone who has to pay the bedroom tax is not to fit the criteria and then they wont have to pay...isn't that a bit like suggesting if someone doesn't want to fit the criteria for income tax they shouldn't work?
...
How ironic given the link just posted by jokerbri, spot on advice yes - but we can all guess you don't fit the criteria for income tax.

Meantime you have some strange notion that possession and under occupancy of a house you do not own is sufficient reason to keep a family that deserve it more in bed and breakfast accommodation. How does that sit with your socialist principles?

The difference between wages and benefits is wages are earned by people who contribute something to the economy.

No ideas for solutions, of course not, you can always blame Thatcher but that was over 30 years ago and what did Labour do during their years apart from raid pensions.

Want some more good advise - get back into that phone box, 1980 just called and it wants its newspaper back.

Oh, almost forgot, - its a benefit.
How does my comparing your suggestion re: "dont fit the criteria" to not fitting the criteria for income tax become ironic in regards to bedroom tax being decided against by a tribunal..you really are a melon.

Why do you feel I dont fit the criteria for paying income tax?

Because I make mention of that..so you wait for my comments to provide comment for you? Think for yourself sprout-brain

How on earth could under-occupancy of a house be a reason to remain a tenant in said house?

I forgot how bizarre you are.

Can you tell all how a family living in B&B are more deserving of a house lived in by a pensioner for years than the pensioner?

Even the government do not claim or imply that or they wouldn't just accept money to allow the status quo to remain..

You give me a label (socialist) and then ask me how my comments sit with that designated ideology! Are you for real?

The issue of wage and benefits is not the crux of the matter. The matter is both are monies that belong to those who have to pay them in tax..can you get your head around that?

Btw, Why do people get benefits?

Blame? Are you saying Thatcher didn't sell of whole swathes of council housing?

I did of course imply labour didn't correct the situation...that implication was within my comment about there not being many houses built since they were sold off.

More bizarre comment from you...give the bong a night of now and then will you not?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Your advice to someone who has to pay the bedroom tax is not to fit the criteria and then they wont have to pay...isn't that a bit like suggesting if someone doesn't want to fit the criteria for income tax they shouldn't work? ... How ironic given the link just posted by jokerbri, spot on advice yes - but we can all guess you don't fit the criteria for income tax. Meantime you have some strange notion that possession and under occupancy of a house you do not own is sufficient reason to keep a family that deserve it more in bed and breakfast accommodation. How does that sit with your socialist principles? The difference between wages and benefits is wages are earned by people who contribute something to the economy. No ideas for solutions, of course not, you can always blame Thatcher but that was over 30 years ago and what did Labour do during their years apart from raid pensions. Want some more good advise - get back into that phone box, 1980 just called and it wants its newspaper back. Oh, almost forgot, - its a benefit.[/p][/quote]How does my comparing your suggestion re: "dont fit the criteria" to not fitting the criteria for income tax become ironic in regards to bedroom tax being decided against by a tribunal..you really are a melon. Why do you feel I dont fit the criteria for paying income tax? Because I make mention of that..so you wait for my comments to provide comment for you? Think for yourself sprout-brain How on earth could under-occupancy of a house be a reason to remain a tenant in said house? I forgot how bizarre you are. Can you tell all how a family living in B&B are more deserving of a house lived in by a pensioner for years than the pensioner? Even the government do not claim or imply that or they wouldn't just accept money to allow the status quo to remain.. You give me a label (socialist) and then ask me how my comments sit with that designated ideology! Are you for real? The issue of wage and benefits is not the crux of the matter. The matter is both are monies that belong to those who have to pay them in tax..can you get your head around that? Btw, Why do people get benefits? Blame? Are you saying Thatcher didn't sell of whole swathes of council housing? I did of course imply labour didn't correct the situation...that implication was within my comment about there not being many houses built since they were sold off. More bizarre comment from you...give the bong a night of now and then will you not? ThisYear

10:56pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Stamper2 wrote:
Unbelievable

So now us taxpayers are giving these scroungers £1500 free of charge, plus other benefits. That is what we are all paying Council Tax for!

Why don't these bums stop having loads of children and get jobs like the rest of us. They are clearly specialised in sponging off of society.
What makes you think they are not taxpayers? You perhaps think they live in council houses while being CEO's of large corporations Or offshore multimillionaires? Or TV Celebs..

We all pay tax in one shape or form.

£1500 would barely cover the removal fee.
the assumption (which is totally logical) is that they are benefit claimants so they are unlikely to be tax payers. your assertion that the average benefit claimant is a taxpayer is illogical and low probability therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
Can I refer you to a comment made by another on this thread.

"Government figures stated 94% of all Housing Benefit claims are from working people"

You logical assumption doesn't seem so logical when the information imparted is considered.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stamper2[/bold] wrote: Unbelievable So now us taxpayers are giving these scroungers £1500 free of charge, plus other benefits. That is what we are all paying Council Tax for! Why don't these bums stop having loads of children and get jobs like the rest of us. They are clearly specialised in sponging off of society.[/p][/quote]What makes you think they are not taxpayers? You perhaps think they live in council houses while being CEO's of large corporations Or offshore multimillionaires? Or TV Celebs.. We all pay tax in one shape or form. £1500 would barely cover the removal fee.[/p][/quote]the assumption (which is totally logical) is that they are benefit claimants so they are unlikely to be tax payers. your assertion that the average benefit claimant is a taxpayer is illogical and low probability therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.[/p][/quote]Can I refer you to a comment made by another on this thread. "Government figures stated 94% of all Housing Benefit claims are from working people" You logical assumption doesn't seem so logical when the information imparted is considered. ThisYear

12:36am Wed 12 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property

It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted.

The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax?

Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax.



*Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area.

These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out!

A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing
reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households".

Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.*

Oh the shame!



Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy

* Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996.

The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary
evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant

The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom.

Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January.

Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.*

Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite!
IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!

Tax is when the government takes some of your money.

The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.
Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem.

Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax?

The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for.

The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs.

So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax

You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.
I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax.

What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means.

I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property.

What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them.

Give them to somebody that deserves them!!!
I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently..

You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home?

There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"?

Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family?

The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.
they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer
We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves!
how much tax do benefit claimants pay?
How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised.

https://www.gov.uk/t






axable-income/state-






benefits-that-are-ta






xable


State benefits that are taxable
The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are:

the State Pension
Jobseeker’s Allowance
Carer’s Allowance
Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based)
Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it)
Bereavement Allowance
Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme
Widowed Parent’s Allowance
Widow’s pension
as we already established, the state pension is not a benefit so your attempt at a "technical" answer was technically incorrect before we even get into the numbers of how many benefit claimants actually end up paying tax at all which in 99.9% (recurring) of cases is a big fat doughnut. the pension credit is a benefit as that is means tested
The tax on benefits is taken BEFORE the benefit is received..

It is clear the benefits mentioned are taxed..ergo people on these benefits pay tax from them...then there is the other tax they will pay in their everyday lives..

Tax is king...we all pay it.

Those who like to specify a certain tax as being the mainstay of the country, delude themselves in their effort to delude others...

Tax is tax is tax..
nonsense. the benefit is paid gross. you appear to be deluded
Are you suggesting that people receive a benefit and then from it pay the tax owed on it?
what tax is owed? everyone has a personal allowance of £9,440 per annum on which no tax is payable. those on jobseekers are unlikely to trouble the tax scorer except when they pay duty on their cigarettes!
Good point...if you are working you can earn £9,440 per annum on which no tax is payable YET if you receive certain benefits, although they might not get above this level, they are taxed as the Govt website clearly states..If you dont accept that, take it up with the government.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]I n April 2013 the Government introduced a tax on spare bedrooms for people living in housing association houses / property It is a tax. but called a spare-room subsidy to disguise this. The same way the hated "Poll Tax" was likewise disguised. The fact is rather than giving up a sum because you fit the criteria you actually have a sum deducted. The income tax works the same way...you fit a certain criteria and depending on the level within that you have a sum taken away! Is the income tax not a tax? Bit more to take away the delusion the bedroom tax isnt a tax. *Freedom of Information requests to different councils showed For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit. Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. These people are being taxed out of their homes not subsided out! A United Nations report on UK housing conditions calling for the suspension of the bedroom tax by Raquel Rolnik, UN special rapporteur on housing reiterated her earlier call for the bedroom tax policy to be suspended and reviewed because it negatively "impacts on the right to adequate housing and general wellbeing of many vulnerable individuals and households". Appointed by the UN human rights council, spent the previous mission last year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. She said Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation.* Oh the shame! Bit of info for those who might find themselves ATTACKED by this despicable policy * Last month the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conceded that a drafting error in the "maximum rent (social sector)", or bedroom tax, means that tenants getting housing benefit since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the tax due to the inadvertent widening of transitional protection put in place for private tenants in 1996. The safest way for tenants to protect their position is to appeal to a Tribunal against last year's bedroom tax decision no more than 13 months after it was made. If the council agrees the exemption applies it will change the decision anyway. But if the council is not persuaded by the evidence it will have to submit the appeal to the tribunal, which decides cases on balance of probability: if the tenant's story sounds plausible and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary, the appeal will probably succeed. Appeals should be sent to the council in writing, signed by the tenant The law will be changed to close this loophole. But tenants can still appeal on other grounds. The number of bedrooms specified in a tenancy agreement or asset register is only one of the factors used to identify a bedroom for housing benefit purposes. The way a room is used and furnished weighs heavily; other relevant factors include the size/shape of the room, its position in the dwelling, its past use and any special reasons why the tenant does not use the room as a bedroom. Some of those appealing have successfully argued that the bedroom tax breached their human rights, although a tribunal's jurisdiction to provide a remedy in such cases is not straightforward. Things may become clearer when the court of appeal issues its reserved judgment on a human rights challenge to the bedroom tax, heard in January. Meanwhile the clear message for tenants is: don't despair, some people may still escape the bedroom tax. An appeal costs nothing and the possible arguments are more promising than you might think.* Tax is what we all pay...do not think you belong to some elite![/p][/quote]IT IS NOT A TAX!!!!!! Tax is when the government takes some of your money. The reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy means that less money taken in tax from hard working people to be given in handouts to allow people not working to live in a bigger house that they neither need, nor can afford.[/p][/quote]Rubbish..it is a tax and an example of how it is a tax has been explained to you ie income tax..if you cant see that or understand that then thats your problem. Are you seriously stating that only working people and even then "only hard working people" pay tax? The size of the taxed persons house come less into their need as the need of the authorities to provide accommodation that can be exchanged for. The house owner might certainly not be able to afford the house after the tax is heaped on their backs. So try to get over yourself..we all pay tax You seem too emotionally close to the matter of paying tax to give the contention serious thought.[/p][/quote]I have no issue with paying my fair share amount of tax. What I find morally wrong is people that are not working, living in houses, bigger than they need, being paid for by working people, struggling to pay their own rent/mortgage/bills, often in smaller properties than they would like, as they are living within their means. I live in a four bedroom house and I have two spare rooms but I pay the mortgage. If I could not afford the mortgage, I would have to sell and move to a smaller property. What right does someone with no income have to spare rooms if they cannot afford to pay for them. Give them to somebody that deserves them!!![/p][/quote]I bet if the bedroom tax was spread right across the board, and you had to pay for your two spare rooms you might look on things a little differently.. You find it morally wrong that perhaps an old age pensioner couple who's family have left home should want to remain in their home? There being no suitable accommodation available for them they cannot move and so their money per week is reduced through no fault of their own..You dont find that "morally wrong"? Consider this then..how does taking money of these old people provide even on home for another couple/family? The politicians wanted to claw back money and to do that they relied on the begrudging attitude people in this country have to others to get this despicable tax across..so again Id say with full confidence, if this tax was right across the board there would of been marches and all sorts and it would of been withdrawn...which it will be when the unelected government are put out of office the next GE.[/p][/quote]they are tenants and their rent is paid for by the taxpayer. security of tenure is not available if you throw yourself on the taxpayer[/p][/quote]We are all tax payers! They throw themselves on themselves![/p][/quote]how much tax do benefit claimants pay?[/p][/quote]How much tax does any individual pay?...Its all personalised. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable State benefits that are taxable The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are: the State Pension Jobseeker’s Allowance Carer’s Allowance Employment and Support Allowance (contribution based) Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it) Bereavement Allowance Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme Widowed Parent’s Allowance Widow’s pension[/p][/quote]as we already established, the state pension is not a benefit so your attempt at a "technical" answer was technically incorrect before we even get into the numbers of how many benefit claimants actually end up paying tax at all which in 99.9% (recurring) of cases is a big fat doughnut. the pension credit is a benefit as that is means tested[/p][/quote]The tax on benefits is taken BEFORE the benefit is received.. It is clear the benefits mentioned are taxed..ergo people on these benefits pay tax from them...then there is the other tax they will pay in their everyday lives.. Tax is king...we all pay it. Those who like to specify a certain tax as being the mainstay of the country, delude themselves in their effort to delude others... Tax is tax is tax..[/p][/quote]nonsense. the benefit is paid gross. you appear to be deluded[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that people receive a benefit and then from it pay the tax owed on it?[/p][/quote]what tax is owed? everyone has a personal allowance of £9,440 per annum on which no tax is payable. those on jobseekers are unlikely to trouble the tax scorer except when they pay duty on their cigarettes![/p][/quote]Good point...if you are working you can earn £9,440 per annum on which no tax is payable YET if you receive certain benefits, although they might not get above this level, they are taxed as the Govt website clearly states..If you dont accept that, take it up with the government. ThisYear

11:57am Wed 12 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

When i suggested the best appraoch was not fit the criteria, i knew nothing of any tribunal decision. Neither did you apparently as your response was to make some absurd comparison to income tax and the personal decision not to work in order not to meet that set of criteria. The timing of Jokerbri's post struck me as ironic but i guess you don't get irony.
...
Why do you feel I dont fit the criteria for paying income tax?
...
Just a hunch.
...
How on earth could under-occupancy of a house be a reason to remain a tenant in said house?
....

Well you said it was (yet another) entitlement.

qte
What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement..
unqte

you really should read you own messages before going off half cocked. Put what passes for a brain in gear first.
....
You give me a label (socialist) and then ask me how my comments sit with that designated ideology! Are you for real?
...
You bring up Thatcher and call me a tory and now you are complaining about labels? --- oh purleeeese.
...
Can you tell all how a family living in B&B are more deserving of a house lived in by a pensioner for years than the pensioner?
....

Does a pensioner need 4 bedrooms? Are there really no flats available to move to?

There is an entire generation queuing up for a council house. Yet you seem to think it is right that under occupancy is allowed. More than that, you say it is an entitlement. Seems like this poorly thought out policy was atleast an attempt to make more efficient use of social housing. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs - Bevan. Not working is it.

This offer of cash to relocate plus a reduction to benefit (its not a tax and i have already explained why) is a typical government carrot and stick approach to a difficult situation. I expect you understand that well enough from your experiences on Brighton beach.
When i suggested the best appraoch was not fit the criteria, i knew nothing of any tribunal decision. Neither did you apparently as your response was to make some absurd comparison to income tax and the personal decision not to work in order not to meet that set of criteria. The timing of Jokerbri's post struck me as ironic but i guess you don't get irony. ... Why do you feel I dont fit the criteria for paying income tax? ... Just a hunch. ... How on earth could under-occupancy of a house be a reason to remain a tenant in said house? .... Well you said it was (yet another) entitlement. qte What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement.. unqte you really should read you own messages before going off half cocked. Put what passes for a brain in gear first. .... You give me a label (socialist) and then ask me how my comments sit with that designated ideology! Are you for real? ... You bring up Thatcher and call me a tory and now you are complaining about labels? --- oh purleeeese. ... Can you tell all how a family living in B&B are more deserving of a house lived in by a pensioner for years than the pensioner? .... Does a pensioner need 4 bedrooms? Are there really no flats available to move to? There is an entire generation queuing up for a council house. Yet you seem to think it is right that under occupancy is allowed. More than that, you say it is an entitlement. Seems like this poorly thought out policy was atleast an attempt to make more efficient use of social housing. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs - Bevan. Not working is it. This offer of cash to relocate plus a reduction to benefit (its not a tax and i have already explained why) is a typical government carrot and stick approach to a difficult situation. I expect you understand that well enough from your experiences on Brighton beach. Alekhine

12:58pm Wed 12 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
When i suggested the best appraoch was not fit the criteria, i knew nothing of any tribunal decision. Neither did you apparently as your response was to make some absurd comparison to income tax and the personal decision not to work in order not to meet that set of criteria. The timing of Jokerbri's post struck me as ironic but i guess you don't get irony.
...
Why do you feel I dont fit the criteria for paying income tax?
...
Just a hunch.
...
How on earth could under-occupancy of a house be a reason to remain a tenant in said house?
....

Well you said it was (yet another) entitlement.

qte
What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement..
unqte

you really should read you own messages before going off half cocked. Put what passes for a brain in gear first.
....
You give me a label (socialist) and then ask me how my comments sit with that designated ideology! Are you for real?
...
You bring up Thatcher and call me a tory and now you are complaining about labels? --- oh purleeeese.
...
Can you tell all how a family living in B&B are more deserving of a house lived in by a pensioner for years than the pensioner?
....

Does a pensioner need 4 bedrooms? Are there really no flats available to move to?

There is an entire generation queuing up for a council house. Yet you seem to think it is right that under occupancy is allowed. More than that, you say it is an entitlement. Seems like this poorly thought out policy was atleast an attempt to make more efficient use of social housing. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs - Bevan. Not working is it.

This offer of cash to relocate plus a reduction to benefit (its not a tax and i have already explained why) is a typical government carrot and stick approach to a difficult situation. I expect you understand that well enough from your experiences on Brighton beach.
The fact you cant understand the point I made does not make it an absurd point just one that is beyond your comprehension. Hence my caring advise lay off the bong..intermittently at least.

AS regards to Hunches..they are like paper boats..bound to sink.

I of course didn't say under- occupancy of house was in itself an entitlement..that was your warped reasoning.

If a person is living in a house that just happens now to be to be considered too big by some new policy, then the people in that home have an entitlement to stay there.. NOT because it is too big, but because of the other myriad reasons...reasons which to a person with even a little grasp of reality would be quite obvious.

Im not complaining about labels, I make the point you give me one and then ask how I can do this that and the other as part of the label you have designated to me...Have I called you a tory?

Can you reframe from using american girl high school terminology when debating with me..the "whatever, omg, back at ya, purleeese" grates on the teeth of many people Im sure.

It really not the case of whether a pensioner needs 4 bedrooms.. but is there a suitable alternative to the pensioners needs?

Let look at it this way...a single elderly man earning £100,000k a year...should he take a less rewarding job to allow a man with 3 children to have his job?

Why should a person give up a level of comfort they have (which they probably spent years acquiring) to move to accommodation with a lower standard..would you?

Isn't this just the sort of thing that could eventually lead to the elderly being thought of as burdens on society?

Why should someone move from a house to a flat?

As for the entire generation, they should be demanding the government build more houses to replace those sold off. Perhaps all former council houses should have to revert to being sold back to councils if they are to be sold, rather than making the banks more money as middle men. wasn't that what Thatchers sell off was all about.

again you make mention of under- occupancy as being an entitlement! Rather than this just being part and parcel of the issue..

You have explained nothing that would suggest this is not a tax..For better minds than yours have stated and shown it is a tax..even iv done that..go away and look at the issue without any political bias and maybe one day (when it has been repealed) you will see it for what it was.

The government are our servants (this latest lot have come into our employ without being hired)..when do servants devise carrot and sticks for their employers?

You mate are a sheep...go baa baa and "whatever...omg...ta
lk to the hand" else where.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: When i suggested the best appraoch was not fit the criteria, i knew nothing of any tribunal decision. Neither did you apparently as your response was to make some absurd comparison to income tax and the personal decision not to work in order not to meet that set of criteria. The timing of Jokerbri's post struck me as ironic but i guess you don't get irony. ... Why do you feel I dont fit the criteria for paying income tax? ... Just a hunch. ... How on earth could under-occupancy of a house be a reason to remain a tenant in said house? .... Well you said it was (yet another) entitlement. qte What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement.. unqte you really should read you own messages before going off half cocked. Put what passes for a brain in gear first. .... You give me a label (socialist) and then ask me how my comments sit with that designated ideology! Are you for real? ... You bring up Thatcher and call me a tory and now you are complaining about labels? --- oh purleeeese. ... Can you tell all how a family living in B&B are more deserving of a house lived in by a pensioner for years than the pensioner? .... Does a pensioner need 4 bedrooms? Are there really no flats available to move to? There is an entire generation queuing up for a council house. Yet you seem to think it is right that under occupancy is allowed. More than that, you say it is an entitlement. Seems like this poorly thought out policy was atleast an attempt to make more efficient use of social housing. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs - Bevan. Not working is it. This offer of cash to relocate plus a reduction to benefit (its not a tax and i have already explained why) is a typical government carrot and stick approach to a difficult situation. I expect you understand that well enough from your experiences on Brighton beach.[/p][/quote]The fact you cant understand the point I made does not make it an absurd point just one that is beyond your comprehension. Hence my caring advise lay off the bong..intermittently at least. AS regards to Hunches..they are like paper boats..bound to sink. I of course didn't say under- occupancy of house was in itself an entitlement..that was your warped reasoning. If a person is living in a house that just happens now to be to be considered too big by some new policy, then the people in that home have an entitlement to stay there.. NOT because it is too big, but because of the other myriad reasons...reasons which to a person with even a little grasp of reality would be quite obvious. Im not complaining about labels, I make the point you give me one and then ask how I can do this that and the other as part of the label you have designated to me...Have I called you a tory? Can you reframe from using american girl high school terminology when debating with me..the "whatever, omg, back at ya, purleeese" grates on the teeth of many people Im sure. It really not the case of whether a pensioner needs 4 bedrooms.. but is there a suitable alternative to the pensioners needs? Let look at it this way...a single elderly man earning £100,000k a year...should he take a less rewarding job to allow a man with 3 children to have his job? Why should a person give up a level of comfort they have (which they probably spent years acquiring) to move to accommodation with a lower standard..would you? Isn't this just the sort of thing that could eventually lead to the elderly being thought of as burdens on society? Why should someone move from a house to a flat? As for the entire generation, they should be demanding the government build more houses to replace those sold off. Perhaps all former council houses should have to revert to being sold back to councils if they are to be sold, rather than making the banks more money as middle men. wasn't that what Thatchers sell off was all about. again you make mention of under- occupancy as being an entitlement! Rather than this just being part and parcel of the issue.. You have explained nothing that would suggest this is not a tax..For better minds than yours have stated and shown it is a tax..even iv done that..go away and look at the issue without any political bias and maybe one day (when it has been repealed) you will see it for what it was. The government are our servants (this latest lot have come into our employ without being hired)..when do servants devise carrot and sticks for their employers? You mate are a sheep...go baa baa and "whatever...omg...ta lk to the hand" else where. ThisYear

1:00pm Wed 12 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
When i suggested the best appraoch was not fit the criteria, i knew nothing of any tribunal decision. Neither did you apparently as your response was to make some absurd comparison to income tax and the personal decision not to work in order not to meet that set of criteria. The timing of Jokerbri's post struck me as ironic but i guess you don't get irony.
...
Why do you feel I dont fit the criteria for paying income tax?
...
Just a hunch.
...
How on earth could under-occupancy of a house be a reason to remain a tenant in said house?
....

Well you said it was (yet another) entitlement.

qte
What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement..
unqte

you really should read you own messages before going off half cocked. Put what passes for a brain in gear first.
....
You give me a label (socialist) and then ask me how my comments sit with that designated ideology! Are you for real?
...
You bring up Thatcher and call me a tory and now you are complaining about labels? --- oh purleeeese.
...
Can you tell all how a family living in B&B are more deserving of a house lived in by a pensioner for years than the pensioner?
....

Does a pensioner need 4 bedrooms? Are there really no flats available to move to?

There is an entire generation queuing up for a council house. Yet you seem to think it is right that under occupancy is allowed. More than that, you say it is an entitlement. Seems like this poorly thought out policy was atleast an attempt to make more efficient use of social housing. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs - Bevan. Not working is it.

This offer of cash to relocate plus a reduction to benefit (its not a tax and i have already explained why) is a typical government carrot and stick approach to a difficult situation. I expect you understand that well enough from your experiences on Brighton beach.
As for "Brighton beach" I think you have the wrong guy...was it dark?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: When i suggested the best appraoch was not fit the criteria, i knew nothing of any tribunal decision. Neither did you apparently as your response was to make some absurd comparison to income tax and the personal decision not to work in order not to meet that set of criteria. The timing of Jokerbri's post struck me as ironic but i guess you don't get irony. ... Why do you feel I dont fit the criteria for paying income tax? ... Just a hunch. ... How on earth could under-occupancy of a house be a reason to remain a tenant in said house? .... Well you said it was (yet another) entitlement. qte What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement.. unqte you really should read you own messages before going off half cocked. Put what passes for a brain in gear first. .... You give me a label (socialist) and then ask me how my comments sit with that designated ideology! Are you for real? ... You bring up Thatcher and call me a tory and now you are complaining about labels? --- oh purleeeese. ... Can you tell all how a family living in B&B are more deserving of a house lived in by a pensioner for years than the pensioner? .... Does a pensioner need 4 bedrooms? Are there really no flats available to move to? There is an entire generation queuing up for a council house. Yet you seem to think it is right that under occupancy is allowed. More than that, you say it is an entitlement. Seems like this poorly thought out policy was atleast an attempt to make more efficient use of social housing. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs - Bevan. Not working is it. This offer of cash to relocate plus a reduction to benefit (its not a tax and i have already explained why) is a typical government carrot and stick approach to a difficult situation. I expect you understand that well enough from your experiences on Brighton beach.[/p][/quote]As for "Brighton beach" I think you have the wrong guy...was it dark? ThisYear

1:40pm Wed 12 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

ThisYear wrote:
RochfordRob wrote: "I am my own boss and I save a lot of money on christmas company parties." Yeah, right. Standing on your own in a phone box with a light ale and bag of crisps ain't exactly gonna break the bank is it?
Thats your notion of a Christmas party? Poor soul.. Understandable though.. 'they' dont invite you back?
No, i'ts my notion of yours. Jeez, I know you don't write very well, and reading isn't exactly your forté is it? Add understanding and comprehension to the list too.

I'd label you retarded, but that's unfair to retards - they are brighter.

