EXCLUSIVE: No homes for those hit by bedroom tax

Southend Standard: EXCLUSIVE: No homes for those hit by bedroom tax EXCLUSIVE: No homes for those hit by bedroom tax

TENANTS who have their housing benefit slashed for every spare room in their homes have almost no hope of finding a smaller property in Southend it has been revealed.

The Government has cut the benefit for social housing tenants with spare rooms by up to a quarter in a bid to persuade them to move into smaller properties.

In theory, the cut, dubbed the “bedroom tax” by critics, should free up social housing for the 1,200 people on the waiting list in Southend, as well as cut the welfare bill.

But while more than 648 Southend tenants had their benefits cut this month, only 76 properties were available to move into, the Echo can reveal.

Tim Sneller, chairman of Southend Against the Cuts, said: “It has been a problem all along that there was never a plan to provide people with appropriatesize housing.

“Their laughable plan is to build ‘affordable’ housing they can sell for as much as possible.

“More and more people will be forced into inadequate private housing.”

The Government has claimed the scheme has been a success, as the number of people facing the benefit cut has dropped. In Southend, it is down by almost a fifth since it was introduced, last April.

But only a third of the 181 claimants in the borough no longer facing the cut have moved into smaller social housing on a voluntary basis. Some 14 were forced to move after going into rent arrears.

The rest may no longer be eligible for housing benefit, or have moved into private property.

Southend Council, which administers housing benefit for the Government, is supporting people with particular needs for spare rooms, such as disabled people with a carer through “discretionary housing payments”.

But campaigners fear the problem will worsen when Government funding for those payments dries up.

Ian Gilbert, leader of the council’s Labour group, said: “The reason we aren’t hearing about significant numbers of evictions is there are discretionary housing payments to the people who aren’t able to easily move.

“These payments will not last for ever. If, and when, the discretionary payments are reduced it could be a different story.”

The council received £581,762 for the payments this financial year, with £63,209 left unspent.

Nationally, Government funding will drop from £180million to £165million for 2014/15.

A council spokesman said: “We’re focused on doing whatever is possible to assist people to move, if that’s in their best interest.

“The council has identified a number of sites throughout the borough that have potential to become social housing developments.”

STROKE VICTIM: THEY'LL NEVER MOVE ME

A DISABLED stroke victim pays £34.52 a week in bedroom tax to stay in the house he has lived in all his life.

Tony Livermore’s parents and brother lived with him in his three-bedroom house, in Kent Avenue, Leigh, until they died.

The 58-year-old, who is paralysed on one side, fears moving away from the helpful neighbours he has known all his life and instead sacrifices a quarter of his housing benefit to stay there.

Representatives from South Essex Homes, which manages Southend Council’s housing stock, have tried to persuade Mr Livermore to move into sheltered housing.

However, although he struggles to walk or carry out simple household tasks since suffering a massive stroke a decade ago, he wants to remain
in his childhood home.

He said: “I grew up here. I know all my neighbours and they
look after me.

“I’m not leaving this house until I die.”

Comments (140)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:08am Tue 25 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

why is private housing inadequate?
why is private housing inadequate? profondo asbo
  • Score: 15

9:23am Tue 25 Feb 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

Saving money is the key point here, dont lose sight now...
Saving money is the key point here, dont lose sight now... carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: -2

9:54am Tue 25 Feb 14

John T Pharro says...

carnmountyouknowitma
kessense
wrote:
Saving money is the key point here, dont lose sight now...
The original policy was to free up housing so that people renting council houses with spare bedrooms could move to smaller properties not save money. This seems to be one of those good idea at the time, but not thought through. Firstly there has to be suitable property within the area to move to, but not always the case. Secondly the cases highlighted where people who have lived for many years in the same house especially the elderly or sick would be reluctant even frightened to move from where they feel safe. Thirdly, judging by the numbers who apparently have now fallen behind on their rent are refusing to pay the surcharge it is proving very difficult to impliment. Rather like the poll tax, sounded good in principle, but proved impossible to impose and partly because it was very unfair on low earners.
[quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: Saving money is the key point here, dont lose sight now...[/p][/quote]The original policy was to free up housing so that people renting council houses with spare bedrooms could move to smaller properties not save money. This seems to be one of those good idea at the time, but not thought through. Firstly there has to be suitable property within the area to move to, but not always the case. Secondly the cases highlighted where people who have lived for many years in the same house especially the elderly or sick would be reluctant even frightened to move from where they feel safe. Thirdly, judging by the numbers who apparently have now fallen behind on their rent are refusing to pay the surcharge it is proving very difficult to impliment. Rather like the poll tax, sounded good in principle, but proved impossible to impose and partly because it was very unfair on low earners. John T Pharro
  • Score: 28