Glad you read my posts and reply to them though. Every time without fail.

Sucker.

ha ha ha

BTW give the old racist meme a rest eh? As far as I can recall the last person bringing race into a thread here was you when you assumed the Nigerian woman was one of your favoured minorities. You soon shut up as soon as you realised.

Here, have another maggot. Dunno why I bait the line though, you bite every single time.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: "I am my own boss and I save a lot of money on christmas company parties." Yeah, right. Standing on your own in a phone box with a light ale and bag of crisps ain't exactly gonna break the bank is it?[/p][/quote]Thats your notion of a Christmas party? Poor soul.. Understandable though.. 'they' dont invite you back?[/p][/quote]No, i'ts my notion of yours. Jeez, I know you don't write very well, and reading isn't exactly your forté is it? Add understanding and comprehension to the list too. I'd label you retarded, but that's unfair to retards - they are brighter. Glad you read my posts and reply to them though. Every time without fail. Sucker. ha ha ha BTW give the old racist meme a rest eh? As far as I can recall the last person bringing race into a thread here was you when you assumed the Nigerian woman was one of your favoured minorities. You soon shut up as soon as you realised. Here, have another maggot. Dunno why I bait the line though, you bite every single time. RochfordRob

2:05pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

How can taking a bed out of a room to make it not a bedroom be compared to quitting work and throwing yourself on the taxpayer?The comparison is patently absurd.

There is a huge shortage of family council houses, but not quite so for flats.

qte
What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement..
unqte

Your twisted English needs sorting out and you are making the large assumption that there IS nowhere else available. In your later post you mentioned other reasons to retain possession apart from the house being too big. What would they be then?
....
Let look at it this way...a single elderly man earning £100,000k a year...should he take a less rewarding job to allow a man with 3 children to have his job?
.....

A man of whatever age earning 100K must have the skills to hold that job otherwise somebody else would already have it. How can that be compared to the state giving a family a house to fit their needs? Looks like you are the master of absurd comparisons today.

In order to pay tax you first have to produce or service something which has a value. Housing benefit is state money which has already been collected as tax. Does the taxman receive any extra funds overall by giving you slightly less of it? No because nothing has been produced, It is a benefit. Not a matter of politics here just logic.

Insults and labels, you are out of argument then.

Right now my paper boat is still afloat.
How can taking a bed out of a room to make it not a bedroom be compared to quitting work and throwing yourself on the taxpayer?The comparison is patently absurd. There is a huge shortage of family council houses, but not quite so for flats. qte What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement.. unqte Your twisted English needs sorting out and you are making the large assumption that there IS nowhere else available. In your later post you mentioned other reasons to retain possession apart from the house being too big. What would they be then? .... Let look at it this way...a single elderly man earning £100,000k a year...should he take a less rewarding job to allow a man with 3 children to have his job? ..... A man of whatever age earning 100K must have the skills to hold that job otherwise somebody else would already have it. How can that be compared to the state giving a family a house to fit their needs? Looks like you are the master of absurd comparisons today. In order to pay tax you first have to produce or service something which has a value. Housing benefit is state money which has already been collected as tax. Does the taxman receive any extra funds overall by giving you slightly less of it? No because nothing has been produced, It is a benefit. Not a matter of politics here just logic. Insults and labels, you are out of argument then. Right now my paper boat is still afloat. Alekhine

2:07pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: When i suggested the best appraoch was not fit the criteria, i knew nothing of any tribunal decision. Neither did you apparently as your response was to make some absurd comparison to income tax and the personal decision not to work in order not to meet that set of criteria. The timing of Jokerbri's post struck me as ironic but i guess you don't get irony. ... Why do you feel I dont fit the criteria for paying income tax? ... Just a hunch. ... How on earth could under-occupancy of a house be a reason to remain a tenant in said house? .... Well you said it was (yet another) entitlement. qte What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement.. unqte you really should read you own messages before going off half cocked. Put what passes for a brain in gear first. .... You give me a label (socialist) and then ask me how my comments sit with that designated ideology! Are you for real? ... You bring up Thatcher and call me a tory and now you are complaining about labels? --- oh purleeeese. ... Can you tell all how a family living in B&B are more deserving of a house lived in by a pensioner for years than the pensioner? .... Does a pensioner need 4 bedrooms? Are there really no flats available to move to? There is an entire generation queuing up for a council house. Yet you seem to think it is right that under occupancy is allowed. More than that, you say it is an entitlement. Seems like this poorly thought out policy was atleast an attempt to make more efficient use of social housing. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs - Bevan. Not working is it. This offer of cash to relocate plus a reduction to benefit (its not a tax and i have already explained why) is a typical government carrot and stick approach to a difficult situation. I expect you understand that well enough from your experiences on Brighton beach.
As for "Brighton beach" I think you have the wrong guy...was it dark?
Not sure, the rope came untied and it ran off.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: When i suggested the best appraoch was not fit the criteria, i knew nothing of any tribunal decision. Neither did you apparently as your response was to make some absurd comparison to income tax and the personal decision not to work in order not to meet that set of criteria. The timing of Jokerbri's post struck me as ironic but i guess you don't get irony. ... Why do you feel I dont fit the criteria for paying income tax? ... Just a hunch. ... How on earth could under-occupancy of a house be a reason to remain a tenant in said house? .... Well you said it was (yet another) entitlement. qte What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement.. unqte you really should read you own messages before going off half cocked. Put what passes for a brain in gear first. .... You give me a label (socialist) and then ask me how my comments sit with that designated ideology! Are you for real? ... You bring up Thatcher and call me a tory and now you are complaining about labels? --- oh purleeeese. ... Can you tell all how a family living in B&B are more deserving of a house lived in by a pensioner for years than the pensioner? .... Does a pensioner need 4 bedrooms? Are there really no flats available to move to? There is an entire generation queuing up for a council house. Yet you seem to think it is right that under occupancy is allowed. More than that, you say it is an entitlement. Seems like this poorly thought out policy was atleast an attempt to make more efficient use of social housing. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs - Bevan. Not working is it. This offer of cash to relocate plus a reduction to benefit (its not a tax and i have already explained why) is a typical government carrot and stick approach to a difficult situation. I expect you understand that well enough from your experiences on Brighton beach.[/p][/quote]As for "Brighton beach" I think you have the wrong guy...was it dark?[/p][/quote]Not sure, the rope came untied and it ran off. Alekhine

5:05pm Wed 12 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
RochfordRob wrote: "I am my own boss and I save a lot of money on christmas company parties." Yeah, right. Standing on your own in a phone box with a light ale and bag of crisps ain't exactly gonna break the bank is it?
Thats your notion of a Christmas party? Poor soul.. Understandable though.. 'they' dont invite you back?
No, i'ts my notion of yours. Jeez, I know you don't write very well, and reading isn't exactly your forté is it? Add understanding and comprehension to the list too.

I'd label you retarded, but that's unfair to retards - they are brighter.

Glad you read my posts and reply to them though. Every time without fail.

Sucker.

ha ha ha

BTW give the old racist meme a rest eh? As far as I can recall the last person bringing race into a thread here was you when you assumed the Nigerian woman was one of your favoured minorities. You soon shut up as soon as you realised.

Here, have another maggot. Dunno why I bait the line though, you bite every single time.
"No" No? What do you mean No? It is your notion of a christmas party, you say so...Derrrrrrrr.

It would seem you dont know what you mean..as evidenced by your denial of what you notion is...any bearing on you retiring early?

Do I reply to your posts or you to mine..Do you know? I know I dont..it would need every reply from both to be looked at to see which it is..when you consider you started your 'career' on here as a racial slurrer and now can only rely on such posts as you last..its a wonder you reply at all now your restricted..lol

I think when replying to a poster all past attitudes by that poster should be considered, and if warranted be brought into the equation...what is or isn't warranted is of course down to the poster replying..obviously.
.

It does seem you got the thread you make mention of wiped clean.. " The joys of 'Diversity' and 'multi-culturalism' " comment giving evidence of your stance on the matter...bit like the time you got the thread which contained your filthy innuendo and swearing on a thread about a young girl wiped...btw..both do still exist you know? ;)

Oh dear the " I bait you" claim...to try lessen the impact of being challenged every-time you angle from a derogatory racial perspective..look at the posts loopy and you will see how you have responded to posts by me rather than vise versa...the main thing is you know you cant racially slur, smear and angle with impunity or immunity ...thats the bugbear you bear...lol..

Can I just point out how you are displaying your hypocrite side? When did you last post on topic in this thread? Yet you complain when I am distracted to deal with racial comments...* not to myself*.."cast away the worm wont mind" lol.
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: "I am my own boss and I save a lot of money on christmas company parties." Yeah, right. Standing on your own in a phone box with a light ale and bag of crisps ain't exactly gonna break the bank is it?[/p][/quote]Thats your notion of a Christmas party? Poor soul.. Understandable though.. 'they' dont invite you back?[/p][/quote]No, i'ts my notion of yours. Jeez, I know you don't write very well, and reading isn't exactly your forté is it? Add understanding and comprehension to the list too. I'd label you retarded, but that's unfair to retards - they are brighter. Glad you read my posts and reply to them though. Every time without fail. Sucker. ha ha ha BTW give the old racist meme a rest eh? As far as I can recall the last person bringing race into a thread here was you when you assumed the Nigerian woman was one of your favoured minorities. You soon shut up as soon as you realised. Here, have another maggot. Dunno why I bait the line though, you bite every single time.[/p][/quote]"No" No? What do you mean No? It is your notion of a christmas party, you say so...Derrrrrrrr. It would seem you dont know what you mean..as evidenced by your denial of what you notion is...any bearing on you retiring early? Do I reply to your posts or you to mine..Do you know? I know I dont..it would need every reply from both to be looked at to see which it is..when you consider you started your 'career' on here as a racial slurrer and now can only rely on such posts as you last..its a wonder you reply at all now your restricted..lol I think when replying to a poster all past attitudes by that poster should be considered, and if warranted be brought into the equation...what is or isn't warranted is of course down to the poster replying..obviously. . It does seem you got the thread you make mention of wiped clean.. " The joys of 'Diversity' and 'multi-culturalism' " comment giving evidence of your stance on the matter...bit like the time you got the thread which contained your filthy innuendo and swearing on a thread about a young girl wiped...btw..both do still exist you know? ;) Oh dear the " I bait you" claim...to try lessen the impact of being challenged every-time you angle from a derogatory racial perspective..look at the posts loopy and you will see how you have responded to posts by me rather than vise versa...the main thing is you know you cant racially slur, smear and angle with impunity or immunity ...thats the bugbear you bear...lol.. Can I just point out how you are displaying your hypocrite side? When did you last post on topic in this thread? Yet you complain when I am distracted to deal with racial comments...* not to myself*.."cast away the worm wont mind" lol. ThisYear

5:33pm Wed 12 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
How can taking a bed out of a room to make it not a bedroom be compared to quitting work and throwing yourself on the taxpayer?The comparison is patently absurd.

There is a huge shortage of family council houses, but not quite so for flats.

qte
What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement..
unqte

Your twisted English needs sorting out and you are making the large assumption that there IS nowhere else available. In your later post you mentioned other reasons to retain possession apart from the house being too big. What would they be then?
....
Let look at it this way...a single elderly man earning £100,000k a year...should he take a less rewarding job to allow a man with 3 children to have his job?
.....

A man of whatever age earning 100K must have the skills to hold that job otherwise somebody else would already have it. How can that be compared to the state giving a family a house to fit their needs? Looks like you are the master of absurd comparisons today.

In order to pay tax you first have to produce or service something which has a value. Housing benefit is state money which has already been collected as tax. Does the taxman receive any extra funds overall by giving you slightly less of it? No because nothing has been produced, It is a benefit. Not a matter of politics here just logic.

Insults and labels, you are out of argument then.

Right now my paper boat is still afloat.
"How can taking a bed out of a room to make it not a bedroom be compared to quitting work and throwing yourself on the taxpayer?The comparison is patently absurd."

Who knows and who compared that? Is this more of you imagining things being implied..?

House shortage..ok..so instead of punishing people financially for things beyond their responsibility..why not build houses to fit the need. That would suit and be fair on everyone affected by the issue.

It would seem its more your comprehension of the english words than my usage of said! "Physician heal thyself"

Can you link one single comment by anyone in authority which states that there is enough suitable accommodation available to move into?

A few other reasons why people should expect to be allowed to retain their homes; The money they may have put into the home...the right to remain in their home...the lack of any other reasonable option..the detachment from their social norm..natural fairness AND choice not to have taken away from them what they have owned.

If I have to explain the analogy of the £100k man as comparable to the issue then I wont bother, as it will be beyond your comprehension and would start to give the impression that you are trolling, by pretending not to understand simple concepts and contentions..unless of course you cant..which is it? Do you know?

You seem to have got the gist of the benefit money not being government money when it is allotted (took a while though) and now you come out with the tax nonsense.

Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax!

Housing benefit is taxed before it is made available to the recipient...it is then taxed for a 2nd time when it is deducted for bedroom tax...face the truth...it may set your free...lol

Are you really saying that any BT collected simply disappears? A saving by the government is a tax to those saved from.

You cannot accept this is a tax and thats your blind spot...Id say of you were effected by the tax you would have a different opinion...just call it a hunch..
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: How can taking a bed out of a room to make it not a bedroom be compared to quitting work and throwing yourself on the taxpayer?The comparison is patently absurd. There is a huge shortage of family council houses, but not quite so for flats. qte What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement.. unqte Your twisted English needs sorting out and you are making the large assumption that there IS nowhere else available. In your later post you mentioned other reasons to retain possession apart from the house being too big. What would they be then? .... Let look at it this way...a single elderly man earning £100,000k a year...should he take a less rewarding job to allow a man with 3 children to have his job? ..... A man of whatever age earning 100K must have the skills to hold that job otherwise somebody else would already have it. How can that be compared to the state giving a family a house to fit their needs? Looks like you are the master of absurd comparisons today. In order to pay tax you first have to produce or service something which has a value. Housing benefit is state money which has already been collected as tax. Does the taxman receive any extra funds overall by giving you slightly less of it? No because nothing has been produced, It is a benefit. Not a matter of politics here just logic. Insults and labels, you are out of argument then. Right now my paper boat is still afloat.[/p][/quote]"How can taking a bed out of a room to make it not a bedroom be compared to quitting work and throwing yourself on the taxpayer?The comparison is patently absurd." Who knows and who compared that? Is this more of you imagining things being implied..? House shortage..ok..so instead of punishing people financially for things beyond their responsibility..why not build houses to fit the need. That would suit and be fair on everyone affected by the issue. It would seem its more your comprehension of the english words than my usage of said! "Physician heal thyself" Can you link one single comment by anyone in authority which states that there is enough suitable accommodation available to move into? A few other reasons why people should expect to be allowed to retain their homes; The money they may have put into the home...the right to remain in their home...the lack of any other reasonable option..the detachment from their social norm..natural fairness AND choice not to have taken away from them what they have owned. If I have to explain the analogy of the £100k man as comparable to the issue then I wont bother, as it will be beyond your comprehension and would start to give the impression that you are trolling, by pretending not to understand simple concepts and contentions..unless of course you cant..which is it? Do you know? You seem to have got the gist of the benefit money not being government money when it is allotted (took a while though) and now you come out with the tax nonsense. Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax! Housing benefit is taxed before it is made available to the recipient...it is then taxed for a 2nd time when it is deducted for bedroom tax...face the truth...it may set your free...lol Are you really saying that any BT collected simply disappears? A saving by the government is a tax to those saved from. You cannot accept this is a tax and thats your blind spot...Id say of you were effected by the tax you would have a different opinion...just call it a hunch.. ThisYear

7:16pm Wed 12 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

Here's my first and very off topic post, made on Sunday....

"Tax: Paid on income
Income: something that has been earned
Earned: worked for.

If your benefit is reduced, it has been reduced because you never earned it in the first place."

Seems you are wrong. Again.

It seems you believe anything anyone writes or is it just the stuff you agree with?

Now toddle off and find a quote to bolster your argument.
Here's my first and very off topic post, made on Sunday.... "Tax: Paid on income Income: something that has been earned Earned: worked for. If your benefit is reduced, it has been reduced because you never earned it in the first place." Seems you are wrong. Again. It seems you believe anything anyone writes or is it just the stuff you agree with? Now toddle off and find a quote to bolster your argument. RochfordRob

8:59pm Wed 12 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
Here's my first and very off topic post, made on Sunday....

"Tax: Paid on income
Income: something that has been earned
Earned: worked for.

If your benefit is reduced, it has been reduced because you never earned it in the first place."

Seems you are wrong. Again.

It seems you believe anything anyone writes or is it just the stuff you agree with?

Now toddle off and find a quote to bolster your argument.
Oh deary deary lor...you get weirder and weirder...

I write:

" Can I just point out how you are displaying your hypocrite side? When did you last post on topic in this thread? "

To counter your oft claim that I dont post on topic.

You reply by posting up when you last posted on topic...sunday!

Thereby proving my point of you being a hypocrite..

But anyway...join in the debate when you find you can comment on topic ..your last contribution (sunday) was so wrong it was barely on topic if at all...

You castigate me for believing "anything anyone writes" and in the same breath advise me to "find a quote"

This begs two questions.

1, Will someone saying it to another person make it more believable and thus ok for me to use?

2, Will the person it is said to not have to write it down thus causing me to "believe anything anyone writes "

Do you know your A from your E






Its so wrong that it is off topic...
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: Here's my first and very off topic post, made on Sunday.... "Tax: Paid on income Income: something that has been earned Earned: worked for. If your benefit is reduced, it has been reduced because you never earned it in the first place." Seems you are wrong. Again. It seems you believe anything anyone writes or is it just the stuff you agree with? Now toddle off and find a quote to bolster your argument.[/p][/quote]Oh deary deary lor...you get weirder and weirder... I write: " Can I just point out how you are displaying your hypocrite side? When did you last post on topic in this thread? " To counter your oft claim that I dont post on topic. You reply by posting up when you last posted on topic...sunday! Thereby proving my point of you being a hypocrite.. But anyway...join in the debate when you find you can comment on topic ..your last contribution (sunday) was so wrong it was barely on topic if at all... You castigate me for believing "anything anyone writes" and in the same breath advise me to "find a quote" This begs two questions. 1, Will someone saying it to another person make it more believable and thus ok for me to use? 2, Will the person it is said to not have to write it down thus causing me to "believe anything anyone writes " Do you know your A from your E Its so wrong that it is off topic... ThisYear

9:21pm Wed 12 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: When i suggested the best appraoch was not fit the criteria, i knew nothing of any tribunal decision. Neither did you apparently as your response was to make some absurd comparison to income tax and the personal decision not to work in order not to meet that set of criteria. The timing of Jokerbri's post struck me as ironic but i guess you don't get irony. ... Why do you feel I dont fit the criteria for paying income tax? ... Just a hunch. ... How on earth could under-occupancy of a house be a reason to remain a tenant in said house? .... Well you said it was (yet another) entitlement. qte What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement.. unqte you really should read you own messages before going off half cocked. Put what passes for a brain in gear first. .... You give me a label (socialist) and then ask me how my comments sit with that designated ideology! Are you for real? ... You bring up Thatcher and call me a tory and now you are complaining about labels? --- oh purleeeese. ... Can you tell all how a family living in B&B are more deserving of a house lived in by a pensioner for years than the pensioner? .... Does a pensioner need 4 bedrooms? Are there really no flats available to move to? There is an entire generation queuing up for a council house. Yet you seem to think it is right that under occupancy is allowed. More than that, you say it is an entitlement. Seems like this poorly thought out policy was atleast an attempt to make more efficient use of social housing. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs - Bevan. Not working is it. This offer of cash to relocate plus a reduction to benefit (its not a tax and i have already explained why) is a typical government carrot and stick approach to a difficult situation. I expect you understand that well enough from your experiences on Brighton beach.
As for "Brighton beach" I think you have the wrong guy...was it dark?
Not sure, the rope came untied and it ran off.
I see, bondage as well...each to his own..
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: When i suggested the best appraoch was not fit the criteria, i knew nothing of any tribunal decision. Neither did you apparently as your response was to make some absurd comparison to income tax and the personal decision not to work in order not to meet that set of criteria. The timing of Jokerbri's post struck me as ironic but i guess you don't get irony. ... Why do you feel I dont fit the criteria for paying income tax? ... Just a hunch. ... How on earth could under-occupancy of a house be a reason to remain a tenant in said house? .... Well you said it was (yet another) entitlement. qte What entitles a person to occupy a house to large for them? The fact that they are in possession of the house and there is nowhere they can go...thats their entitlement.. unqte you really should read you own messages before going off half cocked. Put what passes for a brain in gear first. .... You give me a label (socialist) and then ask me how my comments sit with that designated ideology! Are you for real? ... You bring up Thatcher and call me a tory and now you are complaining about labels? --- oh purleeeese. ... Can you tell all how a family living in B&B are more deserving of a house lived in by a pensioner for years than the pensioner? .... Does a pensioner need 4 bedrooms? Are there really no flats available to move to? There is an entire generation queuing up for a council house. Yet you seem to think it is right that under occupancy is allowed. More than that, you say it is an entitlement. Seems like this poorly thought out policy was atleast an attempt to make more efficient use of social housing. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs - Bevan. Not working is it. This offer of cash to relocate plus a reduction to benefit (its not a tax and i have already explained why) is a typical government carrot and stick approach to a difficult situation. I expect you understand that well enough from your experiences on Brighton beach.[/p][/quote]As for "Brighton beach" I think you have the wrong guy...was it dark?[/p][/quote]Not sure, the rope came untied and it ran off.[/p][/quote]I see, bondage as well...each to his own.. ThisYear

9:35pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax!
.
They are all voluntary contributions unlike income tax - try again.
Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax! . They are all voluntary contributions unlike income tax - try again. Alekhine

9:54pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Housing benefit is taxed before it is made available to the recipient...it is then taxed for a 2nd time when it is deducted for bedroom tax...face the truth...it may set your free...lol
...
Housing benefit IS tax. It has already been collected as tax. Assuming it is used for its intended purpose of paying for the house and not squandered on beer and fags ,how does any deduction before or during its journey from government back to council / government produce an increase in revenue for the exchequer?

Income for the exchequer is the definition of tax not what happens to be deducted from benefit. Benefit is the result of someone else's productive work.

The government cannot increase its revenue by taxing itself. Much as it might conflict with your world view, someone somewhere has to do the productive work to produce the value which the government can tax to payyour benefits.

WAKE UP!
Housing benefit is taxed before it is made available to the recipient...it is then taxed for a 2nd time when it is deducted for bedroom tax...face the truth...it may set your free...lol ... Housing benefit IS tax. It has already been collected as tax. Assuming it is used for its intended purpose of paying for the house and not squandered on beer and fags ,how does any deduction before or during its journey from government back to council / government produce an increase in revenue for the exchequer? Income for the exchequer is the definition of tax not what happens to be deducted from benefit. Benefit is the result of someone else's productive work. The government cannot increase its revenue by taxing itself. Much as it might conflict with your world view, someone somewhere has to do the productive work to produce the value which the government can tax to payyour benefits. WAKE UP! Alekhine

10:10pm Wed 12 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

He accused me on not posting on topic. I then provided proof that I did.

So the mentalist just said the opposite.

He is completely barking bonkers.

I used to just think he lived in an asylum.

Know I know he does.

Bloody fruitcake.

It's not even funny any more.

Just soooooo tragic.
He accused me on not posting on topic. I then provided proof that I did. So the mentalist just said the opposite. He is completely barking bonkers. I used to just think he lived in an asylum. Know I know he does. Bloody fruitcake. It's not even funny any more. Just soooooo tragic. RochfordRob

10:46pm Wed 12 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax!
.
They are all voluntary contributions unlike income tax - try again.
AND the point is the bedroom tax is also compulsory..round and round we go with you...the trolls way of doing things...

Let me ask you then..if its not a tax what is it..what is the official name
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax! . They are all voluntary contributions unlike income tax - try again.[/p][/quote]AND the point is the bedroom tax is also compulsory..round and round we go with you...the trolls way of doing things... Let me ask you then..if its not a tax what is it..what is the official name ThisYear

10:55pm Wed 12 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
He accused me on not posting on topic. I then provided proof that I did.

So the mentalist just said the opposite.

He is completely barking bonkers.

I used to just think he lived in an asylum.

Know I know he does.

Bloody fruitcake.

It's not even funny any more.

Just soooooo tragic.
Oh dear and still the moron misses the obvious...let me point it out for you..

" When did you last post on topic in this thread? "

Operative words.."when" and "last"

Get it now numbnut?

I didn't say you didn't I asked when did you last do it...derrrrrrrrrrr..


8 posts from you on the tread and only one on topic...my point clearly proven...derrrrrrr

So the question was a valid one...which shows you for a hypocrite?

The tragic thing about you is, your choice to post racial abuse/slur/innuendo has been so curtailed and your hate so blunted that in frustration you rummage to try discredit he who blunted you... and by doing so you make a bigger fool of yourself than you have already...LOL..your nail must be to the quick...lol...
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: He accused me on not posting on topic. I then provided proof that I did. So the mentalist just said the opposite. He is completely barking bonkers. I used to just think he lived in an asylum. Know I know he does. Bloody fruitcake. It's not even funny any more. Just soooooo tragic.[/p][/quote]Oh dear and still the moron misses the obvious...let me point it out for you.. " When did you last post on topic in this thread? " Operative words.."when" and "last" Get it now numbnut? I didn't say you didn't I asked when did you last do it...derrrrrrrrrrr.. 8 posts from you on the tread and only one on topic...my point clearly proven...derrrrrrr So the question was a valid one...which shows you for a hypocrite? The tragic thing about you is, your choice to post racial abuse/slur/innuendo has been so curtailed and your hate so blunted that in frustration you rummage to try discredit he who blunted you... and by doing so you make a bigger fool of yourself than you have already...LOL..your nail must be to the quick...lol... ThisYear

11:29pm Wed 12 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
Housing benefit is taxed before it is made available to the recipient...it is then taxed for a 2nd time when it is deducted for bedroom tax...face the truth...it may set your free...lol
...
Housing benefit IS tax. It has already been collected as tax. Assuming it is used for its intended purpose of paying for the house and not squandered on beer and fags ,how does any deduction before or during its journey from government back to council / government produce an increase in revenue for the exchequer?

Income for the exchequer is the definition of tax not what happens to be deducted from benefit. Benefit is the result of someone else's productive work.

The government cannot increase its revenue by taxing itself. Much as it might conflict with your world view, someone somewhere has to do the productive work to produce the value which the government can tax to payyour benefits.

WAKE UP!
I KNOW HB HAS BEEN TAXED BEFORE THE CLAIMANT GETS IT!

Strewth...how many times does that have to be agreed?
Will you leave the bong alone in between bouts of posting weed head?

Aha...so now you accept that one government department pays to another...so the education goes on..so much for your 'wake up comment'

It is not the gain to the government but the loss to the recipient that is the crux of the matter smokey!

No the term tax is not exclusively defined by what a government gains in way of payment!

But in this case the BRT encompasses two definitions of the term tax...looked it up if you can see through the haze.

Show (and not just as your opinion but with evidence) that benefits are the result of someone else's productive work...you are aware that it is pensioners and then those who are working who get most of the benefit budget...dont you?

So a working person getting benefits (any benefit) is of course contributing to their own benefit..working pensioners also pay income tax..so they like wise pay towards their pensions...

It is only you (strawman argument) who insists the government would have to tax itself to collect on the BRT...they tax the people who fit the criteria who then have to pay the money from their benefits, or wage or savings..

You have stupidly bogged yourself down with your own straw argument and perception, that only people receiving unemployment benefits pay BRT!

Another tactic of the troll (besides the strawman argument) pretending a person debating the issue has a personal interest in the issue..WRONG potted brains..

I oppose the disgusting policy (like any one with morals) because of the effect it is having on people..suicide...di
sabled in danger of losing their adapted homes...people being forced into the hands of unscrupulous landlords..people going to food banks so they can pay the tax...people losing homes they spent years and money on bring up to their liken..all to save a drop in the ocean..the government dont even know if anything has been saved.. not having the numbers of those who have been adversely hit by this tax..ie disabled leaving an adapted house to move to a smaller accommodation that then needs to be adapted..

In years to come this policy will be looked back on and despised..as should the cretins like you who support it..

As for wake up...you haven't been right yet on this thread!
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Housing benefit is taxed before it is made available to the recipient...it is then taxed for a 2nd time when it is deducted for bedroom tax...face the truth...it may set your free...lol ... Housing benefit IS tax. It has already been collected as tax. Assuming it is used for its intended purpose of paying for the house and not squandered on beer and fags ,how does any deduction before or during its journey from government back to council / government produce an increase in revenue for the exchequer? Income for the exchequer is the definition of tax not what happens to be deducted from benefit. Benefit is the result of someone else's productive work. The government cannot increase its revenue by taxing itself. Much as it might conflict with your world view, someone somewhere has to do the productive work to produce the value which the government can tax to payyour benefits. WAKE UP![/p][/quote]I KNOW HB HAS BEEN TAXED BEFORE THE CLAIMANT GETS IT! Strewth...how many times does that have to be agreed? Will you leave the bong alone in between bouts of posting weed head? Aha...so now you accept that one government department pays to another...so the education goes on..so much for your 'wake up comment' It is not the gain to the government but the loss to the recipient that is the crux of the matter smokey! No the term tax is not exclusively defined by what a government gains in way of payment! But in this case the BRT encompasses two definitions of the term tax...looked it up if you can see through the haze. Show (and not just as your opinion but with evidence) that benefits are the result of someone else's productive work...you are aware that it is pensioners and then those who are working who get most of the benefit budget...dont you? So a working person getting benefits (any benefit) is of course contributing to their own benefit..working pensioners also pay income tax..so they like wise pay towards their pensions... It is only you (strawman argument) who insists the government would have to tax itself to collect on the BRT...they tax the people who fit the criteria who then have to pay the money from their benefits, or wage or savings.. You have stupidly bogged yourself down with your own straw argument and perception, that only people receiving unemployment benefits pay BRT! Another tactic of the troll (besides the strawman argument) pretending a person debating the issue has a personal interest in the issue..WRONG potted brains.. I oppose the disgusting policy (like any one with morals) because of the effect it is having on people..suicide...di sabled in danger of losing their adapted homes...people being forced into the hands of unscrupulous landlords..people going to food banks so they can pay the tax...people losing homes they spent years and money on bring up to their liken..all to save a drop in the ocean..the government dont even know if anything has been saved.. not having the numbers of those who have been adversely hit by this tax..ie disabled leaving an adapted house to move to a smaller accommodation that then needs to be adapted.. In years to come this policy will be looked back on and despised..as should the cretins like you who support it.. As for wake up...you haven't been right yet on this thread! ThisYear

9:46am Thu 13 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax! . They are all voluntary contributions unlike income tax - try again.
AND the point is the bedroom tax is also compulsory..round and round we go with you...the trolls way of doing things... Let me ask you then..if its not a tax what is it..what is the official name
It is a reduction to housing benefit. Call it whatever you want.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax! . They are all voluntary contributions unlike income tax - try again.[/p][/quote]AND the point is the bedroom tax is also compulsory..round and round we go with you...the trolls way of doing things... Let me ask you then..if its not a tax what is it..what is the official name[/p][/quote]It is a reduction to housing benefit. Call it whatever you want. Alekhine

9:53am Thu 13 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

I KNOW HB HAS BEEN TAXED BEFORE THE CLAIMANT GETS IT!
.
No fool, there has been a deduction made before it is paid to you. That deduction does not result in an increase in revenue for the taxman. Therefore it is not tax!.
I KNOW HB HAS BEEN TAXED BEFORE THE CLAIMANT GETS IT! . No fool, there has been a deduction made before it is paid to you. That deduction does not result in an increase in revenue for the taxman. Therefore it is not tax!. Alekhine

12:38pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax! . They are all voluntary contributions unlike income tax - try again.
AND the point is the bedroom tax is also compulsory..round and round we go with you...the trolls way of doing things... Let me ask you then..if its not a tax what is it..what is the official name
It is a reduction to housing benefit. Call it whatever you want.
Oh dear...So money taken from wages is a reduction in wages..it doesn't need another policy name...right?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax! . They are all voluntary contributions unlike income tax - try again.[/p][/quote]AND the point is the bedroom tax is also compulsory..round and round we go with you...the trolls way of doing things... Let me ask you then..if its not a tax what is it..what is the official name[/p][/quote]It is a reduction to housing benefit. Call it whatever you want.[/p][/quote]Oh dear...So money taken from wages is a reduction in wages..it doesn't need another policy name...right? ThisYear

12:43pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
I KNOW HB HAS BEEN TAXED BEFORE THE CLAIMANT GETS IT!
.
No fool, there has been a deduction made before it is paid to you. That deduction does not result in an increase in revenue for the taxman. Therefore it is not tax!.
So when a man receives his wages he hasn't been taxed there has just been a deduction made before it was given to him...

You have no argument that can defend this bedroom tax and thus you scrape around with stupidity like this..

You cant even give a name to the policy because you know to do so will disprove what you say it is..

A tax doesn't not have to enrich the tax man you numbskull...dont bother to "WAKE UP" stay asleep it will save useless wear and tear on your computer keys..
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: I KNOW HB HAS BEEN TAXED BEFORE THE CLAIMANT GETS IT! . No fool, there has been a deduction made before it is paid to you. That deduction does not result in an increase in revenue for the taxman. Therefore it is not tax!.[/p][/quote]So when a man receives his wages he hasn't been taxed there has just been a deduction made before it was given to him... You have no argument that can defend this bedroom tax and thus you scrape around with stupidity like this.. You cant even give a name to the policy because you know to do so will disprove what you say it is.. A tax doesn't not have to enrich the tax man you numbskull...dont bother to "WAKE UP" stay asleep it will save useless wear and tear on your computer keys.. ThisYear

1:09pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax! . They are all voluntary contributions unlike income tax - try again.
AND the point is the bedroom tax is also compulsory..round and round we go with you...the trolls way of doing things... Let me ask you then..if its not a tax what is it..what is the official name
It is a reduction to housing benefit. Call it whatever you want.
Oh dear...So money taken from wages is a reduction in wages..it doesn't need another policy name...right?
You are so stuck in the benefit culture that you are unable to see the difference between wages and benefits. FYI (is that American?), productive work brings in money and/or increases the value of an asset or service. Part of that increase in value is paid to the workers as salary and part is taken by the exchequer. The part taken is revenue for the taxman and is called tax.

Benefit is paid from (other peoples) tax and the value increase from benefit being paid through to the rent being paid is a big fat zero. How do you tax zero?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax! . They are all voluntary contributions unlike income tax - try again.[/p][/quote]AND the point is the bedroom tax is also compulsory..round and round we go with you...the trolls way of doing things... Let me ask you then..if its not a tax what is it..what is the official name[/p][/quote]It is a reduction to housing benefit. Call it whatever you want.[/p][/quote]Oh dear...So money taken from wages is a reduction in wages..it doesn't need another policy name...right?[/p][/quote]You are so stuck in the benefit culture that you are unable to see the difference between wages and benefits. FYI (is that American?), productive work brings in money and/or increases the value of an asset or service. Part of that increase in value is paid to the workers as salary and part is taken by the exchequer. The part taken is revenue for the taxman and is called tax. Benefit is paid from (other peoples) tax and the value increase from benefit being paid through to the rent being paid is a big fat zero. How do you tax zero? Alekhine

1:20pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: I KNOW HB HAS BEEN TAXED BEFORE THE CLAIMANT GETS IT! . No fool, there has been a deduction made before it is paid to you. That deduction does not result in an increase in revenue for the taxman. Therefore it is not tax!.
So when a man receives his wages he hasn't been taxed there has just been a deduction made before it was given to him... You have no argument that can defend this bedroom tax and thus you scrape around with stupidity like this.. You cant even give a name to the policy because you know to do so will disprove what you say it is.. A tax doesn't not have to enrich the tax man you numbskull...dont bother to "WAKE UP" stay asleep it will save useless wear and tear on your computer keys..
See my last for dedutions from wages.

But for once you are right, the taxman is not getting enriched. He has to pay the revenue out again for things like the NHS, road building, flood defences (sic) oh - and benefits.

Sorry, bedroom what?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: I KNOW HB HAS BEEN TAXED BEFORE THE CLAIMANT GETS IT! . No fool, there has been a deduction made before it is paid to you. That deduction does not result in an increase in revenue for the taxman. Therefore it is not tax!.[/p][/quote]So when a man receives his wages he hasn't been taxed there has just been a deduction made before it was given to him... You have no argument that can defend this bedroom tax and thus you scrape around with stupidity like this.. You cant even give a name to the policy because you know to do so will disprove what you say it is.. A tax doesn't not have to enrich the tax man you numbskull...dont bother to "WAKE UP" stay asleep it will save useless wear and tear on your computer keys..[/p][/quote]See my last for dedutions from wages. But for once you are right, the taxman is not getting enriched. He has to pay the revenue out again for things like the NHS, road building, flood defences (sic) oh - and benefits. Sorry, bedroom what? Alekhine

1:37pm Thu 13 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

My point still stands, you asked when did I I last post on topic. So I gave a credible example.

Not, when was the LAST TIMEyou posted?

Can be interpreted as two entirely different meanings, and given youR dreadful grasp of anything, easily done.

Nope, I haven't posted anything racist on here, but there again, I never have.

I may have called you some rude names in French and you squealied like a girl and complained as I recall.

Again, you can dish it out, but can you take it?

No.

Back to topic you are comparing earnings with freebies - two entirely different things. One is earned and taxed, the other one, well, you just get given less of it - hardly tax is it?

Carry on whining. Oh, and your posts - far to long - all p*ss and wind, trying to make you look intelligent.

Less is more.

And the less we hear from you the more happy most will be.
My point still stands, you asked when did I I last post on topic. So I gave a credible example. Not, when was the LAST TIMEyou posted? Can be interpreted as two entirely different meanings, and given youR dreadful grasp of anything, easily done. Nope, I haven't posted anything racist on here, but there again, I never have. I may have called you some rude names in French and you squealied like a girl and complained as I recall. Again, you can dish it out, but can you take it? No. Back to topic you are comparing earnings with freebies - two entirely different things. One is earned and taxed, the other one, well, you just get given less of it - hardly tax is it? Carry on whining. Oh, and your posts - far to long - all p*ss and wind, trying to make you look intelligent. Less is more. And the less we hear from you the more happy most will be. RochfordRob

6:50pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax! . They are all voluntary contributions unlike income tax - try again.
AND the point is the bedroom tax is also compulsory..round and round we go with you...the trolls way of doing things... Let me ask you then..if its not a tax what is it..what is the official name
It is a reduction to housing benefit. Call it whatever you want.
Oh dear...So money taken from wages is a reduction in wages..it doesn't need another policy name...right?
You are so stuck in the benefit culture that you are unable to see the difference between wages and benefits. FYI (is that American?), productive work brings in money and/or increases the value of an asset or service. Part of that increase in value is paid to the workers as salary and part is taken by the exchequer. The part taken is revenue for the taxman and is called tax.

Benefit is paid from (other peoples) tax and the value increase from benefit being paid through to the rent being paid is a big fat zero. How do you tax zero?
I am stuck in nothing and I would say you have claimed more benefits than I ever have.. but again that is your troll distraction tactic...all because you know you have no argument that you can stand on never mind prove..

It does not matter if the money is paid from a benefit or a wage...MONEY IS DUE... the fact that it is compulsory due makes it a tax...the policy in place does not discriminate between waged or benefit money.. it sees it as all the same...you have become stuck in your own strawman argument that you cant see through the reeds..MONEY is owed regardless where it originated from..DER...

The bit about what income tax does and doesn't pay for is another story.. and you are not even right on that...

Link up something that shows "Benefit is paid from (other peoples) tax" can you?

Are you claiming benefits are only paid from income tax? If so your claims are ludicrously stupid..many people receiving benefits also work...how then are they then being paid benefits with other peoples money?

if other taxes are used then benefit recipients who dont work are also paying taxes and, following your warped logic, also receiving others tax money but not their own..

Benefits are taxed...if you dont accept that you can eat my dust!

Now can you say what the terminology for this tax is called...it seems to have a few names..3 in all..which one do you adhere to?

The 10 minute bill that went through parliament (226 to 10) used a term for it? Do you know what that term was?

Can a term be used that doesn't refer to the item the bill is about?

To answer these questions you will have to come out from behind your strawman argument..can you?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Your tax claim is preposterous..Do people not pay VAT without producing or servicing something...do they not pay tax on fuel/food/cigarettes etc all without producing or servicing...you claim is along the lines of the idiot who claimed if you paid income tax you were exempt from bedroom tax! . They are all voluntary contributions unlike income tax - try again.[/p][/quote]AND the point is the bedroom tax is also compulsory..round and round we go with you...the trolls way of doing things... Let me ask you then..if its not a tax what is it..what is the official name[/p][/quote]It is a reduction to housing benefit. Call it whatever you want.[/p][/quote]Oh dear...So money taken from wages is a reduction in wages..it doesn't need another policy name...right?[/p][/quote]You are so stuck in the benefit culture that you are unable to see the difference between wages and benefits. FYI (is that American?), productive work brings in money and/or increases the value of an asset or service. Part of that increase in value is paid to the workers as salary and part is taken by the exchequer. The part taken is revenue for the taxman and is called tax. Benefit is paid from (other peoples) tax and the value increase from benefit being paid through to the rent being paid is a big fat zero. How do you tax zero?[/p][/quote]I am stuck in nothing and I would say you have claimed more benefits than I ever have.. but again that is your troll distraction tactic...all because you know you have no argument that you can stand on never mind prove.. It does not matter if the money is paid from a benefit or a wage...MONEY IS DUE... the fact that it is compulsory due makes it a tax...the policy in place does not discriminate between waged or benefit money.. it sees it as all the same...you have become stuck in your own strawman argument that you cant see through the reeds..MONEY is owed regardless where it originated from..DER... The bit about what income tax does and doesn't pay for is another story.. and you are not even right on that... Link up something that shows "Benefit is paid from (other peoples) tax" can you? Are you claiming benefits are only paid from income tax? If so your claims are ludicrously stupid..many people receiving benefits also work...how then are they then being paid benefits with other peoples money? if other taxes are used then benefit recipients who dont work are also paying taxes and, following your warped logic, also receiving others tax money but not their own.. Benefits are taxed...if you dont accept that you can eat my dust! Now can you say what the terminology for this tax is called...it seems to have a few names..3 in all..which one do you adhere to? The 10 minute bill that went through parliament (226 to 10) used a term for it? Do you know what that term was? Can a term be used that doesn't refer to the item the bill is about? To answer these questions you will have to come out from behind your strawman argument..can you? ThisYear

7:20pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
My point still stands, you asked when did I I last post on topic. So I gave a credible example.

Not, when was the LAST TIMEyou posted?

Can be interpreted as two entirely different meanings, and given youR dreadful grasp of anything, easily done.

Nope, I haven't posted anything racist on here, but there again, I never have.

I may have called you some rude names in French and you squealied like a girl and complained as I recall.

Again, you can dish it out, but can you take it?

No.

Back to topic you are comparing earnings with freebies - two entirely different things. One is earned and taxed, the other one, well, you just get given less of it - hardly tax is it?

Carry on whining. Oh, and your posts - far to long - all p*ss and wind, trying to make you look intelligent.

Less is more.

And the less we hear from you the more happy most will be.
Regardless of how it can be interpreted...the point stands, you complain about others posting off topic and then in 9 (?) posts you are on topic once...

Only one way to interpret that....hypocrite!

My grasp of your personality is spot on and you know it...you are blunted and post with that in mind and you know my place within that..;)

Do you have copies of all your posts? Is not a barrage of racial slur, smear and innuendo not offensive..if not illegal then certainly something a company might look at under their own policies in regards to diversity..encryptio
n is something that can be overcome as Im sure you know.

Rude names? You of course mean foul swearing...did I report you? I remember advising others to do that and so didn't have to as you were banned soon after and a record of that stands..you were banned from a public forum for constant use of foul language...take the filthy innuendo on the thread of the young girl and your constant racial angle on many threads (The joy of diversity and multi-culturism) usually aimed at the culture or race of the people involved. Im sure it wouldn't need much prompting for others to come to the right and clear conclusion of what you are..

There is no freebies in the equation...benefits are not freebies.. but I agree they are two different things.

People are entitled to their wages...people are entitled to their benefits...both wouldn't get it if they were not entitled. Money deducted is a tax...of course it is less of what both are entitled to but it is still tax...

Those who pay income tax and pay bedroom tax are taxed effectually 3 times!

If the debate is beyond you, pop off and see if there are any threads about non-white people or white people from different cultures to post your spleen on...or add to the debate..

I see you have not once tried to prove me wrong in a constructive way.. just moaned about the length of the post...lack of concentration?...and tried to sure up your retarded ego by assuming a higher intelligence level...you are not more intelligent than me..you just think you are...but even if you were, do you think there aren't many many many on here more intelligent than you?

That being the case; are you suggesting that only those with the same intelligence level should comment on each others posts?

You are a fool and I show you to be that virtually ever time..Im sure your employers will see that when all this is put before them...its being worked on..;)
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: My point still stands, you asked when did I I last post on topic. So I gave a credible example. Not, when was the LAST TIMEyou posted? Can be interpreted as two entirely different meanings, and given youR dreadful grasp of anything, easily done. Nope, I haven't posted anything racist on here, but there again, I never have. I may have called you some rude names in French and you squealied like a girl and complained as I recall. Again, you can dish it out, but can you take it? No. Back to topic you are comparing earnings with freebies - two entirely different things. One is earned and taxed, the other one, well, you just get given less of it - hardly tax is it? Carry on whining. Oh, and your posts - far to long - all p*ss and wind, trying to make you look intelligent. Less is more. And the less we hear from you the more happy most will be.[/p][/quote]Regardless of how it can be interpreted...the point stands, you complain about others posting off topic and then in 9 (?) posts you are on topic once... Only one way to interpret that....hypocrite! My grasp of your personality is spot on and you know it...you are blunted and post with that in mind and you know my place within that..;) Do you have copies of all your posts? Is not a barrage of racial slur, smear and innuendo not offensive..if not illegal then certainly something a company might look at under their own policies in regards to diversity..encryptio n is something that can be overcome as Im sure you know. Rude names? You of course mean foul swearing...did I report you? I remember advising others to do that and so didn't have to as you were banned soon after and a record of that stands..you were banned from a public forum for constant use of foul language...take the filthy innuendo on the thread of the young girl and your constant racial angle on many threads (The joy of diversity and multi-culturism) usually aimed at the culture or race of the people involved. Im sure it wouldn't need much prompting for others to come to the right and clear conclusion of what you are.. There is no freebies in the equation...benefits are not freebies.. but I agree they are two different things. People are entitled to their wages...people are entitled to their benefits...both wouldn't get it if they were not entitled. Money deducted is a tax...of course it is less of what both are entitled to but it is still tax... Those who pay income tax and pay bedroom tax are taxed effectually 3 times! If the debate is beyond you, pop off and see if there are any threads about non-white people or white people from different cultures to post your spleen on...or add to the debate.. I see you have not once tried to prove me wrong in a constructive way.. just moaned about the length of the post...lack of concentration?...and tried to sure up your retarded ego by assuming a higher intelligence level...you are not more intelligent than me..you just think you are...but even if you were, do you think there aren't many many many on here more intelligent than you? That being the case; are you suggesting that only those with the same intelligence level should comment on each others posts? You are a fool and I show you to be that virtually ever time..Im sure your employers will see that when all this is put before them...its being worked on..;) ThisYear

7:23pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: I KNOW HB HAS BEEN TAXED BEFORE THE CLAIMANT GETS IT! . No fool, there has been a deduction made before it is paid to you. That deduction does not result in an increase in revenue for the taxman. Therefore it is not tax!.
So when a man receives his wages he hasn't been taxed there has just been a deduction made before it was given to him... You have no argument that can defend this bedroom tax and thus you scrape around with stupidity like this.. You cant even give a name to the policy because you know to do so will disprove what you say it is.. A tax doesn't not have to enrich the tax man you numbskull...dont bother to "WAKE UP" stay asleep it will save useless wear and tear on your computer keys..
See my last for dedutions from wages.

But for once you are right, the taxman is not getting enriched. He has to pay the revenue out again for things like the NHS, road building, flood defences (sic) oh - and benefits.

Sorry, bedroom what?
Can you link up evidence that shows a penny of tax paying for the things you mention..or for anything?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: I KNOW HB HAS BEEN TAXED BEFORE THE CLAIMANT GETS IT! . No fool, there has been a deduction made before it is paid to you. That deduction does not result in an increase in revenue for the taxman. Therefore it is not tax!.[/p][/quote]So when a man receives his wages he hasn't been taxed there has just been a deduction made before it was given to him... You have no argument that can defend this bedroom tax and thus you scrape around with stupidity like this.. You cant even give a name to the policy because you know to do so will disprove what you say it is.. A tax doesn't not have to enrich the tax man you numbskull...dont bother to "WAKE UP" stay asleep it will save useless wear and tear on your computer keys..[/p][/quote]See my last for dedutions from wages. But for once you are right, the taxman is not getting enriched. He has to pay the revenue out again for things like the NHS, road building, flood defences (sic) oh - and benefits. Sorry, bedroom what?[/p][/quote]Can you link up evidence that shows a penny of tax paying for the things you mention..or for anything? ThisYear

7:43pm Thu 13 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

ThisYear wrote:
RochfordRob wrote:
My point still stands, you asked when did I I last post on topic. So I gave a credible example.

Not, when was the LAST TIMEyou posted?

Can be interpreted as two entirely different meanings, and given youR dreadful grasp of anything, easily done.

Nope, I haven't posted anything racist on here, but there again, I never have.

I may have called you some rude names in French and you squealied like a girl and complained as I recall.

Again, you can dish it out, but can you take it?

No.

Back to topic you are comparing earnings with freebies - two entirely different things. One is earned and taxed, the other one, well, you just get given less of it - hardly tax is it?

Carry on whining. Oh, and your posts - far to long - all p*ss and wind, trying to make you look intelligent.

Less is more.

And the less we hear from you the more happy most will be.
Regardless of how it can be interpreted...the point stands, you complain about others posting off topic and then in 9 (?) posts you are on topic once...

Only one way to interpret that....hypocrite!

My grasp of your personality is spot on and you know it...you are blunted and post with that in mind and you know my place within that..;)

Do you have copies of all your posts? Is not a barrage of racial slur, smear and innuendo not offensive..if not illegal then certainly something a company might look at under their own policies in regards to diversity..encryptio

n is something that can be overcome as Im sure you know.

Rude names? You of course mean foul swearing...did I report you? I remember advising others to do that and so didn't have to as you were banned soon after and a record of that stands..you were banned from a public forum for constant use of foul language...take the filthy innuendo on the thread of the young girl and your constant racial angle on many threads (The joy of diversity and multi-culturism) usually aimed at the culture or race of the people involved. Im sure it wouldn't need much prompting for others to come to the right and clear conclusion of what you are..

There is no freebies in the equation...benefits are not freebies.. but I agree they are two different things.

People are entitled to their wages...people are entitled to their benefits...both wouldn't get it if they were not entitled. Money deducted is a tax...of course it is less of what both are entitled to but it is still tax...

Those who pay income tax and pay bedroom tax are taxed effectually 3 times!

If the debate is beyond you, pop off and see if there are any threads about non-white people or white people from different cultures to post your spleen on...or add to the debate..

I see you have not once tried to prove me wrong in a constructive way.. just moaned about the length of the post...lack of concentration?...and tried to sure up your retarded ego by assuming a higher intelligence level...you are not more intelligent than me..you just think you are...but even if you were, do you think there aren't many many many on here more intelligent than you?

That being the case; are you suggesting that only those with the same intelligence level should comment on each others posts?

You are a fool and I show you to be that virtually ever time..Im sure your employers will see that when all this is put before them...its being worked on..;)
More p*ss and wind you deluded idiot.
blah
blah
blah

Ask your remedial teacher / nurse / carer whoever to add punctuation to your curriculum whilst you're at it.

God, you are one tiresome boring troll.

But since I hook you every time, it provides many with great amusement.

My employers? Who said I'm an employee? More delusion on your part.

A bit like your definition of tax.

By the way, how's that Matron, you know the one from Nigeria you were banging on about? I bet you were delighted dragging race into it until I pointed out the only person who did was you.

Classic own goal you loser.

More threats about your dodgy dossier? You're not Alistair Campbell are you? He's a bloody nut case liar too.