10:00am Tue 25 Feb 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

John T Pharro wrote:
carnmountyouknowitma

kessense
wrote:
Saving money is the key point here, dont lose sight now...
The original policy was to free up housing so that people renting council houses with spare bedrooms could move to smaller properties not save money. This seems to be one of those good idea at the time, but not thought through. Firstly there has to be suitable property within the area to move to, but not always the case. Secondly the cases highlighted where people who have lived for many years in the same house especially the elderly or sick would be reluctant even frightened to move from where they feel safe. Thirdly, judging by the numbers who apparently have now fallen behind on their rent are refusing to pay the surcharge it is proving very difficult to impliment. Rather like the poll tax, sounded good in principle, but proved impossible to impose and partly because it was very unfair on low earners.
It's an across the board rule, just like the benefits system, which funny enough is seldom refused.
High time some people began to contribute, instead of sitting on their laurels reminding us all, of their hardship.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: Saving money is the key point here, dont lose sight now...[/p][/quote]The original policy was to free up housing so that people renting council houses with spare bedrooms could move to smaller properties not save money. This seems to be one of those good idea at the time, but not thought through. Firstly there has to be suitable property within the area to move to, but not always the case. Secondly the cases highlighted where people who have lived for many years in the same house especially the elderly or sick would be reluctant even frightened to move from where they feel safe. Thirdly, judging by the numbers who apparently have now fallen behind on their rent are refusing to pay the surcharge it is proving very difficult to impliment. Rather like the poll tax, sounded good in principle, but proved impossible to impose and partly because it was very unfair on low earners.[/p][/quote]It's an across the board rule, just like the benefits system, which funny enough is seldom refused. High time some people began to contribute, instead of sitting on their laurels reminding us all, of their hardship. carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: 3

10:13am Tue 25 Feb 14

Happy Chickie says...

profondo asbo wrote:
why is private housing inadequate?
I wondered the same thing. How can it be adequate for other people but not social tenants?
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: why is private housing inadequate?[/p][/quote]I wondered the same thing. How can it be adequate for other people but not social tenants? Happy Chickie
  • Score: 5

10:49am Tue 25 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

he could have tidied up a bit before the photographer arrived...
he could have tidied up a bit before the photographer arrived... profondo asbo
  • Score: 10

11:30am Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

So much for the stats 'guessed' at on the other thread about this despicable tax and 'all the smaller properties available'...suffice to say human nature being what it is, there will be those who will ignore the failings of this monstrosity of a tax and look for reasons why it COULD work rather than why it doesn't!

I wonder how many affected by this tax support it...the implication being if this were a tax right across the board would those supporting it still do so...I have a feeling the vast majority wouldn't!

'Love thy neighbour' Yeah right!
So much for the stats 'guessed' at on the other thread about this despicable tax and 'all the smaller properties available'...suffice to say human nature being what it is, there will be those who will ignore the failings of this monstrosity of a tax and look for reasons why it COULD work rather than why it doesn't! I wonder how many affected by this tax support it...the implication being if this were a tax right across the board would those supporting it still do so...I have a feeling the vast majority wouldn't! 'Love thy neighbour' Yeah right! ThisYear
  • Score: -2

12:10pm Tue 25 Feb 14

pembury53 says...

the scheme is definitely a rip roaring success......... if your a potential immigrant
the scheme is definitely a rip roaring success......... if your a potential immigrant pembury53
  • Score: 11

1:44pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jayman says...

profondo asbo wrote:
why is private housing inadequate?
Because the private rental market is socially unjust, largely unregulated and is for the sole financial gain of unsavoury and ruthless landlords who maintain slum like conditions for 'working' i will say that again in case this concept has been censored by your right-wing-o-matic brain implant 'working' --as in-- participating and engaged in financial employment.!!

cap rents at affordable levels. if the housing market collapses because landlords en masse cannot afford to pay their mortgage by non parasitic type means, Then the aforementioned housing collapse and eventual adjustment to realistic house prices may be of benefit to this countries former tenants as they will be in a position to 'buy' the house that they formerly rented.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: why is private housing inadequate?[/p][/quote]Because the private rental market is socially unjust, largely unregulated and is for the sole financial gain of unsavoury and ruthless landlords who maintain slum like conditions for 'working' i will say that again in case this concept has been censored by your right-wing-o-matic brain implant 'working' --as in-- participating and engaged in financial employment.!! cap rents at affordable levels. if the housing market collapses because landlords en masse cannot afford to pay their mortgage by non parasitic type means, Then the aforementioned housing collapse and eventual adjustment to realistic house prices may be of benefit to this countries former tenants as they will be in a position to 'buy' the house that they formerly rented. jayman
  • Score: 4

2:24pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jayman says...

jayman wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
why is private housing inadequate?
Because the private rental market is socially unjust, largely unregulated and is for the sole financial gain of unsavoury and ruthless landlords who maintain slum like conditions for 'working' i will say that again in case this concept has been censored by your right-wing-o-matic brain implant 'working' --as in-- participating and engaged in financial employment.!!

cap rents at affordable levels. if the housing market collapses because landlords en masse cannot afford to pay their mortgage by non parasitic type means, Then the aforementioned housing collapse and eventual adjustment to realistic house prices may be of benefit to this countries former tenants as they will be in a position to 'buy' the house that they formerly rented.
UK Banks prior to the financial crash.