Bring it on. Can't wait.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: My point still stands, you asked when did I I last post on topic. So I gave a credible example. Not, when was the LAST TIMEyou posted? Can be interpreted as two entirely different meanings, and given youR dreadful grasp of anything, easily done. Nope, I haven't posted anything racist on here, but there again, I never have. I may have called you some rude names in French and you squealied like a girl and complained as I recall. Again, you can dish it out, but can you take it? No. Back to topic you are comparing earnings with freebies - two entirely different things. One is earned and taxed, the other one, well, you just get given less of it - hardly tax is it? Carry on whining. Oh, and your posts - far to long - all p*ss and wind, trying to make you look intelligent. Less is more. And the less we hear from you the more happy most will be.[/p][/quote]Regardless of how it can be interpreted...the point stands, you complain about others posting off topic and then in 9 (?) posts you are on topic once... Only one way to interpret that....hypocrite! My grasp of your personality is spot on and you know it...you are blunted and post with that in mind and you know my place within that..;) Do you have copies of all your posts? Is not a barrage of racial slur, smear and innuendo not offensive..if not illegal then certainly something a company might look at under their own policies in regards to diversity..encryptio n is something that can be overcome as Im sure you know. Rude names? You of course mean foul swearing...did I report you? I remember advising others to do that and so didn't have to as you were banned soon after and a record of that stands..you were banned from a public forum for constant use of foul language...take the filthy innuendo on the thread of the young girl and your constant racial angle on many threads (The joy of diversity and multi-culturism) usually aimed at the culture or race of the people involved. Im sure it wouldn't need much prompting for others to come to the right and clear conclusion of what you are.. There is no freebies in the equation...benefits are not freebies.. but I agree they are two different things. People are entitled to their wages...people are entitled to their benefits...both wouldn't get it if they were not entitled. Money deducted is a tax...of course it is less of what both are entitled to but it is still tax... Those who pay income tax and pay bedroom tax are taxed effectually 3 times! If the debate is beyond you, pop off and see if there are any threads about non-white people or white people from different cultures to post your spleen on...or add to the debate.. I see you have not once tried to prove me wrong in a constructive way.. just moaned about the length of the post...lack of concentration?...and tried to sure up your retarded ego by assuming a higher intelligence level...you are not more intelligent than me..you just think you are...but even if you were, do you think there aren't many many many on here more intelligent than you? That being the case; are you suggesting that only those with the same intelligence level should comment on each others posts? You are a fool and I show you to be that virtually ever time..Im sure your employers will see that when all this is put before them...its being worked on..;)[/p][/quote]More p*ss and wind you deluded idiot. blah blah blah Ask your remedial teacher / nurse / carer whoever to add punctuation to your curriculum whilst you're at it. God, you are one tiresome boring troll. But since I hook you every time, it provides many with great amusement. My employers? Who said I'm an employee? More delusion on your part. A bit like your definition of tax. By the way, how's that Matron, you know the one from Nigeria you were banging on about? I bet you were delighted dragging race into it until I pointed out the only person who did was you. Classic own goal you loser. More threats about your dodgy dossier? You're not Alistair Campbell are you? He's a bloody nut case liar too. Bring it on. Can't wait. RochfordRob

7:57pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Basildon Lady says...

Not read all the posts as too long winded. All I want to say is this, Basildon is full of flats. I applied for one and obtained one on the council within two weeks. To obtain a small house takes at least about 5 years unless you go homeless, then the council normally make you private rent anyway. I would hazard a guess, based on anecdotal (but a wide range) of evidence that boroughs like ours have no shortage of smaller accommodation. Maybe in different parts of the country there is a shortage but here, I sincerely doubt it.
Not read all the posts as too long winded. All I want to say is this, Basildon is full of flats. I applied for one and obtained one on the council within two weeks. To obtain a small house takes at least about 5 years unless you go homeless, then the council normally make you private rent anyway. I would hazard a guess, based on anecdotal (but a wide range) of evidence that boroughs like ours have no shortage of smaller accommodation. Maybe in different parts of the country there is a shortage but here, I sincerely doubt it. Basildon Lady

8:17pm Thu 13 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

Well said Madam. The resident lunatic will of course challenge you and demand evidence, weblinks and all sorts of other nonsense.

Out of interest, what was your reason for downsizing, and secondly do you consider that extra rent on a bigger property a 'tax' ??
Well said Madam. The resident lunatic will of course challenge you and demand evidence, weblinks and all sorts of other nonsense. Out of interest, what was your reason for downsizing, and secondly do you consider that extra rent on a bigger property a 'tax' ?? RochfordRob

9:34pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house.

It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.
It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into. Alekhine

9:39pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
RochfordRob wrote:
My point still stands, you asked when did I I last post on topic. So I gave a credible example.

Not, when was the LAST TIMEyou posted?

Can be interpreted as two entirely different meanings, and given youR dreadful grasp of anything, easily done.

Nope, I haven't posted anything racist on here, but there again, I never have.

I may have called you some rude names in French and you squealied like a girl and complained as I recall.

Again, you can dish it out, but can you take it?

No.

Back to topic you are comparing earnings with freebies - two entirely different things. One is earned and taxed, the other one, well, you just get given less of it - hardly tax is it?

Carry on whining. Oh, and your posts - far to long - all p*ss and wind, trying to make you look intelligent.

Less is more.

And the less we hear from you the more happy most will be.
Regardless of how it can be interpreted...the point stands, you complain about others posting off topic and then in 9 (?) posts you are on topic once...

Only one way to interpret that....hypocrite!

My grasp of your personality is spot on and you know it...you are blunted and post with that in mind and you know my place within that..;)

Do you have copies of all your posts? Is not a barrage of racial slur, smear and innuendo not offensive..if not illegal then certainly something a company might look at under their own policies in regards to diversity..encryptio


n is something that can be overcome as Im sure you know.

Rude names? You of course mean foul swearing...did I report you? I remember advising others to do that and so didn't have to as you were banned soon after and a record of that stands..you were banned from a public forum for constant use of foul language...take the filthy innuendo on the thread of the young girl and your constant racial angle on many threads (The joy of diversity and multi-culturism) usually aimed at the culture or race of the people involved. Im sure it wouldn't need much prompting for others to come to the right and clear conclusion of what you are..

There is no freebies in the equation...benefits are not freebies.. but I agree they are two different things.

People are entitled to their wages...people are entitled to their benefits...both wouldn't get it if they were not entitled. Money deducted is a tax...of course it is less of what both are entitled to but it is still tax...

Those who pay income tax and pay bedroom tax are taxed effectually 3 times!

If the debate is beyond you, pop off and see if there are any threads about non-white people or white people from different cultures to post your spleen on...or add to the debate..

I see you have not once tried to prove me wrong in a constructive way.. just moaned about the length of the post...lack of concentration?...and tried to sure up your retarded ego by assuming a higher intelligence level...you are not more intelligent than me..you just think you are...but even if you were, do you think there aren't many many many on here more intelligent than you?

That being the case; are you suggesting that only those with the same intelligence level should comment on each others posts?

You are a fool and I show you to be that virtually ever time..Im sure your employers will see that when all this is put before them...its being worked on..;)
More p*ss and wind you deluded idiot.
blah
blah
blah

Ask your remedial teacher / nurse / carer whoever to add punctuation to your curriculum whilst you're at it.

God, you are one tiresome boring troll.

But since I hook you every time, it provides many with great amusement.

My employers? Who said I'm an employee? More delusion on your part.

A bit like your definition of tax.

By the way, how's that Matron, you know the one from Nigeria you were banging on about? I bet you were delighted dragging race into it until I pointed out the only person who did was you.

Classic own goal you loser.

More threats about your dodgy dossier? You're not Alistair Campbell are you? He's a bloody nut case liar too.

Bring it on. Can't wait.
Oh dear...the " trebles all round" seem to be having their effect...

You feel posting "the joy of diversity and mulit-culturalism" in a derogatory manner when referring to a Nigerian lady is not from a racial angle...you just dont know you are doing it do you? Perhaps the trebles are to blame.

You obviously do not know the definition of 'tax' or you wouldn't be posting your rubbish...which is again off topic for the 9th time..hypocrite.

Try offer something in the way of debate you moron rather than you usual dribble.

I too look forwarded to it...
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: My point still stands, you asked when did I I last post on topic. So I gave a credible example. Not, when was the LAST TIMEyou posted? Can be interpreted as two entirely different meanings, and given youR dreadful grasp of anything, easily done. Nope, I haven't posted anything racist on here, but there again, I never have. I may have called you some rude names in French and you squealied like a girl and complained as I recall. Again, you can dish it out, but can you take it? No. Back to topic you are comparing earnings with freebies - two entirely different things. One is earned and taxed, the other one, well, you just get given less of it - hardly tax is it? Carry on whining. Oh, and your posts - far to long - all p*ss and wind, trying to make you look intelligent. Less is more. And the less we hear from you the more happy most will be.[/p][/quote]Regardless of how it can be interpreted...the point stands, you complain about others posting off topic and then in 9 (?) posts you are on topic once... Only one way to interpret that....hypocrite! My grasp of your personality is spot on and you know it...you are blunted and post with that in mind and you know my place within that..;) Do you have copies of all your posts? Is not a barrage of racial slur, smear and innuendo not offensive..if not illegal then certainly something a company might look at under their own policies in regards to diversity..encryptio n is something that can be overcome as Im sure you know. Rude names? You of course mean foul swearing...did I report you? I remember advising others to do that and so didn't have to as you were banned soon after and a record of that stands..you were banned from a public forum for constant use of foul language...take the filthy innuendo on the thread of the young girl and your constant racial angle on many threads (The joy of diversity and multi-culturism) usually aimed at the culture or race of the people involved. Im sure it wouldn't need much prompting for others to come to the right and clear conclusion of what you are.. There is no freebies in the equation...benefits are not freebies.. but I agree they are two different things. People are entitled to their wages...people are entitled to their benefits...both wouldn't get it if they were not entitled. Money deducted is a tax...of course it is less of what both are entitled to but it is still tax... Those who pay income tax and pay bedroom tax are taxed effectually 3 times! If the debate is beyond you, pop off and see if there are any threads about non-white people or white people from different cultures to post your spleen on...or add to the debate.. I see you have not once tried to prove me wrong in a constructive way.. just moaned about the length of the post...lack of concentration?...and tried to sure up your retarded ego by assuming a higher intelligence level...you are not more intelligent than me..you just think you are...but even if you were, do you think there aren't many many many on here more intelligent than you? That being the case; are you suggesting that only those with the same intelligence level should comment on each others posts? You are a fool and I show you to be that virtually ever time..Im sure your employers will see that when all this is put before them...its being worked on..;)[/p][/quote]More p*ss and wind you deluded idiot. blah blah blah Ask your remedial teacher / nurse / carer whoever to add punctuation to your curriculum whilst you're at it. God, you are one tiresome boring troll. But since I hook you every time, it provides many with great amusement. My employers? Who said I'm an employee? More delusion on your part. A bit like your definition of tax. By the way, how's that Matron, you know the one from Nigeria you were banging on about? I bet you were delighted dragging race into it until I pointed out the only person who did was you. Classic own goal you loser. More threats about your dodgy dossier? You're not Alistair Campbell are you? He's a bloody nut case liar too. Bring it on. Can't wait.[/p][/quote]Oh dear...the " trebles all round" seem to be having their effect... You feel posting "the joy of diversity and mulit-culturalism" in a derogatory manner when referring to a Nigerian lady is not from a racial angle...you just dont know you are doing it do you? Perhaps the trebles are to blame. You obviously do not know the definition of 'tax' or you wouldn't be posting your rubbish...which is again off topic for the 9th time..hypocrite. Try offer something in the way of debate you moron rather than you usual dribble. I too look forwarded to it... ThisYear

9:44pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Basildon Lady says...

It may be a question of case in point here (in favour - and don't scorn me) of the so called 'Bedroom Tax'. Honestly, I never downsized. I sorted the paperwork and sent it to the council, at the time it was just my husband and I and we we're housed within a fortnight in a one bedroomed flat. We had been privately renting for 5 years and never considered the council would even give us a look in, but decided to give them a try (mainly as I had just been made redundant and private rent was too high for one salary to pay while I got another job).

The rest regarding overcrowding e.t.c, I've heard from other young couples in tricky situations that I know of. We had our child in 2011 and are still waiting to be re-housed. Now we could private rent, but we would be subject to a large increase in our monthly outgoings again, buying the same (but we would only be able to afford another flat). Not to mention we would be on the bread line and our accommodation would be unstable at best, in fact, with private renting most of the tenancies are only guaranteed for 6 months.

I don't claim to be a saint, our child was not planned but did come along 5 years into a relationship with a newlywed Mum and Dad. We knew it was now our responsibility to sort out reasonable accommodation but having exhausted the other options we felt that waiting it out in our flat, although uncomfortable for us, would be best. Our child would be too young to know the difference and the extremely low cost of council accommodation would be a great help with raising a little one, not to mention the security.

We dream one day of having a 2 bedroomed council place and know that if we do have any more children we will make a point of getting a larger home sorted first. We work opposite shifts and don’t claim a penny except for child benefit which pretty much everyone gets (if you earn under £40,000) per annum.

I go to bed one foot away from where my daughter sleeps and normally wake her, my husband gets up at 5am to start work and wakes her. I don’t even have a chest of drawers or a wardrobe and our room is now starting to suffer with condensation from being overcrowded.

It is a real jolt in the ribs, when, people who have had the benefit of a council home to raise their family in properly for however long play the ‘hard done by’ card. We put in about 60+ hours per week between us and I always believed those who are receiving housing benefit do not work or only work low hours. Maybe in some isolated cases full time in a low paid job which is fair enough - they should perhaps be exempt? Of course disabled people need to be considered as well.

My husband an I probably pass people living in council homes, too large for the occupant and paid for by the state everyday on our way to and from work. We wonder why we cannot be so privileged, were we born too late?

I don’t air a sob story here, we made a decision to tough it out, and tough it out we will. What I am saying is something has to give. Too many houses were sold which is sad, but don’t forget the home-owners take on their own maintenance and other sundries along with that. A rented property is just that - rented and people who do not need the space should move on and let someone else have the privileges they were afforded.

I would add, private renting has a bedroom allowance very similar to the new ‘bedroom tax’ ruling on council properties so those people have been struggling for years. Why should a council tenant be positively discriminated against. It is not a tax in my eyes, it is an eradication of positive discrimination.
It may be a question of case in point here (in favour - and don't scorn me) of the so called 'Bedroom Tax'. Honestly, I never downsized. I sorted the paperwork and sent it to the council, at the time it was just my husband and I and we we're housed within a fortnight in a one bedroomed flat. We had been privately renting for 5 years and never considered the council would even give us a look in, but decided to give them a try (mainly as I had just been made redundant and private rent was too high for one salary to pay while I got another job). The rest regarding overcrowding e.t.c, I've heard from other young couples in tricky situations that I know of. We had our child in 2011 and are still waiting to be re-housed. Now we could private rent, but we would be subject to a large increase in our monthly outgoings again, buying the same (but we would only be able to afford another flat). Not to mention we would be on the bread line and our accommodation would be unstable at best, in fact, with private renting most of the tenancies are only guaranteed for 6 months. I don't claim to be a saint, our child was not planned but did come along 5 years into a relationship with a newlywed Mum and Dad. We knew it was now our responsibility to sort out reasonable accommodation but having exhausted the other options we felt that waiting it out in our flat, although uncomfortable for us, would be best. Our child would be too young to know the difference and the extremely low cost of council accommodation would be a great help with raising a little one, not to mention the security. We dream one day of having a 2 bedroomed council place and know that if we do have any more children we will make a point of getting a larger home sorted first. We work opposite shifts and don’t claim a penny except for child benefit which pretty much everyone gets (if you earn under £40,000) per annum. I go to bed one foot away from where my daughter sleeps and normally wake her, my husband gets up at 5am to start work and wakes her. I don’t even have a chest of drawers or a wardrobe and our room is now starting to suffer with condensation from being overcrowded. It is a real jolt in the ribs, when, people who have had the benefit of a council home to raise their family in properly for however long play the ‘hard done by’ card. We put in about 60+ hours per week between us and I always believed those who are receiving housing benefit do not work or only work low hours. Maybe in some isolated cases full time in a low paid job which is fair enough - they should perhaps be exempt? Of course disabled people need to be considered as well. My husband an I probably pass people living in council homes, too large for the occupant and paid for by the state everyday on our way to and from work. We wonder why we cannot be so privileged, were we born too late? I don’t air a sob story here, we made a decision to tough it out, and tough it out we will. What I am saying is something has to give. Too many houses were sold which is sad, but don’t forget the home-owners take on their own maintenance and other sundries along with that. A rented property is just that - rented and people who do not need the space should move on and let someone else have the privileges they were afforded. I would add, private renting has a bedroom allowance very similar to the new ‘bedroom tax’ ruling on council properties so those people have been struggling for years. Why should a council tenant be positively discriminated against. It is not a tax in my eyes, it is an eradication of positive discrimination. Basildon Lady

9:47pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Basildon Lady wrote:
Not read all the posts as too long winded. All I want to say is this, Basildon is full of flats. I applied for one and obtained one on the council within two weeks. To obtain a small house takes at least about 5 years unless you go homeless, then the council normally make you private rent anyway. I would hazard a guess, based on anecdotal (but a wide range) of evidence that boroughs like ours have no shortage of smaller accommodation. Maybe in different parts of the country there is a shortage but here, I sincerely doubt it.
Im sure you are being honest in your opinion...there will always be problems with a person(s) moving from a house to a flat for myriad reasons..but Im sure some would if given the opportunity and perhaps some have, who knows?

Thats a major problem..the government while implementing this policy have no way of knowing just what has come out of it...how many have moved...how many remained..how many have been evicted or facing such...how many pay...how many refuse to pay...how many have the council helped by getting around the policy (as leeds council have done) how much it has saved how much it has cosy...how much it has lost...if IDS is to continue on his way then it has lost much more than it could ever save...they dont even know how many families it may of helped..while splitting families..its a dogs dinner of a policy and will be repealed if not before the next GE soon after it..
[quote][p][bold]Basildon Lady[/bold] wrote: Not read all the posts as too long winded. All I want to say is this, Basildon is full of flats. I applied for one and obtained one on the council within two weeks. To obtain a small house takes at least about 5 years unless you go homeless, then the council normally make you private rent anyway. I would hazard a guess, based on anecdotal (but a wide range) of evidence that boroughs like ours have no shortage of smaller accommodation. Maybe in different parts of the country there is a shortage but here, I sincerely doubt it.[/p][/quote]Im sure you are being honest in your opinion...there will always be problems with a person(s) moving from a house to a flat for myriad reasons..but Im sure some would if given the opportunity and perhaps some have, who knows? Thats a major problem..the government while implementing this policy have no way of knowing just what has come out of it...how many have moved...how many remained..how many have been evicted or facing such...how many pay...how many refuse to pay...how many have the council helped by getting around the policy (as leeds council have done) how much it has saved how much it has cosy...how much it has lost...if IDS is to continue on his way then it has lost much more than it could ever save...they dont even know how many families it may of helped..while splitting families..its a dogs dinner of a policy and will be repealed if not before the next GE soon after it.. ThisYear

9:58pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
Well said Madam. The resident lunatic will of course challenge you and demand evidence, weblinks and all sorts of other nonsense.

Out of interest, what was your reason for downsizing, and secondly do you consider that extra rent on a bigger property a 'tax' ??
You feel people should accept what they are told without checking or asking for evidence..but I suppose that was the way it was when you were causing trouble to the public.

Another poster on here was just recently saying about believing anything anyone writes...

"It seems you believe anything anyone writes"

BUT WAIT! IT WAS YOU!

Lay of the trebles they have you contradicting (among other things) yourself..

So which is it Numbnut (singular) should I accept whatever someone writes or should I ask for evidence...or does it depend on what time of the day it is and how many trebles have been partaken of?
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: Well said Madam. The resident lunatic will of course challenge you and demand evidence, weblinks and all sorts of other nonsense. Out of interest, what was your reason for downsizing, and secondly do you consider that extra rent on a bigger property a 'tax' ??[/p][/quote]You feel people should accept what they are told without checking or asking for evidence..but I suppose that was the way it was when you were causing trouble to the public. Another poster on here was just recently saying about believing anything anyone writes... "It seems you believe anything anyone writes" BUT WAIT! IT WAS YOU! Lay of the trebles they have you contradicting (among other things) yourself.. So which is it Numbnut (singular) should I accept whatever someone writes or should I ask for evidence...or does it depend on what time of the day it is and how many trebles have been partaken of? ThisYear

10:07pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Basildon Lady says...

Basildon Lady wrote:
Not read all the posts as too long winded. All I want to say is this, Basildon is full of flats. I applied for one and obtained one on the council within two weeks. To obtain a small house takes at least about 5 years unless you go homeless, then the council normally make you private rent anyway. I would hazard a guess, based on anecdotal (but a wide range) of evidence that boroughs like ours have no shortage of smaller accommodation. Maybe in different parts of the country there is a shortage but here, I sincerely doubt it.
Im sure you are being honest in your opinion...there will always be problems with a person(s) moving from a house to a flat for myriad reasons..but Im sure some would if given the opportunity and perhaps some have, who knows?

Thats a major problem..the government while implementing this policy have no way of knowing just what has come out of it...how many have moved...how many remained..how many have been evicted or facing such...how many pay...how many refuse to pay...how many have the council helped by getting around the policy (as leeds council have done) how much it has saved how much it has cosy...how much it has lost...if IDS is to continue on his way then it has lost much more than it could ever save...they dont even know how many families it may of helped..while splitting families..its a dogs dinner of a policy and will be repealed if not before the next GE soon after it..



Myriad of reasons - Maybe the elderly and people in ill-health but, the elderly are not affected by the increase and those who need ground floor accommodation are prioritised for this against others. In fact high priority is given to anyone who wants to downsize. A discretionary housing payment can be made also to help.

For the rest, would the reasons be as important as those facing overcrowding and it's known effects on the physical and mental well-being of the people in that situation it's hard to say.

I say that the policy is fundamentally right, as it's only bringing council tenants in line with private tenants.
Basildon Lady wrote: Not read all the posts as too long winded. All I want to say is this, Basildon is full of flats. I applied for one and obtained one on the council within two weeks. To obtain a small house takes at least about 5 years unless you go homeless, then the council normally make you private rent anyway. I would hazard a guess, based on anecdotal (but a wide range) of evidence that boroughs like ours have no shortage of smaller accommodation. Maybe in different parts of the country there is a shortage but here, I sincerely doubt it. Im sure you are being honest in your opinion...there will always be problems with a person(s) moving from a house to a flat for myriad reasons..but Im sure some would if given the opportunity and perhaps some have, who knows? Thats a major problem..the government while implementing this policy have no way of knowing just what has come out of it...how many have moved...how many remained..how many have been evicted or facing such...how many pay...how many refuse to pay...how many have the council helped by getting around the policy (as leeds council have done) how much it has saved how much it has cosy...how much it has lost...if IDS is to continue on his way then it has lost much more than it could ever save...they dont even know how many families it may of helped..while splitting families..its a dogs dinner of a policy and will be repealed if not before the next GE soon after it.. Myriad of reasons - Maybe the elderly and people in ill-health but, the elderly are not affected by the increase and those who need ground floor accommodation are prioritised for this against others. In fact high priority is given to anyone who wants to downsize. A discretionary housing payment can be made also to help. For the rest, would the reasons be as important as those facing overcrowding and it's known effects on the physical and mental well-being of the people in that situation it's hard to say. I say that the policy is fundamentally right, as it's only bringing council tenants in line with private tenants. Basildon Lady

10:09pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Basildon Lady says...

Basildon Lady wrote:
Basildon Lady wrote:
Not read all the posts as too long winded. All I want to say is this, Basildon is full of flats. I applied for one and obtained one on the council within two weeks. To obtain a small house takes at least about 5 years unless you go homeless, then the council normally make you private rent anyway. I would hazard a guess, based on anecdotal (but a wide range) of evidence that boroughs like ours have no shortage of smaller accommodation. Maybe in different parts of the country there is a shortage but here, I sincerely doubt it.
Im sure you are being honest in your opinion...there will always be problems with a person(s) moving from a house to a flat for myriad reasons..but Im sure some would if given the opportunity and perhaps some have, who knows?

Thats a major problem..the government while implementing this policy have no way of knowing just what has come out of it...how many have moved...how many remained..how many have been evicted or facing such...how many pay...how many refuse to pay...how many have the council helped by getting around the policy (as leeds council have done) how much it has saved how much it has cosy...how much it has lost...if IDS is to continue on his way then it has lost much more than it could ever save...they dont even know how many families it may of helped..while splitting families..its a dogs dinner of a policy and will be repealed if not before the next GE soon after it..



Myriad of reasons - Maybe the elderly and people in ill-health but, the elderly are not affected by the increase and those who need ground floor accommodation are prioritised for this against others. In fact high priority is given to anyone who wants to downsize. A discretionary housing payment can be made also to help.

For the rest, would the reasons be as important as those facing overcrowding and it's known effects on the physical and mental well-being of the people in that situation it's hard to say.

I say that the policy is fundamentally right, as it's only bringing council tenants in line with private tenants.
Apologies, my posting etiquette is not on form tonight, please read from 'Myriad of Reasons' - in my response.
[quote][p][bold]Basildon Lady[/bold] wrote: Basildon Lady wrote: Not read all the posts as too long winded. All I want to say is this, Basildon is full of flats. I applied for one and obtained one on the council within two weeks. To obtain a small house takes at least about 5 years unless you go homeless, then the council normally make you private rent anyway. I would hazard a guess, based on anecdotal (but a wide range) of evidence that boroughs like ours have no shortage of smaller accommodation. Maybe in different parts of the country there is a shortage but here, I sincerely doubt it. Im sure you are being honest in your opinion...there will always be problems with a person(s) moving from a house to a flat for myriad reasons..but Im sure some would if given the opportunity and perhaps some have, who knows? Thats a major problem..the government while implementing this policy have no way of knowing just what has come out of it...how many have moved...how many remained..how many have been evicted or facing such...how many pay...how many refuse to pay...how many have the council helped by getting around the policy (as leeds council have done) how much it has saved how much it has cosy...how much it has lost...if IDS is to continue on his way then it has lost much more than it could ever save...they dont even know how many families it may of helped..while splitting families..its a dogs dinner of a policy and will be repealed if not before the next GE soon after it.. Myriad of reasons - Maybe the elderly and people in ill-health but, the elderly are not affected by the increase and those who need ground floor accommodation are prioritised for this against others. In fact high priority is given to anyone who wants to downsize. A discretionary housing payment can be made also to help. For the rest, would the reasons be as important as those facing overcrowding and it's known effects on the physical and mental well-being of the people in that situation it's hard to say. I say that the policy is fundamentally right, as it's only bringing council tenants in line with private tenants.[/p][/quote]Apologies, my posting etiquette is not on form tonight, please read from 'Myriad of Reasons' - in my response. Basildon Lady

10:25pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Basildon Lady wrote:
It may be a question of case in point here (in favour - and don't scorn me) of the so called 'Bedroom Tax'. Honestly, I never downsized. I sorted the paperwork and sent it to the council, at the time it was just my husband and I and we we're housed within a fortnight in a one bedroomed flat. We had been privately renting for 5 years and never considered the council would even give us a look in, but decided to give them a try (mainly as I had just been made redundant and private rent was too high for one salary to pay while I got another job).

The rest regarding overcrowding e.t.c, I've heard from other young couples in tricky situations that I know of. We had our child in 2011 and are still waiting to be re-housed. Now we could private rent, but we would be subject to a large increase in our monthly outgoings again, buying the same (but we would only be able to afford another flat). Not to mention we would be on the bread line and our accommodation would be unstable at best, in fact, with private renting most of the tenancies are only guaranteed for 6 months.

I don't claim to be a saint, our child was not planned but did come along 5 years into a relationship with a newlywed Mum and Dad. We knew it was now our responsibility to sort out reasonable accommodation but having exhausted the other options we felt that waiting it out in our flat, although uncomfortable for us, would be best. Our child would be too young to know the difference and the extremely low cost of council accommodation would be a great help with raising a little one, not to mention the security.

We dream one day of having a 2 bedroomed council place and know that if we do have any more children we will make a point of getting a larger home sorted first. We work opposite shifts and don’t claim a penny except for child benefit which pretty much everyone gets (if you earn under £40,000) per annum.

I go to bed one foot away from where my daughter sleeps and normally wake her, my husband gets up at 5am to start work and wakes her. I don’t even have a chest of drawers or a wardrobe and our room is now starting to suffer with condensation from being overcrowded.

It is a real jolt in the ribs, when, people who have had the benefit of a council home to raise their family in properly for however long play the ‘hard done by’ card. We put in about 60+ hours per week between us and I always believed those who are receiving housing benefit do not work or only work low hours. Maybe in some isolated cases full time in a low paid job which is fair enough - they should perhaps be exempt? Of course disabled people need to be considered as well.

My husband an I probably pass people living in council homes, too large for the occupant and paid for by the state everyday on our way to and from work. We wonder why we cannot be so privileged, were we born too late?

I don’t air a sob story here, we made a decision to tough it out, and tough it out we will. What I am saying is something has to give. Too many houses were sold which is sad, but don’t forget the home-owners take on their own maintenance and other sundries along with that. A rented property is just that - rented and people who do not need the space should move on and let someone else have the privileges they were afforded.

I would add, private renting has a bedroom allowance very similar to the new ‘bedroom tax’ ruling on council properties so those people have been struggling for years. Why should a council tenant be positively discriminated against. It is not a tax in my eyes, it is an eradication of positive discrimination.
There are so many parts of your post I could take to pieces and ask why 'this that and the other' but I wont..what i will restrict myself to saying in reply.

You seem to be saying because your family are finding it hard that others who you deem better off should swop places with you..for instance would you flat suffer any less with condensation for a couple who have had to downsize from a two bed?

Would their disposable income be much accentuated by downsizing or would they be actually worse off?

Would your income be any better...your condition maybe but only at the cost of someone else conditions being worse.

You have said yourself there is no shortages of small accommodation within the area..so hopefully soon you will be moving a small accommodation bigger than what you got now.

There are those on these boards who would say because both of you were working (or even one) you should not be living in council accommodation but out on your own..they would also suggest all such accommodation should be done away with..

I would just point out gently a benefit is a benefit is a benefit..and as you rightly say MOST people get a benefit of some sort..
[quote][p][bold]Basildon Lady[/bold] wrote: It may be a question of case in point here (in favour - and don't scorn me) of the so called 'Bedroom Tax'. Honestly, I never downsized. I sorted the paperwork and sent it to the council, at the time it was just my husband and I and we we're housed within a fortnight in a one bedroomed flat. We had been privately renting for 5 years and never considered the council would even give us a look in, but decided to give them a try (mainly as I had just been made redundant and private rent was too high for one salary to pay while I got another job). The rest regarding overcrowding e.t.c, I've heard from other young couples in tricky situations that I know of. We had our child in 2011 and are still waiting to be re-housed. Now we could private rent, but we would be subject to a large increase in our monthly outgoings again, buying the same (but we would only be able to afford another flat). Not to mention we would be on the bread line and our accommodation would be unstable at best, in fact, with private renting most of the tenancies are only guaranteed for 6 months. I don't claim to be a saint, our child was not planned but did come along 5 years into a relationship with a newlywed Mum and Dad. We knew it was now our responsibility to sort out reasonable accommodation but having exhausted the other options we felt that waiting it out in our flat, although uncomfortable for us, would be best. Our child would be too young to know the difference and the extremely low cost of council accommodation would be a great help with raising a little one, not to mention the security. We dream one day of having a 2 bedroomed council place and know that if we do have any more children we will make a point of getting a larger home sorted first. We work opposite shifts and don’t claim a penny except for child benefit which pretty much everyone gets (if you earn under £40,000) per annum. I go to bed one foot away from where my daughter sleeps and normally wake her, my husband gets up at 5am to start work and wakes her. I don’t even have a chest of drawers or a wardrobe and our room is now starting to suffer with condensation from being overcrowded. It is a real jolt in the ribs, when, people who have had the benefit of a council home to raise their family in properly for however long play the ‘hard done by’ card. We put in about 60+ hours per week between us and I always believed those who are receiving housing benefit do not work or only work low hours. Maybe in some isolated cases full time in a low paid job which is fair enough - they should perhaps be exempt? Of course disabled people need to be considered as well. My husband an I probably pass people living in council homes, too large for the occupant and paid for by the state everyday on our way to and from work. We wonder why we cannot be so privileged, were we born too late? I don’t air a sob story here, we made a decision to tough it out, and tough it out we will. What I am saying is something has to give. Too many houses were sold which is sad, but don’t forget the home-owners take on their own maintenance and other sundries along with that. A rented property is just that - rented and people who do not need the space should move on and let someone else have the privileges they were afforded. I would add, private renting has a bedroom allowance very similar to the new ‘bedroom tax’ ruling on council properties so those people have been struggling for years. Why should a council tenant be positively discriminated against. It is not a tax in my eyes, it is an eradication of positive discrimination.[/p][/quote]There are so many parts of your post I could take to pieces and ask why 'this that and the other' but I wont..what i will restrict myself to saying in reply. You seem to be saying because your family are finding it hard that others who you deem better off should swop places with you..for instance would you flat suffer any less with condensation for a couple who have had to downsize from a two bed? Would their disposable income be much accentuated by downsizing or would they be actually worse off? Would your income be any better...your condition maybe but only at the cost of someone else conditions being worse. You have said yourself there is no shortages of small accommodation within the area..so hopefully soon you will be moving a small accommodation bigger than what you got now. There are those on these boards who would say because both of you were working (or even one) you should not be living in council accommodation but out on your own..they would also suggest all such accommodation should be done away with.. I would just point out gently a benefit is a benefit is a benefit..and as you rightly say MOST people get a benefit of some sort.. ThisYear

10:28pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house.

It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.
You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..?

I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven!
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.[/p][/quote]You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven! ThisYear

10:30pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
Well said Madam. The resident lunatic will of course challenge you and demand evidence, weblinks and all sorts of other nonsense.

Out of interest, what was your reason for downsizing, and secondly do you consider that extra rent on a bigger property a 'tax' ??
Its Clear you didn't read her post properly...but hey why break a habit..perhaps a bit too much "trebles all round" tonight?
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: Well said Madam. The resident lunatic will of course challenge you and demand evidence, weblinks and all sorts of other nonsense. Out of interest, what was your reason for downsizing, and secondly do you consider that extra rent on a bigger property a 'tax' ??[/p][/quote]Its Clear you didn't read her post properly...but hey why break a habit..perhaps a bit too much "trebles all round" tonight? ThisYear

10:31pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Teetime says...

No one will want to downsize for £1500, they are getting more than that in a year for renting the spare room out.
No one will want to downsize for £1500, they are getting more than that in a year for renting the spare room out. Teetime

10:52pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Basildon Lady says...

ThisYear wrote:
RochfordRob wrote:
Well said Madam. The resident lunatic will of course challenge you and demand evidence, weblinks and all sorts of other nonsense.

Out of interest, what was your reason for downsizing, and secondly do you consider that extra rent on a bigger property a 'tax' ??
Its Clear you didn't read her post properly...but hey why break a habit..perhaps a bit too much "trebles all round" tonight?
No, ThisYear,

You did not read my post properly and you do not have your facts straight.

I am not the only person affected by this. Loads of families are.

Yes a couple in my home would not be affected by the damp problem as there would not be too many people for the room.

Also, we work but are on a low income so therefore renting privately would be a struggle. Plus I was born and bred here so it is my right to make use of a council home as much as anyone else's.

You are so contradictory, you have a pop at me for wanting something better for my family because I work, but are happy to jump at the chance of defending benefits claimants who have it paid for.

What you say in regard to income e.t.c is so badly worded I could not actually make any sense of it. If someone downsizes of course they will save money. In fact most council rents are the same cost regardless of property type.

Do me a favour, look up this page:

http://www3.basildon
.gov.uk/website2/cbl
/PropOffer.nsf/$$Sea
rchTemplateDefault?O
penForm

See how many flats get let out. The people who downsize, will not be worse off if they don't need the space. End of.

I now have no time to continue in this pointless debate of trying to change the mind of somebody who panders to dole dossers so am out of here.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: Well said Madam. The resident lunatic will of course challenge you and demand evidence, weblinks and all sorts of other nonsense. Out of interest, what was your reason for downsizing, and secondly do you consider that extra rent on a bigger property a 'tax' ??[/p][/quote]Its Clear you didn't read her post properly...but hey why break a habit..perhaps a bit too much "trebles all round" tonight?[/p][/quote]No, ThisYear, You did not read my post properly and you do not have your facts straight. I am not the only person affected by this. Loads of families are. Yes a couple in my home would not be affected by the damp problem as there would not be too many people for the room. Also, we work but are on a low income so therefore renting privately would be a struggle. Plus I was born and bred here so it is my right to make use of a council home as much as anyone else's. You are so contradictory, you have a pop at me for wanting something better for my family because I work, but are happy to jump at the chance of defending benefits claimants who have it paid for. What you say in regard to income e.t.c is so badly worded I could not actually make any sense of it. If someone downsizes of course they will save money. In fact most council rents are the same cost regardless of property type. Do me a favour, look up this page: http://www3.basildon .gov.uk/website2/cbl /PropOffer.nsf/$$Sea rchTemplateDefault?O penForm See how many flats get let out. The people who downsize, will not be worse off if they don't need the space. End of. I now have no time to continue in this pointless debate of trying to change the mind of somebody who panders to dole dossers so am out of here. Basildon Lady

10:59pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Basildon Lady wrote:
Basildon Lady wrote:
Not read all the posts as too long winded. All I want to say is this, Basildon is full of flats. I applied for one and obtained one on the council within two weeks. To obtain a small house takes at least about 5 years unless you go homeless, then the council normally make you private rent anyway. I would hazard a guess, based on anecdotal (but a wide range) of evidence that boroughs like ours have no shortage of smaller accommodation. Maybe in different parts of the country there is a shortage but here, I sincerely doubt it.
Im sure you are being honest in your opinion...there will always be problems with a person(s) moving from a house to a flat for myriad reasons..but Im sure some would if given the opportunity and perhaps some have, who knows?

Thats a major problem..the government while implementing this policy have no way of knowing just what has come out of it...how many have moved...how many remained..how many have been evicted or facing such...how many pay...how many refuse to pay...how many have the council helped by getting around the policy (as leeds council have done) how much it has saved how much it has cosy...how much it has lost...if IDS is to continue on his way then it has lost much more than it could ever save...they dont even know how many families it may of helped..while splitting families..its a dogs dinner of a policy and will be repealed if not before the next GE soon after it..



Myriad of reasons - Maybe the elderly and people in ill-health but, the elderly are not affected by the increase and those who need ground floor accommodation are prioritised for this against others. In fact high priority is given to anyone who wants to downsize. A discretionary housing payment can be made also to help.

For the rest, would the reasons be as important as those facing overcrowding and it's known effects on the physical and mental well-being of the people in that situation it's hard to say.

I say that the policy is fundamentally right, as it's only bringing council tenants in line with private tenants.
It really isn't a matter of agreeing with bits of the policy...you either accept it as whole or not at all

For instance you make mention of the elderly and people in health

No one knows how many elderly are affected by the tax...many elderly work..(see article about attacked cab driver 77yrs old) also men dont get a pension till 65 so many will still be working..

Disabled people have been affected by the tax as have people with illnesses.

If it is as you say that high priority is given to those who will downsize (I would appreciate any link to this) then those who can or want to, will already of done so freeing up properties...there doesn't seem to be an awful lot of crowing by councils that they have X amount of success with downsizing anywhere in the country...which suggest it really hasn't happened to any large extent..

The physical and mental well-being of the people being forced to move out is as important as those who are over-crowded..there have been suicides because of the BT..

"discretionary housing payment" is a sheer lottery and as badly organised as the bedroom tax itself..it is only for a short period as well, although in theory it can be reviewed and renewed..but it is considered a short term measure...but surely those downsizing wouldn't fall into the criteria for DHP?

How the policy is fundamentally right because it is bringing council tenants in line with private tenants escapes me...council and private tenants are two different specie of tenant..the biggest commonality is if they are both receiving HB...other than that theres no comparison..
[quote][p][bold]Basildon Lady[/bold] wrote: Basildon Lady wrote: Not read all the posts as too long winded. All I want to say is this, Basildon is full of flats. I applied for one and obtained one on the council within two weeks. To obtain a small house takes at least about 5 years unless you go homeless, then the council normally make you private rent anyway. I would hazard a guess, based on anecdotal (but a wide range) of evidence that boroughs like ours have no shortage of smaller accommodation. Maybe in different parts of the country there is a shortage but here, I sincerely doubt it. Im sure you are being honest in your opinion...there will always be problems with a person(s) moving from a house to a flat for myriad reasons..but Im sure some would if given the opportunity and perhaps some have, who knows? Thats a major problem..the government while implementing this policy have no way of knowing just what has come out of it...how many have moved...how many remained..how many have been evicted or facing such...how many pay...how many refuse to pay...how many have the council helped by getting around the policy (as leeds council have done) how much it has saved how much it has cosy...how much it has lost...if IDS is to continue on his way then it has lost much more than it could ever save...they dont even know how many families it may of helped..while splitting families..its a dogs dinner of a policy and will be repealed if not before the next GE soon after it.. Myriad of reasons - Maybe the elderly and people in ill-health but, the elderly are not affected by the increase and those who need ground floor accommodation are prioritised for this against others. In fact high priority is given to anyone who wants to downsize. A discretionary housing payment can be made also to help. For the rest, would the reasons be as important as those facing overcrowding and it's known effects on the physical and mental well-being of the people in that situation it's hard to say. I say that the policy is fundamentally right, as it's only bringing council tenants in line with private tenants.[/p][/quote]It really isn't a matter of agreeing with bits of the policy...you either accept it as whole or not at all For instance you make mention of the elderly and people in health No one knows how many elderly are affected by the tax...many elderly work..(see article about attacked cab driver 77yrs old) also men dont get a pension till 65 so many will still be working.. Disabled people have been affected by the tax as have people with illnesses. If it is as you say that high priority is given to those who will downsize (I would appreciate any link to this) then those who can or want to, will already of done so freeing up properties...there doesn't seem to be an awful lot of crowing by councils that they have X amount of success with downsizing anywhere in the country...which suggest it really hasn't happened to any large extent.. The physical and mental well-being of the people being forced to move out is as important as those who are over-crowded..there have been suicides because of the BT.. "discretionary housing payment" is a sheer lottery and as badly organised as the bedroom tax itself..it is only for a short period as well, although in theory it can be reviewed and renewed..but it is considered a short term measure...but surely those downsizing wouldn't fall into the criteria for DHP? How the policy is fundamentally right because it is bringing council tenants in line with private tenants escapes me...council and private tenants are two different specie of tenant..the biggest commonality is if they are both receiving HB...other than that theres no comparison.. ThisYear

11:05pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Unfortunately, i think there is an element of being "born too late" combined with a misplaced entitlement attitude from the older generation (yes, that's me). Also an element of already being housed and being able to look after yourself will not make you a top priority for the council.

All i can say is that you should look very very hard at whether you can get and afford a mortgage on a small house. If you can survive the first 2 years it does get easier. If you are carrying credit card or loan debt you should get some advice from the CAB and look at getting an agreement with your lender(s) for minimum repayment with the interest suspended. The rest is timing. The base rate is still at a record low 0.5% but is likely to rise later this year or early the next. If you look for a 5 year fixed rate deal you will have your largest cost nailed down long after rates have risen.

The other stumbling block is the deposit. This requirement has eased a bit since 2008 but i would guess that you would need at least GBP 5000.

If i was feeling naughty i would say put it on your card.
Unfortunately, i think there is an element of being "born too late" combined with a misplaced entitlement attitude from the older generation (yes, that's me). Also an element of already being housed and being able to look after yourself will not make you a top priority for the council. All i can say is that you should look very very hard at whether you can get and afford a mortgage on a small house. If you can survive the first 2 years it does get easier. If you are carrying credit card or loan debt you should get some advice from the CAB and look at getting an agreement with your lender(s) for minimum repayment with the interest suspended. The rest is timing. The base rate is still at a record low 0.5% but is likely to rise later this year or early the next. If you look for a 5 year fixed rate deal you will have your largest cost nailed down long after rates have risen. The other stumbling block is the deposit. This requirement has eased a bit since 2008 but i would guess that you would need at least GBP 5000. If i was feeling naughty i would say put it on your card. Alekhine

11:12pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house.

It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.
You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..?

I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven!
Was i talking to you?

BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.[/p][/quote]You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven![/p][/quote]Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax? Alekhine

11:15pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house.

It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.
You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..?

I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven!
Was i talking to you?

BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?
I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.[/p][/quote]You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven![/p][/quote]Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?[/p][/quote]I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady. Alekhine

11:33pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Basildon Lady wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
RochfordRob wrote:
Well said Madam. The resident lunatic will of course challenge you and demand evidence, weblinks and all sorts of other nonsense.

Out of interest, what was your reason for downsizing, and secondly do you consider that extra rent on a bigger property a 'tax' ??
Its Clear you didn't read her post properly...but hey why break a habit..perhaps a bit too much "trebles all round" tonight?
No, ThisYear,

You did not read my post properly and you do not have your facts straight.

I am not the only person affected by this. Loads of families are.

Yes a couple in my home would not be affected by the damp problem as there would not be too many people for the room.

Also, we work but are on a low income so therefore renting privately would be a struggle. Plus I was born and bred here so it is my right to make use of a council home as much as anyone else's.

You are so contradictory, you have a pop at me for wanting something better for my family because I work, but are happy to jump at the chance of defending benefits claimants who have it paid for.

What you say in regard to income e.t.c is so badly worded I could not actually make any sense of it. If someone downsizes of course they will save money. In fact most council rents are the same cost regardless of property type.

Do me a favour, look up this page:

http://www3.basildon

.gov.uk/website2/cbl

/PropOffer.nsf/$$Sea

rchTemplateDefault?O

penForm

See how many flats get let out. The people who downsize, will not be worse off if they don't need the space. End of.

I now have no time to continue in this pointless debate of trying to change the mind of somebody who panders to dole dossers so am out of here.
I did read your posts properly

Believe me I did not have a pop at you, I just point out a few things I felt you were not considering.

Im fully aware that you are not the only small family waiting for bigger accommodation..there will of course be bigger families waiting too....that is the fault of consecutive governments not providing more housing and the nimbys protesting about any plans to build news houses in their area..Its not the fault of the people living in their homes right now!

Im sorry but saying a couple of adults would not be facing the same dampness as a couple and a baby really doesn't add up..the difference would be minute.

The issue with your comment that you work are on a low income, is you seemingly are not considering those, who you would have moved, might also be working and on a low income..and the place you are after would probably already be available to you without others having to move.. if what you say is correct about lots of available smaller places...why look to put people in the situation you are trying to escape..

I of course agree you have a right to suitable accommodation but not by causing hardship to others...its the authorities that are to blame not the people...it should be them who are slated not people living in their homes.

Tell me what you couldn't get about the income support end of things...it may seem badly worded but thats because it has become rather contorted, by the avenues Iv had to go down because of strawman arguments..

My point about saving money by moving was; would it be worth it..to suffer all the inconvenience, to leave perhaps family and friends behind, to lose touch with your neighbourhood all to save x amount of pounds per week..Im sure some, like you, have decided to tough it out..

I couldn't open the link...but again Id say if there are lots of small properties then you will soon have one without someone having to move to accommodate you.

It could be that a family living in a four bed with only three people being taxed could actually become rival's for any place you might be in line for..how many two bed places are there in Basildon?

There might not be many people living in 2 bed accommodation that need to downsize.

Im sorry but suggesting that space is the only factor to being worse off is really ignoring all the other issues involved.

Your last comment Im afraid really deducts from your posts...many people living in council property and paying the bedroom tax are working...you are just out for yourself at the expense of anyone else...while many may say that is ok and understandable I dont..I feel it just reiterates the way society has gone into a dog eat dog frenzy aided and abetted by the very people responsible for the housing shortage...the political parties..
[quote][p][bold]Basildon Lady[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: Well said Madam. The resident lunatic will of course challenge you and demand evidence, weblinks and all sorts of other nonsense. Out of interest, what was your reason for downsizing, and secondly do you consider that extra rent on a bigger property a 'tax' ??[/p][/quote]Its Clear you didn't read her post properly...but hey why break a habit..perhaps a bit too much "trebles all round" tonight?[/p][/quote]No, ThisYear, You did not read my post properly and you do not have your facts straight. I am not the only person affected by this. Loads of families are. Yes a couple in my home would not be affected by the damp problem as there would not be too many people for the room. Also, we work but are on a low income so therefore renting privately would be a struggle. Plus I was born and bred here so it is my right to make use of a council home as much as anyone else's. You are so contradictory, you have a pop at me for wanting something better for my family because I work, but are happy to jump at the chance of defending benefits claimants who have it paid for. What you say in regard to income e.t.c is so badly worded I could not actually make any sense of it. If someone downsizes of course they will save money. In fact most council rents are the same cost regardless of property type. Do me a favour, look up this page: http://www3.basildon .gov.uk/website2/cbl /PropOffer.nsf/$$Sea rchTemplateDefault?O penForm See how many flats get let out. The people who downsize, will not be worse off if they don't need the space. End of. I now have no time to continue in this pointless debate of trying to change the mind of somebody who panders to dole dossers so am out of here.[/p][/quote]I did read your posts properly Believe me I did not have a pop at you, I just point out a few things I felt you were not considering. Im fully aware that you are not the only small family waiting for bigger accommodation..there will of course be bigger families waiting too....that is the fault of consecutive governments not providing more housing and the nimbys protesting about any plans to build news houses in their area..Its not the fault of the people living in their homes right now! Im sorry but saying a couple of adults would not be facing the same dampness as a couple and a baby really doesn't add up..the difference would be minute. The issue with your comment that you work are on a low income, is you seemingly are not considering those, who you would have moved, might also be working and on a low income..and the place you are after would probably already be available to you without others having to move.. if what you say is correct about lots of available smaller places...why look to put people in the situation you are trying to escape.. I of course agree you have a right to suitable accommodation but not by causing hardship to others...its the authorities that are to blame not the people...it should be them who are slated not people living in their homes. Tell me what you couldn't get about the income support end of things...it may seem badly worded but thats because it has become rather contorted, by the avenues Iv had to go down because of strawman arguments.. My point about saving money by moving was; would it be worth it..to suffer all the inconvenience, to leave perhaps family and friends behind, to lose touch with your neighbourhood all to save x amount of pounds per week..Im sure some, like you, have decided to tough it out.. I couldn't open the link...but again Id say if there are lots of small properties then you will soon have one without someone having to move to accommodate you. It could be that a family living in a four bed with only three people being taxed could actually become rival's for any place you might be in line for..how many two bed places are there in Basildon? There might not be many people living in 2 bed accommodation that need to downsize. Im sorry but suggesting that space is the only factor to being worse off is really ignoring all the other issues involved. Your last comment Im afraid really deducts from your posts...many people living in council property and paying the bedroom tax are working...you are just out for yourself at the expense of anyone else...while many may say that is ok and understandable I dont..I feel it just reiterates the way society has gone into a dog eat dog frenzy aided and abetted by the very people responsible for the housing shortage...the political parties.. ThisYear

11:36pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house.

It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.
You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..?

I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven!
Was i talking to you?

BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?
To pay it after usage...yes!

But of course you dont have to use it do you..
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.[/p][/quote]You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven![/p][/quote]Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?[/p][/quote]To pay it after usage...yes! But of course you dont have to use it do you.. ThisYear

11:39pm Thu 13 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house.

It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.
You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..?

I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven!
Was i talking to you?

BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?
I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.
Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man

BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.[/p][/quote]You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven![/p][/quote]Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?[/p][/quote]I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.[/p][/quote]Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax? ThisYear

12:00am Fri 14 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house.

It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.
You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..?

I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven!
Was i talking to you?

BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?
I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.
Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man

BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?
You mean what the papers refer to as the "so called" bedroom tax? -
Its a benefit.

But it looks like you have your hands full without me.

I did read your post properly.
I did!
I did!

Is it closing time already, how many have you had?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.[/p][/quote]You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven![/p][/quote]Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?[/p][/quote]I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.[/p][/quote]Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]You mean what the papers refer to as the "so called" bedroom tax? - Its a benefit. But it looks like you have your hands full without me. I did read your post properly. I did! I did! Is it closing time already, how many have you had? Alekhine

12:52am Fri 14 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

I wonder if John the Resonator is still about.
I wonder if John the Resonator is still about. Alekhine

1:45pm Fri 14 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

"Another poster on here was just recently saying about believing anything anyone writes...