Borrowed money beyond their balance sheet and expected others to pick up the costs through complex financial systems, debt warehouses, selling bundles of debt to other financial institutions, fixing rates, costs and selling bad financial products. debts where eventually secured and the banks where saved by massive government and central bank intervention.

UK private rental market on this day

landlords borrow money well beyond their balance sheet and expect others to pick up the costs through through simplistic yet brutal financial arrangements such as the governments 'help to rent'-- oops 'help to buy' scheme and through 'in work'---Working tenant 'housing benefit' . the rents are secured by a long running government 'accord tacite' landlords form the countries largest price rigging cartel. The overall condition of the product that they sell (rent) is substandard and receives less then 5% investment in the lifetime of the product. their activity affects the whole economy and lives and life choices of others.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: why is private housing inadequate?[/p][/quote]Because the private rental market is socially unjust, largely unregulated and is for the sole financial gain of unsavoury and ruthless landlords who maintain slum like conditions for 'working' i will say that again in case this concept has been censored by your right-wing-o-matic brain implant 'working' --as in-- participating and engaged in financial employment.!! cap rents at affordable levels. if the housing market collapses because landlords en masse cannot afford to pay their mortgage by non parasitic type means, Then the aforementioned housing collapse and eventual adjustment to realistic house prices may be of benefit to this countries former tenants as they will be in a position to 'buy' the house that they formerly rented.[/p][/quote]UK Banks prior to the financial crash. Borrowed money beyond their balance sheet and expected others to pick up the costs through complex financial systems, debt warehouses, selling bundles of debt to other financial institutions, fixing rates, costs and selling bad financial products. debts where eventually secured and the banks where saved by massive government and central bank intervention. UK private rental market on this day landlords borrow money well beyond their balance sheet and expect others to pick up the costs through through simplistic yet brutal financial arrangements such as the governments 'help to rent'-- oops 'help to buy' scheme and through 'in work'---Working tenant 'housing benefit' . the rents are secured by a long running government 'accord tacite' landlords form the countries largest price rigging cartel. The overall condition of the product that they sell (rent) is substandard and receives less then 5% investment in the lifetime of the product. their activity affects the whole economy and lives and life choices of others. jayman
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Tue 25 Feb 14

whateverhappened says...

Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..
Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right.. whateverhappened
  • Score: 12

4:07pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Phil McCrakin says...

This applies to all such stories, substitute the word Benefits with Paid for by other Taxpayers...
This applies to all such stories, substitute the word Benefits with Paid for by other Taxpayers... Phil McCrakin
  • Score: 7

4:10pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

whateverhappened wrote:
Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..
Where to start with your rather naive post!

First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves.

All people pay tax!

If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed.

The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract...

Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal.

The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..[/p][/quote]Where to start with your rather naive post! First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves. All people pay tax! If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed. The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract... Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal. The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for. ThisYear
  • Score: -6

4:12pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Phil McCrakin wrote:
This applies to all such stories, substitute the word Benefits with Paid for by other Taxpayers...
Quite right in part...your implication that people on benefits also pay tax is right on the money...as it were.
[quote][p][bold]Phil McCrakin[/bold] wrote: This applies to all such stories, substitute the word Benefits with Paid for by other Taxpayers...[/p][/quote]Quite right in part...your implication that people on benefits also pay tax is right on the money...as it were. ThisYear
  • Score: -8

4:13pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jayman says...

whateverhappened wrote:
Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..
well as long as the state expects people to live on minimum wage or an economy based on a minimum wage workforce.

you try getting or paying off a mortgage on £6.31 an hour..

so that settles it then.. we need more social housing as a priority to our economy.. :)
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..[/p][/quote]well as long as the state expects people to live on minimum wage or an economy based on a minimum wage workforce. you try getting or paying off a mortgage on £6.31 an hour.. so that settles it then.. we need more social housing as a priority to our economy.. :) jayman
  • Score: 7

4:19pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves. Kursaal76
  • Score: 13

4:50pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jolllyboy says...