"It seems you believe anything anyone writes"

Said the man who then thanked the poster I was referring to.

The best bit was when she disgreed with your usual long winded diatribe - turns out she's not one of your favoured scroungers and layabouts.

Foot himself Laugh the shot in Last

Re-arrange into well used and handy phrase.

Not you LL - back where you belong - under the bridge.
"Another poster on here was just recently saying about believing anything anyone writes... "It seems you believe anything anyone writes" Said the man who then thanked the poster I was referring to. The best bit was when she disgreed with your usual long winded diatribe - turns out she's not one of your favoured scroungers and layabouts. Foot himself Laugh the shot in Last Re-arrange into well used and handy phrase. Not you LL - back where you belong - under the bridge. RochfordRob

3:41pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house.

It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.
You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..?

I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven!
Was i talking to you?

BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?
I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.
Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man

BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?
You mean what the papers refer to as the "so called" bedroom tax? -
Its a benefit.

But it looks like you have your hands full without me.

I did read your post properly.
I did!
I did!

Is it closing time already, how many have you had?
"neither a smoker or drinker be"

ironically I find myself replying to two who seemingly abuses both..

I have asked you what term you use...I use bedroom tax which one do you use? Do you know?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.[/p][/quote]You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven![/p][/quote]Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?[/p][/quote]I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.[/p][/quote]Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]You mean what the papers refer to as the "so called" bedroom tax? - Its a benefit. But it looks like you have your hands full without me. I did read your post properly. I did! I did! Is it closing time already, how many have you had?[/p][/quote]"neither a smoker or drinker be" ironically I find myself replying to two who seemingly abuses both.. I have asked you what term you use...I use bedroom tax which one do you use? Do you know? ThisYear

4:06pm Fri 14 Feb 14

andy:) says...

essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
Ha ha. No doubt you were insisting that the Poll Tax should be refered to as the Community Charge too :). No-one called it that and no-one calls the Bedroom Tax the Spare Room Subsidy except a few out of touch Tories, thank god the Bedroom Tax will go the same way as the Poll Tax..:)
[quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]Ha ha. No doubt you were insisting that the Poll Tax should be refered to as the Community Charge too :). No-one called it that and no-one calls the Bedroom Tax the Spare Room Subsidy except a few out of touch Tories, thank god the Bedroom Tax will go the same way as the Poll Tax..:) andy:)

4:30pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
"Another poster on here was just recently saying about believing anything anyone writes...

"It seems you believe anything anyone writes"

Said the man who then thanked the poster I was referring to.

The best bit was when she disgreed with your usual long winded diatribe - turns out she's not one of your favoured scroungers and layabouts.

Foot himself Laugh the shot in Last

Re-arrange into well used and handy phrase.

Not you LL - back where you belong - under the bridge.
The point which you have ducked is...you first post;

"RochfordRob wrote:
It seems you believe anything anyone writes"

And then;

RochfordRob says...
challenge you and demand evidence, weblinks and all sorts of other nonsense.


Now again I ask;

Should I believe all thats written or should I ask for evidence...you seem a bit split on the matter..treble issues?

What does it matter who I thank on this or any other thread..?

You were replying to me when you wrote the above quotes

So again I ask;

" which is it Numbnut (singular) should I accept whatever someone writes or should I ask for evidence...or does it depend on what time of the day it is and how many trebles have been partaken of? "
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: "Another poster on here was just recently saying about believing anything anyone writes... "It seems you believe anything anyone writes" Said the man who then thanked the poster I was referring to. The best bit was when she disgreed with your usual long winded diatribe - turns out she's not one of your favoured scroungers and layabouts. Foot himself Laugh the shot in Last Re-arrange into well used and handy phrase. Not you LL - back where you belong - under the bridge.[/p][/quote]The point which you have ducked is...you first post; "RochfordRob wrote: It seems you believe anything anyone writes" And then; RochfordRob says... challenge you and demand evidence, weblinks and all sorts of other nonsense. Now again I ask; Should I believe all thats written or should I ask for evidence...you seem a bit split on the matter..treble issues? What does it matter who I thank on this or any other thread..? You were replying to me when you wrote the above quotes So again I ask; " which is it Numbnut (singular) should I accept whatever someone writes or should I ask for evidence...or does it depend on what time of the day it is and how many trebles have been partaken of? " ThisYear

4:39pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

andy:) wrote:
essex_al wrote:
Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!!
Ha ha. No doubt you were insisting that the Poll Tax should be refered to as the Community Charge too :). No-one called it that and no-one calls the Bedroom Tax the Spare Room Subsidy except a few out of touch Tories, thank god the Bedroom Tax will go the same way as the Poll Tax..:)
Hear hear...the tories (after the disastrous by election up the north) wont know whether to scrap the bedroom tax and scratch back those decent people who might of decided to vote anything other than tories because of it..OR escalate it to draw in disenfranchised (from morality) 'Im alright jacks' who want anyone who isnt paying as much as they for whatever to be imprisoned..

This sickening attack on the most vulnerable will be repealed and will go down in history as a bare toothed attack on poor people...anyone not making £100,000 a year who votes tory should be examined head-wise...for they certainly have issues either with delusions of grandeur or self loathing.
[quote][p][bold]andy:)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex_al[/bold] wrote: Please can the press stop calling it The Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax; it is a reduction in the excessive benefits paid to people who are living in a council house bigger than they need. Tax is what the rest of us pay!!!![/p][/quote]Ha ha. No doubt you were insisting that the Poll Tax should be refered to as the Community Charge too :). No-one called it that and no-one calls the Bedroom Tax the Spare Room Subsidy except a few out of touch Tories, thank god the Bedroom Tax will go the same way as the Poll Tax..:)[/p][/quote]Hear hear...the tories (after the disastrous by election up the north) wont know whether to scrap the bedroom tax and scratch back those decent people who might of decided to vote anything other than tories because of it..OR escalate it to draw in disenfranchised (from morality) 'Im alright jacks' who want anyone who isnt paying as much as they for whatever to be imprisoned.. This sickening attack on the most vulnerable will be repealed and will go down in history as a bare toothed attack on poor people...anyone not making £100,000 a year who votes tory should be examined head-wise...for they certainly have issues either with delusions of grandeur or self loathing. ThisYear

4:40pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
I wonder if John the Resonator is still about.
Do you always know when you're about?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: I wonder if John the Resonator is still about.[/p][/quote]Do you always know when you're about? ThisYear

5:32pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.
You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven!
Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?
I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.
Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?
You mean what the papers refer to as the "so called" bedroom tax? - Its a benefit. But it looks like you have your hands full without me. I did read your post properly. I did! I did! Is it closing time already, how many have you had?
"neither a smoker or drinker be" ironically I find myself replying to two who seemingly abuses both.. I have asked you what term you use...I use bedroom tax which one do you use? Do you know?
I told you that you had been taken in by the campaigners spin. Calling something a tax does not make it one - and you have yet to reply to my question regarding how to tax zero.

I bet you believe in perpetual motion too.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.[/p][/quote]You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven![/p][/quote]Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?[/p][/quote]I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.[/p][/quote]Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]You mean what the papers refer to as the "so called" bedroom tax? - Its a benefit. But it looks like you have your hands full without me. I did read your post properly. I did! I did! Is it closing time already, how many have you had?[/p][/quote]"neither a smoker or drinker be" ironically I find myself replying to two who seemingly abuses both.. I have asked you what term you use...I use bedroom tax which one do you use? Do you know?[/p][/quote]I told you that you had been taken in by the campaigners spin. Calling something a tax does not make it one - and you have yet to reply to my question regarding how to tax zero. I bet you believe in perpetual motion too. Alekhine

5:34pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: I wonder if John the Resonator is still about.
Do you always know when you're about?
Has your bridge been flooded?

There are some knitting ninjas at Southend college, maybe they could take you in a teach you how to tie knots.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: I wonder if John the Resonator is still about.[/p][/quote]Do you always know when you're about?[/p][/quote]Has your bridge been flooded? There are some knitting ninjas at Southend college, maybe they could take you in a teach you how to tie knots. Alekhine

5:37pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.
You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven!
Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?
I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.
Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?
You mean what the papers refer to as the "so called" bedroom tax? - Its a benefit. But it looks like you have your hands full without me. I did read your post properly. I did! I did! Is it closing time already, how many have you had?
"neither a smoker or drinker be" ironically I find myself replying to two who seemingly abuses both.. I have asked you what term you use...I use bedroom tax which one do you use? Do you know?
I told you that you had been taken in by the campaigners spin. Calling something a tax does not make it one - and you have yet to reply to my question regarding how to tax zero.

I bet you believe in perpetual motion too.
You cant get your air-head around the fact that money taken fro these people are a tax..regardless of how taxed it has been before..

People get taxed more than once..which is the case with the people who pay bedroom tax..

The least taxed are those who First their housing benefit taxed and then have to pay back some of this because they have a spare room..

Btw you and other idiots are defending a policy that is going to be chucked out as being not fit for purpose among other things..

Now again lets ask you...what is the term you use for this policy...why wont you say? is it a secret..did the bong advise you not to say? What?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.[/p][/quote]You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven![/p][/quote]Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?[/p][/quote]I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.[/p][/quote]Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]You mean what the papers refer to as the "so called" bedroom tax? - Its a benefit. But it looks like you have your hands full without me. I did read your post properly. I did! I did! Is it closing time already, how many have you had?[/p][/quote]"neither a smoker or drinker be" ironically I find myself replying to two who seemingly abuses both.. I have asked you what term you use...I use bedroom tax which one do you use? Do you know?[/p][/quote]I told you that you had been taken in by the campaigners spin. Calling something a tax does not make it one - and you have yet to reply to my question regarding how to tax zero. I bet you believe in perpetual motion too.[/p][/quote]You cant get your air-head around the fact that money taken fro these people are a tax..regardless of how taxed it has been before.. People get taxed more than once..which is the case with the people who pay bedroom tax.. The least taxed are those who First their housing benefit taxed and then have to pay back some of this because they have a spare room.. Btw you and other idiots are defending a policy that is going to be chucked out as being not fit for purpose among other things.. Now again lets ask you...what is the term you use for this policy...why wont you say? is it a secret..did the bong advise you not to say? What? ThisYear

5:42pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: I wonder if John the Resonator is still about.
Do you always know when you're about?
Has your bridge been flooded?

There are some knitting ninjas at Southend college, maybe they could take you in a teach you how to tie knots.
Why on earth would I need to tie knots? I know how to tie knots...I do it to you constantly...(see refusal re: bedroom tax terminology)

But never the less, Is the collage anywhere near a drug addiction clinic? To assist those who need the help to abstain?

What will you do when the BT is repealed..bong yourself into a wide asleep state? LOL
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: I wonder if John the Resonator is still about.[/p][/quote]Do you always know when you're about?[/p][/quote]Has your bridge been flooded? There are some knitting ninjas at Southend college, maybe they could take you in a teach you how to tie knots.[/p][/quote]Why on earth would I need to tie knots? I know how to tie knots...I do it to you constantly...(see refusal re: bedroom tax terminology) But never the less, Is the collage anywhere near a drug addiction clinic? To assist those who need the help to abstain? What will you do when the BT is repealed..bong yourself into a wide asleep state? LOL ThisYear

5:51pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: I wonder if John the Resonator is still about.
Do you always know when you're about?
Has your bridge been flooded? There are some knitting ninjas at Southend college, maybe they could take you in a teach you how to tie knots.
Why on earth would I need to tie knots? I know how to tie knots...I do it to you constantly...(see refusal re: bedroom tax terminology) But never the less, Is the collage anywhere near a drug addiction clinic? To assist those who need the help to abstain? What will you do when the BT is repealed..bong yourself into a wide asleep state? LOL
Well you do tie yourself in knots. i will give you that.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: I wonder if John the Resonator is still about.[/p][/quote]Do you always know when you're about?[/p][/quote]Has your bridge been flooded? There are some knitting ninjas at Southend college, maybe they could take you in a teach you how to tie knots.[/p][/quote]Why on earth would I need to tie knots? I know how to tie knots...I do it to you constantly...(see refusal re: bedroom tax terminology) But never the less, Is the collage anywhere near a drug addiction clinic? To assist those who need the help to abstain? What will you do when the BT is repealed..bong yourself into a wide asleep state? LOL[/p][/quote]Well you do tie yourself in knots. i will give you that. Alekhine

6:35pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: I wonder if John the Resonator is still about.
Do you always know when you're about?
Has your bridge been flooded? There are some knitting ninjas at Southend college, maybe they could take you in a teach you how to tie knots.
Why on earth would I need to tie knots? I know how to tie knots...I do it to you constantly...(see refusal re: bedroom tax terminology) But never the less, Is the collage anywhere near a drug addiction clinic? To assist those who need the help to abstain? What will you do when the BT is repealed..bong yourself into a wide asleep state? LOL
Well you do tie yourself in knots. i will give you that.
Oh dear I say something and you then paraphrase it..as if you thought of it...poor chap..too much Zebedee.

Now about the term you use for the bedroom tax...any reason why you wont/cant give it?

Or do you even know what we are talking about?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: I wonder if John the Resonator is still about.[/p][/quote]Do you always know when you're about?[/p][/quote]Has your bridge been flooded? There are some knitting ninjas at Southend college, maybe they could take you in a teach you how to tie knots.[/p][/quote]Why on earth would I need to tie knots? I know how to tie knots...I do it to you constantly...(see refusal re: bedroom tax terminology) But never the less, Is the collage anywhere near a drug addiction clinic? To assist those who need the help to abstain? What will you do when the BT is repealed..bong yourself into a wide asleep state? LOL[/p][/quote]Well you do tie yourself in knots. i will give you that.[/p][/quote]Oh dear I say something and you then paraphrase it..as if you thought of it...poor chap..too much Zebedee. Now about the term you use for the bedroom tax...any reason why you wont/cant give it? Or do you even know what we are talking about? ThisYear

6:40pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.
You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven!
Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?
I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.
Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?
You mean what the papers refer to as the "so called" bedroom tax? - Its a benefit. But it looks like you have your hands full without me. I did read your post properly. I did! I did! Is it closing time already, how many have you had?
"neither a smoker or drinker be" ironically I find myself replying to two who seemingly abuses both.. I have asked you what term you use...I use bedroom tax which one do you use? Do you know?
I told you that you had been taken in by the campaigners spin. Calling something a tax does not make it one - and you have yet to reply to my question regarding how to tax zero. I bet you believe in perpetual motion too.
You cant get your air-head around the fact that money taken fro these people are a tax..regardless of how taxed it has been before.. People get taxed more than once..which is the case with the people who pay bedroom tax.. The least taxed are those who First their housing benefit taxed and then have to pay back some of this because they have a spare room.. Btw you and other idiots are defending a policy that is going to be chucked out as being not fit for purpose among other things.. Now again lets ask you...what is the term you use for this policy...why wont you say? is it a secret..did the bong advise you not to say? What?
And you refuse to understand that you can not pay tax on somebody else's tax as they have already paid it! The money has already been earned and taxed, do try to keep up. No value has been added by you so what is available to be taxed?

A big fat zero.

I suspect the multiple taxes you are talking about are either voluntary (beer,fags) or other deductions from different benefits (not tax).

You can call it the bedroom tax all you like, you are just deceiving yourself. We all know how easy it is for you to do that.

It is a reducton to benefit.

I will agree that the policy was unfit for purpose due to poor wording, However there was someone on here earlier, who had a much better understanding of how the council house / flat market works than you do.

She said you were talking out of your arris (as if we did'nt know) and there were lots of flats available for downsizing in Basildon. She even gave you a link to the properties and told you that the bedroom tax (it is not a tax) was right in principle as it would bring about a balance between public and private sectors and remove preferential treatment for some. She also said there was a lot of family houses being blocked while families were in flats.

Did you answer any of this or even give her any useful advice for her situation?
...

Well it all went very quiet. Then you chased her off with your usual bullying dogma. I bet you did'nt give her experience a second thought or check any of facts about the housing market.

You lost the reasoned argument here a long time ago.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.[/p][/quote]You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven![/p][/quote]Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?[/p][/quote]I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.[/p][/quote]Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]You mean what the papers refer to as the "so called" bedroom tax? - Its a benefit. But it looks like you have your hands full without me. I did read your post properly. I did! I did! Is it closing time already, how many have you had?[/p][/quote]"neither a smoker or drinker be" ironically I find myself replying to two who seemingly abuses both.. I have asked you what term you use...I use bedroom tax which one do you use? Do you know?[/p][/quote]I told you that you had been taken in by the campaigners spin. Calling something a tax does not make it one - and you have yet to reply to my question regarding how to tax zero. I bet you believe in perpetual motion too.[/p][/quote]You cant get your air-head around the fact that money taken fro these people are a tax..regardless of how taxed it has been before.. People get taxed more than once..which is the case with the people who pay bedroom tax.. The least taxed are those who First their housing benefit taxed and then have to pay back some of this because they have a spare room.. Btw you and other idiots are defending a policy that is going to be chucked out as being not fit for purpose among other things.. Now again lets ask you...what is the term you use for this policy...why wont you say? is it a secret..did the bong advise you not to say? What?[/p][/quote]And you refuse to understand that you can not pay tax on somebody else's tax as they have already paid it! The money has already been earned and taxed, do try to keep up. No value has been added by you so what is available to be taxed? A big fat zero. I suspect the multiple taxes you are talking about are either voluntary (beer,fags) or other deductions from different benefits (not tax). You can call it the bedroom tax all you like, you are just deceiving yourself. We all know how easy it is for you to do that. It is a reducton to benefit. I will agree that the policy was unfit for purpose due to poor wording, However there was someone on here earlier, who had a much better understanding of how the council house / flat market works than you do. She said you were talking out of your arris (as if we did'nt know) and there were lots of flats available for downsizing in Basildon. She even gave you a link to the properties and told you that the bedroom tax (it is not a tax) was right in principle as it would bring about a balance between public and private sectors and remove preferential treatment for some. She also said there was a lot of family houses being blocked while families were in flats. Did you answer any of this or even give her any useful advice for her situation? ... Well it all went very quiet. Then you chased her off with your usual bullying dogma. I bet you did'nt give her experience a second thought or check any of facts about the housing market. You lost the reasoned argument here a long time ago. Alekhine

12:32am Sat 15 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.
You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven!
Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?
I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.
Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?
You mean what the papers refer to as the "so called" bedroom tax? - Its a benefit. But it looks like you have your hands full without me. I did read your post properly. I did! I did! Is it closing time already, how many have you had?
"neither a smoker or drinker be" ironically I find myself replying to two who seemingly abuses both.. I have asked you what term you use...I use bedroom tax which one do you use? Do you know?
I told you that you had been taken in by the campaigners spin. Calling something a tax does not make it one - and you have yet to reply to my question regarding how to tax zero. I bet you believe in perpetual motion too.
You cant get your air-head around the fact that money taken fro these people are a tax..regardless of how taxed it has been before.. People get taxed more than once..which is the case with the people who pay bedroom tax.. The least taxed are those who First their housing benefit taxed and then have to pay back some of this because they have a spare room.. Btw you and other idiots are defending a policy that is going to be chucked out as being not fit for purpose among other things.. Now again lets ask you...what is the term you use for this policy...why wont you say? is it a secret..did the bong advise you not to say? What?
And you refuse to understand that you can not pay tax on somebody else's tax as they have already paid it! The money has already been earned and taxed, do try to keep up. No value has been added by you so what is available to be taxed?

A big fat zero.

I suspect the multiple taxes you are talking about are either voluntary (beer,fags) or other deductions from different benefits (not tax).

You can call it the bedroom tax all you like, you are just deceiving yourself. We all know how easy it is for you to do that.

It is a reducton to benefit.

I will agree that the policy was unfit for purpose due to poor wording, However there was someone on here earlier, who had a much better understanding of how the council house / flat market works than you do.

She said you were talking out of your arris (as if we did'nt know) and there were lots of flats available for downsizing in Basildon. She even gave you a link to the properties and told you that the bedroom tax (it is not a tax) was right in principle as it would bring about a balance between public and private sectors and remove preferential treatment for some. She also said there was a lot of family houses being blocked while families were in flats.

Did you answer any of this or even give her any useful advice for her situation?
...

Well it all went very quiet. Then you chased her off with your usual bullying dogma. I bet you did'nt give her experience a second thought or check any of facts about the housing market.

You lost the reasoned argument here a long time ago.
Point by ridiculous point:

When people are given HB...they have already paid tax on that..RIGHT?

They then find they have to pay money because they have a spare bedroom...RIGHT?

Now if the money they pay is considered a tax as it is by the Labour party...by many tory politicians...by newspaper editors...by the house of parliament who have had a 10 minute bill lodge under that name..then is is a tax to all other than idiots like you...those who want to justify the tax and I'm alright jacks who want to see anyone who isn;t in the same boat as them sink...only such specimens consider it anything other than a tax...

You refuse to give it a name because you know it isn't what it is deemed to be by those who look to justify it...isn't that the case? If not say what it is..

You as so stuck in your opinion you cant see the stupidness of your stance and your comments..

When a person pays over the money that belongs to them...THEY are paying tax...your point that taxed money cant be taxed again is nonsense..it has and is...

" other deductions from different benefits (not tax)"

The benefits that are taxed are taxed...which of course does mean deductions...but the fact you think deductions does not count as a tax shows how you are wrong in regards to BRT...Iv already provided a GOVT link that clearly states which benefits are TAXED..yet you dont consider those benefits taxed but deductions...idiot.

A "reduction in benefits" for those benefits taxed and stated as taxed by the Govt should not be considered tax? That is your mad logic..

The woman you speak off..was complaining that she found herself with a child without planning one, and was now stuck in a one bed looking for a two bed..she stated that there were lots of smaller accommodation available, within the council stock, for those people to downsize to but didn't provide any links that could be opened that showed that and didn't say why, if that was the case, she didn't have one...she was moaning about others having what she wanted and not much else.

I know what she said.. moron...and I replied to her and rather than debate she ran off shouting about dole spongers, not realising the irony that many on these boards would consider her a sponger for wanting to have accommodation provided for her..Am I lying?

Her suggestion that the BRT would "bring about a balance between public and private sectors and remove preferential treatment for some" was never explained...perhaps you can explain it for her as you seem to be saying you agree to what she was saying...she also ignored the fact that again many on here would believe she was looking for 'preferential treatment' over others, by her claim to be moved because of condensation and lack of space.

How could she possibly know there were a lot of housing being blocked? Even the government dont know that..they have no number about anything to do with the BRT and will probably cover up the fact it cost more to put in place than it saved..

I answered all the questions that needed answering...if you feel I didn't post up one you feel I didn't answer..can you?

What advice could I give her, other than wait until one of the many 'available' flats/houses she claims are there are allotted to her.. and not to wish on others what she was looking to escape herself...ie dont begrudge others.

Btw what did you advise her to do?

"Then you chased her off with your usual bullying dogma" LIAR!

Iv lost no argument...the policy is considered a bedroom tax by most people in the country...there is the crux of the matter...it will all become moot before long as it will be ditched into the garbage with other mad troy hate policy..

How do you refer to it?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: It is the same in Westcliff and Southend. Plenty of flats, some in need of attention but all useless if you have a family. So many of the old large houses were converted. There is now a generation queuing up for a council house. It has escaped our resident joker that there is accommodation available to downsize into.[/p][/quote]You didn't finish your sentence...what happened collapsed off the chair onto the bong..? I find myself debating the bedroom tax with a pizzhead and a weed-freak...come back 'righty' all is forgiven![/p][/quote]Was i talking to you? BTW my electricity bill is due and compulsory, is it a tax?[/p][/quote]I'm sure your political diatribe has been a massive help to Basildon Lady.[/p][/quote]Now you are talking to yourself...the bong isn't compulsory you know...man BTW why do you avoid saying what name you adhere to in regards to the bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]You mean what the papers refer to as the "so called" bedroom tax? - Its a benefit. But it looks like you have your hands full without me. I did read your post properly. I did! I did! Is it closing time already, how many have you had?[/p][/quote]"neither a smoker or drinker be" ironically I find myself replying to two who seemingly abuses both.. I have asked you what term you use...I use bedroom tax which one do you use? Do you know?[/p][/quote]I told you that you had been taken in by the campaigners spin. Calling something a tax does not make it one - and you have yet to reply to my question regarding how to tax zero. I bet you believe in perpetual motion too.[/p][/quote]You cant get your air-head around the fact that money taken fro these people are a tax..regardless of how taxed it has been before.. People get taxed more than once..which is the case with the people who pay bedroom tax.. The least taxed are those who First their housing benefit taxed and then have to pay back some of this because they have a spare room.. Btw you and other idiots are defending a policy that is going to be chucked out as being not fit for purpose among other things.. Now again lets ask you...what is the term you use for this policy...why wont you say? is it a secret..did the bong advise you not to say? What?[/p][/quote]And you refuse to understand that you can not pay tax on somebody else's tax as they have already paid it! The money has already been earned and taxed, do try to keep up. No value has been added by you so what is available to be taxed? A big fat zero. I suspect the multiple taxes you are talking about are either voluntary (beer,fags) or other deductions from different benefits (not tax). You can call it the bedroom tax all you like, you are just deceiving yourself. We all know how easy it is for you to do that. It is a reducton to benefit. I will agree that the policy was unfit for purpose due to poor wording, However there was someone on here earlier, who had a much better understanding of how the council house / flat market works than you do. She said you were talking out of your arris (as if we did'nt know) and there were lots of flats available for downsizing in Basildon. She even gave you a link to the properties and told you that the bedroom tax (it is not a tax) was right in principle as it would bring about a balance between public and private sectors and remove preferential treatment for some. She also said there was a lot of family houses being blocked while families were in flats. Did you answer any of this or even give her any useful advice for her situation? ... Well it all went very quiet. Then you chased her off with your usual bullying dogma. I bet you did'nt give her experience a second thought or check any of facts about the housing market. You lost the reasoned argument here a long time ago.[/p][/quote]Point by ridiculous point: When people are given HB...they have already paid tax on that..RIGHT? They then find they have to pay money because they have a spare bedroom...RIGHT? Now if the money they pay is considered a tax as it is by the Labour party...by many tory politicians...by newspaper editors...by the house of parliament who have had a 10 minute bill lodge under that name..then is is a tax to all other than idiots like you...those who want to justify the tax and I'm alright jacks who want to see anyone who isn;t in the same boat as them sink...only such specimens consider it anything other than a tax... You refuse to give it a name because you know it isn't what it is deemed to be by those who look to justify it...isn't that the case? If not say what it is.. You as so stuck in your opinion you cant see the stupidness of your stance and your comments.. When a person pays over the money that belongs to them...THEY are paying tax...your point that taxed money cant be taxed again is nonsense..it has and is... " other deductions from different benefits (not tax)" The benefits that are taxed are taxed...which of course does mean deductions...but the fact you think deductions does not count as a tax shows how you are wrong in regards to BRT...Iv already provided a GOVT link that clearly states which benefits are TAXED..yet you dont consider those benefits taxed but deductions...idiot. A "reduction in benefits" for those benefits taxed and stated as taxed by the Govt should not be considered tax? That is your mad logic.. The woman you speak off..was complaining that she found herself with a child without planning one, and was now stuck in a one bed looking for a two bed..she stated that there were lots of smaller accommodation available, within the council stock, for those people to downsize to but didn't provide any links that could be opened that showed that and didn't say why, if that was the case, she didn't have one...she was moaning about others having what she wanted and not much else. I know what she said.. moron...and I replied to her and rather than debate she ran off shouting about dole spongers, not realising the irony that many on these boards would consider her a sponger for wanting to have accommodation provided for her..Am I lying? Her suggestion that the BRT would "bring about a balance between public and private sectors and remove preferential treatment for some" was never explained...perhaps you can explain it for her as you seem to be saying you agree to what she was saying...she also ignored the fact that again many on here would believe she was looking for 'preferential treatment' over others, by her claim to be moved because of condensation and lack of space. How could she possibly know there were a lot of housing being blocked? Even the government dont know that..they have no number about anything to do with the BRT and will probably cover up the fact it cost more to put in place than it saved.. I answered all the questions that needed answering...if you feel I didn't post up one you feel I didn't answer..can you? What advice could I give her, other than wait until one of the many 'available' flats/houses she claims are there are allotted to her.. and not to wish on others what she was looking to escape herself...ie dont begrudge others. Btw what did you advise her to do? "Then you chased her off with your usual bullying dogma" LIAR! Iv lost no argument...the policy is considered a bedroom tax by most people in the country...there is the crux of the matter...it will all become moot before long as it will be ditched into the garbage with other mad troy hate policy.. How do you refer to it? ThisYear

12:55pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

I have just used the link given by Basildon lady to search for a 1 bedroom flat in Felmores. There are 18 council let flats just in that very restricted search. I tried looking for a 3 bed council house in the same area - there are none. Is there something wrong with your computer or is it just you?

The market speaks for itself so onto the the politics.

You seem to think that a couple of low income workers with children, living in damp and overcrowded conditions are asking for preferential treatment by looking for a house to meet their obvious needs. This at the same time as too many houses are under occupied.
...
.she was moaning about others having what she wanted and not much else.
...
i would rather a low income working couple had a house than someone reliant entirely on benefits had a spare room. Where does this entitlement to a spare room come from in your mind? The house is not owned by them. It is your ideas which spread the pain here and yet you have the nerve to talk about the politics of hate. What is the matter with you? Do you have something against workers? Have you checked you own reflection for stiff upper lip facial hair?
....
An finally onto your theories of perpetual motion economics.

As any ten year old knows, money is just paper. Value cannot be added by printing more money. So where does the value of money come from? Well, money is a means of exchanging the value of one persons work (say a plumber) with the value of another persons work (say a fishmonger). Both plumber and fishmonger pay tax on their earnings which goes towards paying benefits to the jobless.

If Plumber and Fishmonger's tax could taxed again with any real value we could all stop work tomorrow. All that extra tax, together with the usual suspects smoking and drinking themselves into a hole in ground, would be enough to pay all the benefits, right?

Keep kidding yourself that you are paying tax. It is just a reduction to benefit.
I have just used the link given by Basildon lady to search for a 1 bedroom flat in Felmores. There are 18 council let flats just in that very restricted search. I tried looking for a 3 bed council house in the same area - there are none. Is there something wrong with your computer or is it just you? The market speaks for itself so onto the the politics. You seem to think that a couple of low income workers with children, living in damp and overcrowded conditions are asking for preferential treatment by looking for a house to meet their obvious needs. This at the same time as too many houses are under occupied. ... .she was moaning about others having what she wanted and not much else. ... i would rather a low income working couple had a house than someone reliant entirely on benefits had a spare room. Where does this entitlement to a spare room come from in your mind? The house is not owned by them. It is your ideas which spread the pain here and yet you have the nerve to talk about the politics of hate. What is the matter with you? Do you have something against workers? Have you checked you own reflection for stiff upper lip facial hair? .... An finally onto your theories of perpetual motion economics. As any ten year old knows, money is just paper. Value cannot be added by printing more money. So where does the value of money come from? Well, money is a means of exchanging the value of one persons work (say a plumber) with the value of another persons work (say a fishmonger). Both plumber and fishmonger pay tax on their earnings which goes towards paying benefits to the jobless. If Plumber and Fishmonger's tax could taxed again with any real value we could all stop work tomorrow. All that extra tax, together with the usual suspects smoking and drinking themselves into a hole in ground, would be enough to pay all the benefits, right? Keep kidding yourself that you are paying tax. It is just a reduction to benefit. Alekhine

1:04pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Maybe a re-targeting of benefit is a better way of putting it than reduction.
Maybe a re-targeting of benefit is a better way of putting it than reduction. Alekhine

2:42pm Sun 16 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
I have just used the link given by Basildon lady to search for a 1 bedroom flat in Felmores. There are 18 council let flats just in that very restricted search. I tried looking for a 3 bed council house in the same area - there are none. Is there something wrong with your computer or is it just you?

The market speaks for itself so onto the the politics.

You seem to think that a couple of low income workers with children, living in damp and overcrowded conditions are asking for preferential treatment by looking for a house to meet their obvious needs. This at the same time as too many houses are under occupied.
...
.she was moaning about others having what she wanted and not much else.
...
i would rather a low income working couple had a house than someone reliant entirely on benefits had a spare room. Where does this entitlement to a spare room come from in your mind? The house is not owned by them. It is your ideas which spread the pain here and yet you have the nerve to talk about the politics of hate. What is the matter with you? Do you have something against workers? Have you checked you own reflection for stiff upper lip facial hair?
....
An finally onto your theories of perpetual motion economics.

As any ten year old knows, money is just paper. Value cannot be added by printing more money. So where does the value of money come from? Well, money is a means of exchanging the value of one persons work (say a plumber) with the value of another persons work (say a fishmonger). Both plumber and fishmonger pay tax on their earnings which goes towards paying benefits to the jobless.

If Plumber and Fishmonger's tax could taxed again with any real value we could all stop work tomorrow. All that extra tax, together with the usual suspects smoking and drinking themselves into a hole in ground, would be enough to pay all the benefits, right?

Keep kidding yourself that you are paying tax. It is just a reduction to benefit.
You still haven't said what the policy is called? Why?

Is it because it can be easy proven it isn't what it is called?

The griping woman was looking for others to step into her shoes while she stepped into theirs...the very reason that society is broken...a thatcherlite attitude to fellow man

The market speaks for itself?

Are you suggesting that these flats are empty because no one is on the housing list to have them?

And that those downsizing should have priority of those at the top of the waiting list?

The market has nothing to do with the allotment of council housing...a completely different creature..

Please try to accuse me of what I may actually be guilty off..it does help.

I do not think what you say I think in regards to a low income couple! I posted that there would be people on these boards who WOULD think that..who would think they even expecting help from the council would deem them scroungers...

I posted that to reflect the rather divisive way the lady asks for sympathy for her plight, and then signs off showing she has none for others perhaps in a worse situation than her.. do you deny there are many people on these boards who would feel she was looking for things she shouldn't be entitled to?


*This at the same time as too many houses are under occupied*


Can you say how many houses are under-occupied?
Can you show the legal definition of 'under-occupied'
Can you show the government and councils policies on how a house should be occupied?

There are in effect none..so how you feel you know more and better than those mentioned shows you are talking out of it as pre usual! It is in fact you swallowing the guesses of the govt, council, media...if not post up links to the info I have asked for..will keep you busy.

*i would rather a low income working couple had a house than someone reliant entirely on benefits had a spare room.*

With your history on these boards; who gives a monkeys what you would rather? Strewth..'the country according to the racist weirdo Alexhine, divvy extraordinaire'

* Where does this entitlement to a spare room come from in your mind? *

When you sign for a tenancy you sign for all the property not bits of it...the policy taxes people for not using rooms as bed rooms...it has made a pigs ear of the policy and is thus being challenged on the very definition of what constitutes a 'bedroom'

The policy is doomed..and you know it. You also refuse to give it a name because you know the name does not work when the policy scrutinised..bad luck tory boy!

Lol..the balls up of this policy is indicative of the troy party and the limpdems...one party which will be voted into non-existence after the next GE the other wont be in power for the next few generations..your beloved tories have set the country up to be, in effect, a one party state..way to go Kamrade!

Council housing and property belongs to the people..( I think we had this discussion before) therefore they who live in a property have more call to ownership while they are living in it...the housing does NOT belong to the council..

Pain? Are you for real...No I guess not...the bong does cause mental issues

Worker..what is a worker? You throw out these words without any understanding of what you are asking..

* As any ten year old knows, money is just paper.*

The problem is dripweed that most adults recognise that!

Im sure I know more about what money is than you unless you are going to surprise me...you realise it is fait? That should stump you for a while..

Money is nothing more than an IOU...we barter services and property for these IOUs which we then pass onto others..

Money given as benefits are just more of these IOUs for barter..

You are taking the issue tax or no tax into blind alleys to avoid the truth of the matter...people are being asked to pay money/IOUs over and above their tenancy agreement (contract) to retain what they already have...thereby making it a tax..because they are already paying for their property.

Tax
noun
1.
a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

2.
a strain or heavy demand.

This policy is covered by both these definitions..

The plumber gets his taxed wages and then goes and fills up his car, does a weekly shop, pays his council TAX and then goes home...all safe in the knowledge he has only had his money taxed once(via income tax)..Money can and is taxed again and again and again...your contention that because it is taxed once means it isn't taxed again is ludicrous...not surprising coming from you but still ludicrous.

You set up a strawman argument and have swallowed it, you have become so immersed in it you cant see past it..

Monet tax in one way can and is taxed in other ways..THINK if you possibly can.

I pay all sorts of tax including income tax..

" It is just a reduction to benefit."

It is a claim on monies that belongs to those who the claim is made off...the money has to first belong to the person it is being claimed off before it can be claimed off them..OR are you saying this money is being taken without it belonging to the person it is said to be taken off?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: I have just used the link given by Basildon lady to search for a 1 bedroom flat in Felmores. There are 18 council let flats just in that very restricted search. I tried looking for a 3 bed council house in the same area - there are none. Is there something wrong with your computer or is it just you? The market speaks for itself so onto the the politics. You seem to think that a couple of low income workers with children, living in damp and overcrowded conditions are asking for preferential treatment by looking for a house to meet their obvious needs. This at the same time as too many houses are under occupied. ... .she was moaning about others having what she wanted and not much else. ... i would rather a low income working couple had a house than someone reliant entirely on benefits had a spare room. Where does this entitlement to a spare room come from in your mind? The house is not owned by them. It is your ideas which spread the pain here and yet you have the nerve to talk about the politics of hate. What is the matter with you? Do you have something against workers? Have you checked you own reflection for stiff upper lip facial hair? .... An finally onto your theories of perpetual motion economics. As any ten year old knows, money is just paper. Value cannot be added by printing more money. So where does the value of money come from? Well, money is a means of exchanging the value of one persons work (say a plumber) with the value of another persons work (say a fishmonger). Both plumber and fishmonger pay tax on their earnings which goes towards paying benefits to the jobless. If Plumber and Fishmonger's tax could taxed again with any real value we could all stop work tomorrow. All that extra tax, together with the usual suspects smoking and drinking themselves into a hole in ground, would be enough to pay all the benefits, right? Keep kidding yourself that you are paying tax. It is just a reduction to benefit.[/p][/quote]You still haven't said what the policy is called? Why? Is it because it can be easy proven it isn't what it is called? The griping woman was looking for others to step into her shoes while she stepped into theirs...the very reason that society is broken...a thatcherlite attitude to fellow man The market speaks for itself? Are you suggesting that these flats are empty because no one is on the housing list to have them? And that those downsizing should have priority of those at the top of the waiting list? The market has nothing to do with the allotment of council housing...a completely different creature.. Please try to accuse me of what I may actually be guilty off..it does help. I do not think what you say I think in regards to a low income couple! I posted that there would be people on these boards who WOULD think that..who would think they even expecting help from the council would deem them scroungers... I posted that to reflect the rather divisive way the lady asks for sympathy for her plight, and then signs off showing she has none for others perhaps in a worse situation than her.. do you deny there are many people on these boards who would feel she was looking for things she shouldn't be entitled to? *This at the same time as too many houses are under occupied* Can you say how many houses are under-occupied? Can you show the legal definition of 'under-occupied' Can you show the government and councils policies on how a house should be occupied? There are in effect none..so how you feel you know more and better than those mentioned shows you are talking out of it as pre usual! It is in fact you swallowing the guesses of the govt, council, media...if not post up links to the info I have asked for..will keep you busy. *i would rather a low income working couple had a house than someone reliant entirely on benefits had a spare room.* With your history on these boards; who gives a monkeys what you would rather? Strewth..'the country according to the racist weirdo Alexhine, divvy extraordinaire' * Where does this entitlement to a spare room come from in your mind? * When you sign for a tenancy you sign for all the property not bits of it...the policy taxes people for not using rooms as bed rooms...it has made a pigs ear of the policy and is thus being challenged on the very definition of what constitutes a 'bedroom' The policy is doomed..and you know it. You also refuse to give it a name because you know the name does not work when the policy scrutinised..bad luck tory boy! Lol..the balls up of this policy is indicative of the troy party and the limpdems...one party which will be voted into non-existence after the next GE the other wont be in power for the next few generations..your beloved tories have set the country up to be, in effect, a one party state..way to go Kamrade! Council housing and property belongs to the people..( I think we had this discussion before) therefore they who live in a property have more call to ownership while they are living in it...the housing does NOT belong to the council.. Pain? Are you for real...No I guess not...the bong does cause mental issues Worker..what is a worker? You throw out these words without any understanding of what you are asking.. * As any ten year old knows, money is just paper.* The problem is dripweed that most adults recognise that! Im sure I know more about what money is than you unless you are going to surprise me...you realise it is fait? That should stump you for a while.. Money is nothing more than an IOU...we barter services and property for these IOUs which we then pass onto others.. Money given as benefits are just more of these IOUs for barter.. You are taking the issue tax or no tax into blind alleys to avoid the truth of the matter...people are being asked to pay money/IOUs over and above their tenancy agreement (contract) to retain what they already have...thereby making it a tax..because they are already paying for their property. Tax noun 1. a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. 2. a strain or heavy demand. This policy is covered by both these definitions.. The plumber gets his taxed wages and then goes and fills up his car, does a weekly shop, pays his council TAX and then goes home...all safe in the knowledge he has only had his money taxed once(via income tax)..Money can and is taxed again and again and again...your contention that because it is taxed once means it isn't taxed again is ludicrous...not surprising coming from you but still ludicrous. You set up a strawman argument and have swallowed it, you have become so immersed in it you cant see past it.. Monet tax in one way can and is taxed in other ways..THINK if you possibly can. I pay all sorts of tax including income tax.. " It is just a reduction to benefit." It is a claim on monies that belongs to those who the claim is made off...the money has to first belong to the person it is being claimed off before it can be claimed off them..OR are you saying this money is being taken without it belonging to the person it is said to be taken off? ThisYear

2:43pm Sun 16 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
Maybe a re-targeting of benefit is a better way of putting it than reduction.
Even more stupid than your other contentions...
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Maybe a re-targeting of benefit is a better way of putting it than reduction.[/p][/quote]Even more stupid than your other contentions... ThisYear

4:29pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Tax (nown): Money paid to government by others on your behalf.
Workers (nown): People who produce or service something for a wage.
Benefit (nown): Exactly the same as wages.
Definition (nown): Whatever selectively suits you.
Law(nown): does not apply (cf. selective)
Tax (nown): Money paid to government by others on your behalf. Workers (nown): People who produce or service something for a wage. Benefit (nown): Exactly the same as wages. Definition (nown): Whatever selectively suits you. Law(nown): does not apply (cf. selective) Alekhine

1:07am Tue 18 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
Tax (nown): Money paid to government by others on your behalf.
Workers (nown): People who produce or service something for a wage.
Benefit (nown): Exactly the same as wages.
Definition (nown): Whatever selectively suits you.
Law(nown): does not apply (cf. selective)
Oh dear...the sheer stupidness of you..

You think tax means money paid to the government...you didn't really research very deeply did you...Derrrrrr.

Worker only refers to those who receive a wage? Derrrrrrrrrrrrrr

The rest is BS

You and I both know you have claimed more benefits than I...I'm fully sure you claim some sort of benefit even now...where as I have NEVER received nor claimed benefits..

Now its clear Iv shown how the bedroom tax is just that a tax...and the civil servants who in effect run the house of parliament also recognise the policy as the bedroom tax OR they wouldn't of allowed a 10 minute bill to be lodged under that name...

Its you that not only swallowed the lie of the term but like one of those rather sick thick sycophants went out supporting, reporting and defending the term...Derrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrr

Now you cant even post what you think it is called...

And Im not sure you have long left on the forum to do so...sap.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Tax (nown): Money paid to government by others on your behalf. Workers (nown): People who produce or service something for a wage. Benefit (nown): Exactly the same as wages. Definition (nown): Whatever selectively suits you. Law(nown): does not apply (cf. selective)[/p][/quote]Oh dear...the sheer stupidness of you.. You think tax means money paid to the government...you didn't really research very deeply did you...Derrrrrr. Worker only refers to those who receive a wage? Derrrrrrrrrrrrrr The rest is BS You and I both know you have claimed more benefits than I...I'm fully sure you claim some sort of benefit even now...where as I have NEVER received nor claimed benefits.. Now its clear Iv shown how the bedroom tax is just that a tax...and the civil servants who in effect run the house of parliament also recognise the policy as the bedroom tax OR they wouldn't of allowed a 10 minute bill to be lodged under that name... Its you that not only swallowed the lie of the term but like one of those rather sick thick sycophants went out supporting, reporting and defending the term...Derrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrr Now you cant even post what you think it is called... And Im not sure you have long left on the forum to do so...sap. ThisYear

12:16pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Worker only refers to those who receive a wage? Derrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
.
Do you work for love or is that some kind of reference to slavery?
You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers whereas i am. As a result i am expected to pay for the spare rooms of all unsundry while families wait in bed and breakfast. As a pick and choose socialist, you support this!

Keep kidding yourself, perpetual motion does exist.
Worker only refers to those who receive a wage? Derrrrrrrrrrrrrr. . Do you work for love or is that some kind of reference to slavery? You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers whereas i am. As a result i am expected to pay for the spare rooms of all unsundry while families wait in bed and breakfast. As a pick and choose socialist, you support this! Keep kidding yourself, perpetual motion does exist. Alekhine

6:12pm Tue 18 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
Worker only refers to those who receive a wage? Derrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
.
Do you work for love or is that some kind of reference to slavery?
You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers whereas i am. As a result i am expected to pay for the spare rooms of all unsundry while families wait in bed and breakfast. As a pick and choose socialist, you support this!

Keep kidding yourself, perpetual motion does exist.
What about people who do voluntary work?

Do they work for a wage?

What does slavery have to do with me? If nothing why make mention of it...are you so unsure of yourself that you have to try slur to make a point...do you think such tactics actually help make your point?

Now please advise me; what does slavery have to do with me?

**You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers**

Can you explain how you have not only come to this conclusion, but clearly!

You do not pay for one persons spare room do you?

How on earth do you think you do? Explanation please

People in bed and breakfast are better off than those on the street, who are better off than those on the street in ill health, who are better off etc etc..

You again give me a label so you can use it to disapprove of a stance i take which is not conducive to the label you have allotted me...again this discloses evidence that you are totally unsure of anything you might post..no confidence no umpth...Im sure if you met me you would be silent in my company for fear of making yourself look stupid..you are a nervous wreck man...De bong has binged you.

Now do you disagree with the civil servants who have lodged the 10 minute bill under "Bedroom Tax" Are they wrong, these civil servants that in effect run the country?

Benefits...when you were younger ie dole or jobseekers? Child benefit? Working tax credits? Pension...any of these?

Have I ever opposed the notion of perpetual motion?

Alekhine Noun: confused without support of a Kamrade
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Worker only refers to those who receive a wage? Derrrrrrrrrrrrrr. . Do you work for love or is that some kind of reference to slavery? You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers whereas i am. As a result i am expected to pay for the spare rooms of all unsundry while families wait in bed and breakfast. As a pick and choose socialist, you support this! Keep kidding yourself, perpetual motion does exist.[/p][/quote]What about people who do voluntary work? Do they work for a wage? What does slavery have to do with me? If nothing why make mention of it...are you so unsure of yourself that you have to try slur to make a point...do you think such tactics actually help make your point? Now please advise me; what does slavery have to do with me? **You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers** Can you explain how you have not only come to this conclusion, but clearly! You do not pay for one persons spare room do you? How on earth do you think you do? Explanation please People in bed and breakfast are better off than those on the street, who are better off than those on the street in ill health, who are better off etc etc.. You again give me a label so you can use it to disapprove of a stance i take which is not conducive to the label you have allotted me...again this discloses evidence that you are totally unsure of anything you might post..no confidence no umpth...Im sure if you met me you would be silent in my company for fear of making yourself look stupid..you are a nervous wreck man...De bong has binged you. Now do you disagree with the civil servants who have lodged the 10 minute bill under "Bedroom Tax" Are they wrong, these civil servants that in effect run the country? Benefits...when you were younger ie dole or jobseekers? Child benefit? Working tax credits? Pension...any of these? Have I ever opposed the notion of perpetual motion? Alekhine Noun: confused without support of a Kamrade ThisYear

10:18pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Worker only refers to those who receive a wage? Derrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
.
Do you work for love or is that some kind of reference to slavery?
You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers whereas i am. As a result i am expected to pay for the spare rooms of all unsundry while families wait in bed and breakfast. As a pick and choose socialist, you support this!

Keep kidding yourself, perpetual motion does exist.
What about people who do voluntary work?

Do they work for a wage?

What does slavery have to do with me? If nothing why make mention of it...are you so unsure of yourself that you have to try slur to make a point...do you think such tactics actually help make your point?

Now please advise me; what does slavery have to do with me?

**You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers**

Can you explain how you have not only come to this conclusion, but clearly!

You do not pay for one persons spare room do you?

How on earth do you think you do? Explanation please

People in bed and breakfast are better off than those on the street, who are better off than those on the street in ill health, who are better off etc etc..

You again give me a label so you can use it to disapprove of a stance i take which is not conducive to the label you have allotted me...again this discloses evidence that you are totally unsure of anything you might post..no confidence no umpth...Im sure if you met me you would be silent in my company for fear of making yourself look stupid..you are a nervous wreck man...De bong has binged you.

Now do you disagree with the civil servants who have lodged the 10 minute bill under "Bedroom Tax" Are they wrong, these civil servants that in effect run the country?

Benefits...when you were younger ie dole or jobseekers? Child benefit? Working tax credits? Pension...any of these?

Have I ever opposed the notion of perpetual motion?

Alekhine Noun: confused without support of a Kamrade
You made the reference to unpaid work. The connection to slavery is pretty obvious.

It anyone is silent in your presence, it is because you have sucked all the oxygen out of the room.

Pension is not benefit.

How do i know you are not a net contributor - just a hunch. You could just say that you are but instead choose to write pages of drivel.

You are very dependent of what other people call things. That is a bit of a crutch in your belief system. Somewhere there will be a UFO watch bill, named by a civil servant, no doubt. Does it mean aliens exist?

Keep kidding yourself the economy runs on perpetual motion. Nobody has to work at all, we can all just sit back and claim benefits. That is what you are saying in your absurdity.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Worker only refers to those who receive a wage? Derrrrrrrrrrrrrr. . Do you work for love or is that some kind of reference to slavery? You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers whereas i am. As a result i am expected to pay for the spare rooms of all unsundry while families wait in bed and breakfast. As a pick and choose socialist, you support this! Keep kidding yourself, perpetual motion does exist.[/p][/quote]What about people who do voluntary work? Do they work for a wage? What does slavery have to do with me? If nothing why make mention of it...are you so unsure of yourself that you have to try slur to make a point...do you think such tactics actually help make your point? Now please advise me; what does slavery have to do with me? **You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers** Can you explain how you have not only come to this conclusion, but clearly! You do not pay for one persons spare room do you? How on earth do you think you do? Explanation please People in bed and breakfast are better off than those on the street, who are better off than those on the street in ill health, who are better off etc etc.. You again give me a label so you can use it to disapprove of a stance i take which is not conducive to the label you have allotted me...again this discloses evidence that you are totally unsure of anything you might post..no confidence no umpth...Im sure if you met me you would be silent in my company for fear of making yourself look stupid..you are a nervous wreck man...De bong has binged you. Now do you disagree with the civil servants who have lodged the 10 minute bill under "Bedroom Tax" Are they wrong, these civil servants that in effect run the country? Benefits...when you were younger ie dole or jobseekers? Child benefit? Working tax credits? Pension...any of these? Have I ever opposed the notion of perpetual motion? Alekhine Noun: confused without support of a Kamrade[/p][/quote]You made the reference to unpaid work. The connection to slavery is pretty obvious. It anyone is silent in your presence, it is because you have sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Pension is not benefit. How do i know you are not a net contributor - just a hunch. You could just say that you are but instead choose to write pages of drivel. You are very dependent of what other people call things. That is a bit of a crutch in your belief system. Somewhere there will be a UFO watch bill, named by a civil servant, no doubt. Does it mean aliens exist? Keep kidding yourself the economy runs on perpetual motion. Nobody has to work at all, we can all just sit back and claim benefits. That is what you are saying in your absurdity. Alekhine

11:45pm Tue 18 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Worker only refers to those who receive a wage? Derrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
.
Do you work for love or is that some kind of reference to slavery?
You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers whereas i am. As a result i am expected to pay for the spare rooms of all unsundry while families wait in bed and breakfast. As a pick and choose socialist, you support this!

Keep kidding yourself, perpetual motion does exist.
What about people who do voluntary work?

Do they work for a wage?

What does slavery have to do with me? If nothing why make mention of it...are you so unsure of yourself that you have to try slur to make a point...do you think such tactics actually help make your point?

Now please advise me; what does slavery have to do with me?

**You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers**

Can you explain how you have not only come to this conclusion, but clearly!

You do not pay for one persons spare room do you?

How on earth do you think you do? Explanation please

People in bed and breakfast are better off than those on the street, who are better off than those on the street in ill health, who are better off etc etc..

You again give me a label so you can use it to disapprove of a stance i take which is not conducive to the label you have allotted me...again this discloses evidence that you are totally unsure of anything you might post..no confidence no umpth...Im sure if you met me you would be silent in my company for fear of making yourself look stupid..you are a nervous wreck man...De bong has binged you.

Now do you disagree with the civil servants who have lodged the 10 minute bill under "Bedroom Tax" Are they wrong, these civil servants that in effect run the country?

Benefits...when you were younger ie dole or jobseekers? Child benefit? Working tax credits? Pension...any of these?

Have I ever opposed the notion of perpetual motion?

Alekhine Noun: confused without support of a Kamrade
You made the reference to unpaid work. The connection to slavery is pretty obvious.

It anyone is silent in your presence, it is because you have sucked all the oxygen out of the room.

Pension is not benefit.

How do i know you are not a net contributor - just a hunch. You could just say that you are but instead choose to write pages of drivel.

You are very dependent of what other people call things. That is a bit of a crutch in your belief system. Somewhere there will be a UFO watch bill, named by a civil servant, no doubt. Does it mean aliens exist?

Keep kidding yourself the economy runs on perpetual motion. Nobody has to work at all, we can all just sit back and claim benefits. That is what you are saying in your absurdity.
So someone tells you they work for the red cross as an unpaid worker and you think of it as slavery?

You're another one, when challenged on your slurs, who does not have any morals and will backtrack like a mutt after a missing bone..moral coward..

Im not a little weedy keyboard warrior like you..my stance on these boards would be the same in public..can you say the same dripweed...you even back off on here from what you really mean when challenged..backbone like a jellyfish...sneaky little snide..

Do people not benefit from a pension? Is the pension not paid by the government? Have you never claimed benefits of any kind/ (I havent) You are a hypocrite and you know it!

Your hunchs are like a politicians promises..empty of any reality.

You are one of those strange little selfish trogs, who just cannot understand how someone would defend something that doesn't affect them...

The bedroom tax does not affect you so why should you worry about it? it doesn't affect me but I worry about the people it does affect...see the difference between us?

Drivel is exactly what you write...both you and I know who is the more intelligent...and its not you! Bahahahahaha

Lets get this right...you feel a 10 minute bill was passed by civil servants in the wrong name because they do things like that? And to prove they do you make mention of a UFO watch bill that might exist?

Do Aliens exist?

I kid myself not about the economy..in anyway whatsoever...you've got more hunchs than a village of hunchbacks...I bet you lose loads of money when you bet...if you have the nerve to...lol

Now you tell me what im saying so you can say its absurd..you really are a basket case aren't you?

You argue with yourself dont you? You dont need an opponent you just make up their label and tell them they are acting against their principles in regards to the label and then you say what they contend and then tell them they are wrong and absurd..

My contention is and always was; people who get benefits are entitled to them, because if they were not entitled to them they would not get them..dont you have faith in the system?

The criteria for benefits is entitlement! Without the latter you can't get the former..Bingo!

Still no name from you in regards to what the tax is really called! Very telling.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Worker only refers to those who receive a wage? Derrrrrrrrrrrrrr. . Do you work for love or is that some kind of reference to slavery? You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers whereas i am. As a result i am expected to pay for the spare rooms of all unsundry while families wait in bed and breakfast. As a pick and choose socialist, you support this! Keep kidding yourself, perpetual motion does exist.[/p][/quote]What about people who do voluntary work? Do they work for a wage? What does slavery have to do with me? If nothing why make mention of it...are you so unsure of yourself that you have to try slur to make a point...do you think such tactics actually help make your point? Now please advise me; what does slavery have to do with me? **You are clearly not a net contributor to the govenments coffers** Can you explain how you have not only come to this conclusion, but clearly! You do not pay for one persons spare room do you? How on earth do you think you do? Explanation please People in bed and breakfast are better off than those on the street, who are better off than those on the street in ill health, who are better off etc etc.. You again give me a label so you can use it to disapprove of a stance i take which is not conducive to the label you have allotted me...again this discloses evidence that you are totally unsure of anything you might post..no confidence no umpth...Im sure if you met me you would be silent in my company for fear of making yourself look stupid..you are a nervous wreck man...De bong has binged you. Now do you disagree with the civil servants who have lodged the 10 minute bill under "Bedroom Tax" Are they wrong, these civil servants that in effect run the country? Benefits...when you were younger ie dole or jobseekers? Child benefit? Working tax credits? Pension...any of these? Have I ever opposed the notion of perpetual motion? Alekhine Noun: confused without support of a Kamrade[/p][/quote]You made the reference to unpaid work. The connection to slavery is pretty obvious. It anyone is silent in your presence, it is because you have sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Pension is not benefit. How do i know you are not a net contributor - just a hunch. You could just say that you are but instead choose to write pages of drivel. You are very dependent of what other people call things. That is a bit of a crutch in your belief system. Somewhere there will be a UFO watch bill, named by a civil servant, no doubt. Does it mean aliens exist? Keep kidding yourself the economy runs on perpetual motion. Nobody has to work at all, we can all just sit back and claim benefits. That is what you are saying in your absurdity.[/p][/quote]So someone tells you they work for the red cross as an unpaid worker and you think of it as slavery? You're another one, when challenged on your slurs, who does not have any morals and will backtrack like a mutt after a missing bone..moral coward.. Im not a little weedy keyboard warrior like you..my stance on these boards would be the same in public..can you say the same dripweed...you even back off on here from what you really mean when challenged..backbone like a jellyfish...sneaky little snide.. Do people not benefit from a pension? Is the pension not paid by the government? Have you never claimed benefits of any kind/ (I havent) You are a hypocrite and you know it! Your hunchs are like a politicians promises..empty of any reality. You are one of those strange little selfish trogs, who just cannot understand how someone would defend something that doesn't affect them... The bedroom tax does not affect you so why should you worry about it? it doesn't affect me but I worry about the people it does affect...see the difference between us? Drivel is exactly what you write...both you and I know who is the more intelligent...and its not you! Bahahahahaha Lets get this right...you feel a 10 minute bill was passed by civil servants in the wrong name because they do things like that? And to prove they do you make mention of a UFO watch bill that might exist? Do Aliens exist? I kid myself not about the economy..in anyway whatsoever...you've got more hunchs than a village of hunchbacks...I bet you lose loads of money when you bet...if you have the nerve to...lol Now you tell me what im saying so you can say its absurd..you really are a basket case aren't you? You argue with yourself dont you? You dont need an opponent you just make up their label and tell them they are acting against their principles in regards to the label and then you say what they contend and then tell them they are wrong and absurd.. My contention is and always was; people who get benefits are entitled to them, because if they were not entitled to them they would not get them..dont you have faith in the system? The criteria for benefits is entitlement! Without the latter you can't get the former..Bingo! Still no name from you in regards to what the tax is really called! Very telling. ThisYear

11:18am Wed 19 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Blah, blah blah yakety yakety.

Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..
Blah, blah blah yakety yakety. Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool.. Alekhine

11:01pm Wed 19 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
Blah, blah blah yakety yakety.

Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..
And there you have conceded the debate..and can now scamper away to lick your wounds (like many times before)

Money given to people as an entitlement is termed a benefit..the entitlement comes first...benefit is but the term its not the entitlement..


benefit

noun (note noun not "nown")
1.
an advantage or profit gained from something.


2.
a payment made by the state or an insurance scheme to someone entitled to receive it.

The correct name for the money allotted via entitlement is 'payment'


payment

noun
1.
the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid.

2.
an amount paid or payable.

So a pension is indeed a benefit, in the very same way payment of money due for those entitled to it via different criteria is a benefit..both are money that is payable!

Remember 'benefit' is a collective noun

Now get lost..Divvy.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Blah, blah blah yakety yakety. Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..[/p][/quote]And there you have conceded the debate..and can now scamper away to lick your wounds (like many times before) Money given to people as an entitlement is termed a benefit..the entitlement comes first...benefit is but the term its not the entitlement.. benefit noun (note noun not "nown") 1. an advantage or profit gained from something. 2. a payment made by the state or an insurance scheme to someone entitled to receive it. The correct name for the money allotted via entitlement is 'payment' payment noun 1. the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid. 2. an amount paid or payable. So a pension is indeed a benefit, in the very same way payment of money due for those entitled to it via different criteria is a benefit..both are money that is payable! Remember 'benefit' is a collective noun Now get lost..Divvy. ThisYear

1:57pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: Blah, blah blah yakety yakety. Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..
And there you have conceded the debate..and can now scamper away to lick your wounds (like many times before) Money given to people as an entitlement is termed a benefit..the entitlement comes first...benefit is but the term its not the entitlement.. benefit noun (note noun not "nown") 1. an advantage or profit gained from something. 2. a payment made by the state or an insurance scheme to someone entitled to receive it. The correct name for the money allotted via entitlement is 'payment' payment noun 1. the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid. 2. an amount paid or payable. So a pension is indeed a benefit, in the very same way payment of money due for those entitled to it via different criteria is a benefit..both are money that is payable! Remember 'benefit' is a collective noun Now get lost..Divvy.
That is a strange definition of a benefit. Workers pay into their pension schemes.
....
I would assume that you have never benefitted from a benefit.....LOL
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Blah, blah blah yakety yakety. Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..[/p][/quote]And there you have conceded the debate..and can now scamper away to lick your wounds (like many times before) Money given to people as an entitlement is termed a benefit..the entitlement comes first...benefit is but the term its not the entitlement.. benefit noun (note noun not "nown") 1. an advantage or profit gained from something. 2. a payment made by the state or an insurance scheme to someone entitled to receive it. The correct name for the money allotted via entitlement is 'payment' payment noun 1. the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid. 2. an amount paid or payable. So a pension is indeed a benefit, in the very same way payment of money due for those entitled to it via different criteria is a benefit..both are money that is payable! Remember 'benefit' is a collective noun Now get lost..Divvy.[/p][/quote]That is a strange definition of a benefit. Workers pay into their pension schemes. .... I would assume that you have never benefitted from a benefit.....LOL Alekhine

11:14pm Fri 21 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: Blah, blah blah yakety yakety. Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..
And there you have conceded the debate..and can now scamper away to lick your wounds (like many times before) Money given to people as an entitlement is termed a benefit..the entitlement comes first...benefit is but the term its not the entitlement.. benefit noun (note noun not "nown") 1. an advantage or profit gained from something. 2. a payment made by the state or an insurance scheme to someone entitled to receive it. The correct name for the money allotted via entitlement is 'payment' payment noun 1. the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid. 2. an amount paid or payable. So a pension is indeed a benefit, in the very same way payment of money due for those entitled to it via different criteria is a benefit..both are money that is payable! Remember 'benefit' is a collective noun Now get lost..Divvy.
That is a strange definition of a benefit. Workers pay into their pension schemes.
....
I would assume that you have never benefitted from a benefit.....LOL
'benefit' has many definitions, but when it refers to the monies given as payment for entitlement, it is not a definition but a term!

I have never claimed benefits as in the way of payment..that's because I have not been entitled to some and didn't claim others..

Again I confidently say you have claimed more 'benefits' than I.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Blah, blah blah yakety yakety. Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..[/p][/quote]And there you have conceded the debate..and can now scamper away to lick your wounds (like many times before) Money given to people as an entitlement is termed a benefit..the entitlement comes first...benefit is but the term its not the entitlement.. benefit noun (note noun not "nown") 1. an advantage or profit gained from something. 2. a payment made by the state or an insurance scheme to someone entitled to receive it. The correct name for the money allotted via entitlement is 'payment' payment noun 1. the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid. 2. an amount paid or payable. So a pension is indeed a benefit, in the very same way payment of money due for those entitled to it via different criteria is a benefit..both are money that is payable! Remember 'benefit' is a collective noun Now get lost..Divvy.[/p][/quote]That is a strange definition of a benefit. Workers pay into their pension schemes. .... I would assume that you have never benefitted from a benefit.....LOL[/p][/quote]'benefit' has many definitions, but when it refers to the monies given as payment for entitlement, it is not a definition but a term! I have never claimed benefits as in the way of payment..that's because I have not been entitled to some and didn't claim others.. Again I confidently say you have claimed more 'benefits' than I. ThisYear

2:23pm Sun 23 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: Blah, blah blah yakety yakety. Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..
And there you have conceded the debate..and can now scamper away to lick your wounds (like many times before) Money given to people as an entitlement is termed a benefit..the entitlement comes first...benefit is but the term its not the entitlement.. benefit noun (note noun not "nown") 1. an advantage or profit gained from something. 2. a payment made by the state or an insurance scheme to someone entitled to receive it. The correct name for the money allotted via entitlement is 'payment' payment noun 1. the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid. 2. an amount paid or payable. So a pension is indeed a benefit, in the very same way payment of money due for those entitled to it via different criteria is a benefit..both are money that is payable! Remember 'benefit' is a collective noun Now get lost..Divvy.
That is a strange definition of a benefit. Workers pay into their pension schemes.
....
I would assume that you have never benefitted from a benefit.....LOL
'benefit' has many definitions, but when it refers to the monies given as payment for entitlement, it is not a definition but a term!

I have never claimed benefits as in the way of payment..that's because I have not been entitled to some and didn't claim others..

Again I confidently say you have claimed more 'benefits' than I.
Seems like your 'chum' has been banned for setting up more than one account to support his own dubious posts and copying others usernames..you seem lost without his support and he lost without his supplementary account...what weirdo's you are.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Blah, blah blah yakety yakety. Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..[/p][/quote]And there you have conceded the debate..and can now scamper away to lick your wounds (like many times before) Money given to people as an entitlement is termed a benefit..the entitlement comes first...benefit is but the term its not the entitlement.. benefit noun (note noun not "nown") 1. an advantage or profit gained from something. 2. a payment made by the state or an insurance scheme to someone entitled to receive it. The correct name for the money allotted via entitlement is 'payment' payment noun 1. the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid. 2. an amount paid or payable. So a pension is indeed a benefit, in the very same way payment of money due for those entitled to it via different criteria is a benefit..both are money that is payable! Remember 'benefit' is a collective noun Now get lost..Divvy.[/p][/quote]That is a strange definition of a benefit. Workers pay into their pension schemes. .... I would assume that you have never benefitted from a benefit.....LOL[/p][/quote]'benefit' has many definitions, but when it refers to the monies given as payment for entitlement, it is not a definition but a term! I have never claimed benefits as in the way of payment..that's because I have not been entitled to some and didn't claim others.. Again I confidently say you have claimed more 'benefits' than I.[/p][/quote]Seems like your 'chum' has been banned for setting up more than one account to support his own dubious posts and copying others usernames..you seem lost without his support and he lost without his supplementary account...what weirdo's you are. ThisYear

10:11pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: Blah, blah blah yakety yakety. Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..
And there you have conceded the debate..and can now scamper away to lick your wounds (like many times before) Money given to people as an entitlement is termed a benefit..the entitlement comes first...benefit is but the term its not the entitlement.. benefit noun (note noun not "nown") 1. an advantage or profit gained from something. 2. a payment made by the state or an insurance scheme to someone entitled to receive it. The correct name for the money allotted via entitlement is 'payment' payment noun 1. the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid. 2. an amount paid or payable. So a pension is indeed a benefit, in the very same way payment of money due for those entitled to it via different criteria is a benefit..both are money that is payable! Remember 'benefit' is a collective noun Now get lost..Divvy.
That is a strange definition of a benefit. Workers pay into their pension schemes.
....
I would assume that you have never benefitted from a benefit.....LOL
'benefit' has many definitions, but when it refers to the monies given as payment for entitlement, it is not a definition but a term!

I have never claimed benefits as in the way of payment..that's because I have not been entitled to some and didn't claim others..

Again I confidently say you have claimed more 'benefits' than I.
Seems like your 'chum' has been banned for setting up more than one account to support his own dubious posts and copying others usernames..you seem lost without his support and he lost without his supplementary account...what weirdo's you are.
A double account...... you don't say. It looks like you deserve each other pot / kettle / black.

On the positive side, no more sheep noises since your never / assume fiasco and only 10 months until your name expires......whateve
r nonsense you think it means.......tick...t
ock.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Blah, blah blah yakety yakety. Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..[/p][/quote]And there you have conceded the debate..and can now scamper away to lick your wounds (like many times before) Money given to people as an entitlement is termed a benefit..the entitlement comes first...benefit is but the term its not the entitlement.. benefit noun (note noun not "nown") 1. an advantage or profit gained from something. 2. a payment made by the state or an insurance scheme to someone entitled to receive it. The correct name for the money allotted via entitlement is 'payment' payment noun 1. the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid. 2. an amount paid or payable. So a pension is indeed a benefit, in the very same way payment of money due for those entitled to it via different criteria is a benefit..both are money that is payable! Remember 'benefit' is a collective noun Now get lost..Divvy.[/p][/quote]That is a strange definition of a benefit. Workers pay into their pension schemes. .... I would assume that you have never benefitted from a benefit.....LOL[/p][/quote]'benefit' has many definitions, but when it refers to the monies given as payment for entitlement, it is not a definition but a term! I have never claimed benefits as in the way of payment..that's because I have not been entitled to some and didn't claim others.. Again I confidently say you have claimed more 'benefits' than I.[/p][/quote]Seems like your 'chum' has been banned for setting up more than one account to support his own dubious posts and copying others usernames..you seem lost without his support and he lost without his supplementary account...what weirdo's you are.[/p][/quote]A double account...... you don't say. It looks like you deserve each other pot / kettle / black. On the positive side, no more sheep noises since your never / assume fiasco and only 10 months until your name expires......whateve r nonsense you think it means.......tick...t ock. Alekhine

10:24pm Sun 23 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: Blah, blah blah yakety yakety. Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..
And there you have conceded the debate..and can now scamper away to lick your wounds (like many times before) Money given to people as an entitlement is termed a benefit..the entitlement comes first...benefit is but the term its not the entitlement.. benefit noun (note noun not "nown") 1. an advantage or profit gained from something. 2. a payment made by the state or an insurance scheme to someone entitled to receive it. The correct name for the money allotted via entitlement is 'payment' payment noun 1. the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid. 2. an amount paid or payable. So a pension is indeed a benefit, in the very same way payment of money due for those entitled to it via different criteria is a benefit..both are money that is payable! Remember 'benefit' is a collective noun Now get lost..Divvy.
That is a strange definition of a benefit. Workers pay into their pension schemes.
....
I would assume that you have never benefitted from a benefit.....LOL
'benefit' has many definitions, but when it refers to the monies given as payment for entitlement, it is not a definition but a term!

I have never claimed benefits as in the way of payment..that's because I have not been entitled to some and didn't claim others..

Again I confidently say you have claimed more 'benefits' than I.
Seems like your 'chum' has been banned for setting up more than one account to support his own dubious posts and copying others usernames..you seem lost without his support and he lost without his supplementary account...what weirdo's you are.
A double account...... you don't say. It looks like you deserve each other pot / kettle / black.

On the positive side, no more sheep noises since your never / assume fiasco and only 10 months until your name expires......whateve

r nonsense you think it means.......tick...t

ock.
'double account' apparently..know anything about that dripweed?

You feel I need help to deal with you and your mostly fled racist pals? ..only you are stupidly still here...proving you are hardcore.

Don't you worry about the timing of things..It is not out till october..but things will be in hand before then..you wont miss anything you are entitled to..I have got a few clear racial abusive post from you saved...I know you have tried to be as careful as you can over the years but you have used the banned term..and your "Pi translator' will of course need explaining...

'tick tock' indeed...a criminal charge leading to a conviction (caution included in that) will lead to civil court straight afterwards, perhaps even a private prosecution...hence why your less careful buddies fled the scene...
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Blah, blah blah yakety yakety. Yes, people do benefit from a pension but it is not A benefit,fool..[/p][/quote]And there you have conceded the debate..and can now scamper away to lick your wounds (like many times before) Money given to people as an entitlement is termed a benefit..the entitlement comes first...benefit is but the term its not the entitlement.. benefit noun (note noun not "nown") 1. an advantage or profit gained from something. 2. a payment made by the state or an insurance scheme to someone entitled to receive it. The correct name for the money allotted via entitlement is 'payment' payment noun 1. the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid. 2. an amount paid or payable. So a pension is indeed a benefit, in the very same way payment of money due for those entitled to it via different criteria is a benefit..both are money that is payable! Remember 'benefit' is a collective noun Now get lost..Divvy.[/p][/quote]That is a strange definition of a benefit. Workers pay into their pension schemes. .... I would assume that you have never benefitted from a benefit.....LOL[/p][/quote]'benefit' has many definitions, but when it refers to the monies given as payment for entitlement, it is not a definition but a term! I have never claimed benefits as in the way of payment..that's because I have not been entitled to some and didn't claim others.. Again I confidently say you have claimed more 'benefits' than I.[/p][/quote]Seems like your 'chum' has been banned for setting up more than one account to support his own dubious posts and copying others usernames..you seem lost without his support and he lost without his supplementary account...what weirdo's you are.[/p][/quote]A double account...... you don't say. It looks like you deserve each other pot / kettle / black. On the positive side, no more sheep noises since your never / assume fiasco and only 10 months until your name expires......whateve r nonsense you think it means.......tick...t ock.[/p][/quote]'double account' apparently..know anything about that dripweed? You feel I need help to deal with you and your mostly fled racist pals? ..only you are stupidly still here...proving you are hardcore. Don't you worry about the timing of things..It is not out till october..but things will be in hand before then..you wont miss anything you are entitled to..I have got a few clear racial abusive post from you saved...I know you have tried to be as careful as you can over the years but you have used the banned term..and your "Pi translator' will of course need explaining... 'tick tock' indeed...a criminal charge leading to a conviction (caution included in that) will lead to civil court straight afterwards, perhaps even a private prosecution...hence why your less careful buddies fled the scene... ThisYear

2:29pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Not only the worst troll in the world but also the worst agent provocateur.
Not only the worst troll in the world but also the worst agent provocateur. Alekhine

11:25pm Mon 24 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
Not only the worst troll in the world but also the worst agent provocateur.
Aha...the old "you is a troll you is" LOL...

Hey your racist abuse was all the vogue at the time, and your 'Pi translator' seems to have been copied off another poster, who you obviously thought was quite clever for you to copy him.

I can't be held responsible for your utter lack of morals..or ethics..or indeed your racial views.

You make vague references to things in a reply to me and when I answer you, you get all agitated...dont ask dont know!

You should've jumped ship long ago amigo..but you hung around looking for people with the same diabolical views to latch onto, to support you in your bile...you will do the same again now that the latest compadre has bitten the dust...don't you understand racial abuse/slur/smear is not sustainable...but then you are hardcore aren't you!
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Not only the worst troll in the world but also the worst agent provocateur.[/p][/quote]Aha...the old "you is a troll you is" LOL... Hey your racist abuse was all the vogue at the time, and your 'Pi translator' seems to have been copied off another poster, who you obviously thought was quite clever for you to copy him. I can't be held responsible for your utter lack of morals..or ethics..or indeed your racial views. You make vague references to things in a reply to me and when I answer you, you get all agitated...dont ask dont know! You should've jumped ship long ago amigo..but you hung around looking for people with the same diabolical views to latch onto, to support you in your bile...you will do the same again now that the latest compadre has bitten the dust...don't you understand racial abuse/slur/smear is not sustainable...but then you are hardcore aren't you! ThisYear

12:20pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: Not only the worst troll in the world but also the worst agent provocateur.
Aha...the old "you is a troll you is" LOL... Hey your racist abuse was all the vogue at the time, and your 'Pi translator' seems to have been copied off another poster, who you obviously thought was quite clever for you to copy him. I can't be held responsible for your utter lack of morals..or ethics..or indeed your racial views. You make vague references to things in a reply to me and when I answer you, you get all agitated...dont ask dont know! You should've jumped ship long ago amigo..but you hung around looking for people with the same diabolical views to latch onto, to support you in your bile...you will do the same again now that the latest compadre has bitten the dust...don't you understand racial abuse/slur/smear is not sustainable...but then you are hardcore aren't you!
.......the worst agent provocateur in the world.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Not only the worst troll in the world but also the worst agent provocateur.[/p][/quote]Aha...the old "you is a troll you is" LOL... Hey your racist abuse was all the vogue at the time, and your 'Pi translator' seems to have been copied off another poster, who you obviously thought was quite clever for you to copy him. I can't be held responsible for your utter lack of morals..or ethics..or indeed your racial views. You make vague references to things in a reply to me and when I answer you, you get all agitated...dont ask dont know! You should've jumped ship long ago amigo..but you hung around looking for people with the same diabolical views to latch onto, to support you in your bile...you will do the same again now that the latest compadre has bitten the dust...don't you understand racial abuse/slur/smear is not sustainable...but then you are hardcore aren't you![/p][/quote].......the worst agent provocateur in the world. Alekhine

9:07pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote: Not only the worst troll in the world but also the worst agent provocateur.
Aha...the old "you is a troll you is" LOL... Hey your racist abuse was all the vogue at the time, and your 'Pi translator' seems to have been copied off another poster, who you obviously thought was quite clever for you to copy him. I can't be held responsible for your utter lack of morals..or ethics..or indeed your racial views. You make vague references to things in a reply to me and when I answer you, you get all agitated...dont ask dont know! You should've jumped ship long ago amigo..but you hung around looking for people with the same diabolical views to latch onto, to support you in your bile...you will do the same again now that the latest compadre has bitten the dust...don't you understand racial abuse/slur/smear is not sustainable...but then you are hardcore aren't you!
.......the worst agent provocateur in the world.
You mean along the lines of a shopkeeper encouraging shoplifting by just having his stock on show....you are the master of your own words, deeds and actions...

A man calls a Jamaican 'the word' and then states he is an agent provocateur because he is there thus causing the racist to use the word...you and your rac