Obviously a vast number of people have no empathy for those worse off than themselves. Minimum wage is too low for affording a mortgage. The bedroom tax has not been thought through because it discriminates against those who are coping living with assistance from friends, neighbours and families instead of costing the taxpayer more in a care home. As for sheltered housing that is a laugh since they have restricted and are taking away the assistance at these places - to save money therefore they are not sheltered.
There are no smaller properties and that is the main point here.You dont bring in an unworkable rule. If people are in arrears because of the tax they will be homeless since there are no other properties. I here of people who are made redundant being allowed a small property for a family - eventually - when those foreigners on the list for only a few weeks get a lovely house. So until inequality is sorted and more social houses are built they should stop social housing being sold. If someone can afford to buy their council house they should not still be in it !
Obviously a vast number of people have no empathy for those worse off than themselves. Minimum wage is too low for affording a mortgage. The bedroom tax has not been thought through because it discriminates against those who are coping living with assistance from friends, neighbours and families instead of costing the taxpayer more in a care home. As for sheltered housing that is a laugh since they have restricted and are taking away the assistance at these places - to save money therefore they are not sheltered. There are no smaller properties and that is the main point here.You dont bring in an unworkable rule. If people are in arrears because of the tax they will be homeless since there are no other properties. I here of people who are made redundant being allowed a small property for a family - eventually - when those foreigners on the list for only a few weeks get a lovely house. So until inequality is sorted and more social houses are built they should stop social housing being sold. If someone can afford to buy their council house they should not still be in it ! jolllyboy
  • Score: 3

4:54pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jayman says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country. jayman
  • Score: -5

5:26pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats. Kursaal76
  • Score: -2

5:34pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Letmetryagain says...

The majority of what used to be council housing, is now run by Housing associations.

While it doesn't sound fair for someone who has rented a house for most of their life, to be asked to move to a smaller property (if available).

Is it fair for a family to be kept waiting for a three bedroom house, when many are occupied by a single person ?
The majority of what used to be council housing, is now run by Housing associations. While it doesn't sound fair for someone who has rented a house for most of their life, to be asked to move to a smaller property (if available). Is it fair for a family to be kept waiting for a three bedroom house, when many are occupied by a single person ? Letmetryagain
  • Score: 8

6:28pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
**it's about time this happens**

You mean you have been worrying about it for years?

Are people moving into homes that are too big for them?

Or are they already in homes that the government, to steal back money, have decided are too big for them..unless they pay more for them and then they are not too big for them?

Are they not paying for their houses already?

Isnt it the fact that the government want them to pay a supplement to what they already pay?

You imply that people in homes hit by the bedroom tax do not work? Is that the case?

You also imply that people on benefits (you are probably in receipt of benefit{s}) are not from the "working class"?

What do they come under then?
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]**it's about time this happens** You mean you have been worrying about it for years? Are people moving into homes that are too big for them? Or are they already in homes that the government, to steal back money, have decided are too big for them..unless they pay more for them and then they are not too big for them? Are they not paying for their houses already? Isnt it the fact that the government want them to pay a supplement to what they already pay? You imply that people in homes hit by the bedroom tax do not work? Is that the case? You also imply that people on benefits (you are probably in receipt of benefit{s}) are not from the "working class"? What do they come under then? ThisYear
  • Score: 3

6:29pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jayman says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for... jayman
  • Score: 4

6:35pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics. ThisYear
  • Score: 4

6:44pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
They should have moved when they first had the spare room! now they have to pay for it they make a big fuss about it.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics.[/p][/quote]They should have moved when they first had the spare room! now they have to pay for it they make a big fuss about it. Kursaal76
  • Score: 1

6:48pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
Move where?
No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics.[/p][/quote]Move where? No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here. Kursaal76
  • Score: 3

6:53pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up. Kursaal76
  • Score: 12

6:54pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Living the La Vida Legra says...

ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..
Where to start with your rather naive post!

First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves.

All people pay tax!

If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed.

The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract...

Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal.

The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.
WRONG
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..[/p][/quote]Where to start with your rather naive post! First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves. All people pay tax! If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed. The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract... Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal. The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.[/p][/quote]WRONG Living the La Vida Legra
  • Score: -6

6:55pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

Letmetryagain wrote:
The majority of what used to be council housing, is now run by Housing associations.

While it doesn't sound fair for someone who has rented a house for most of their life, to be asked to move to a smaller property (if available).

Is it fair for a family to be kept waiting for a three bedroom house, when many are occupied by a single person ?
Some Council housing may be run by housing associations but a percentage of the properties has to go to council. normally 7 out of 10 homes are for council.
[quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: The majority of what used to be council housing, is now run by Housing associations. While it doesn't sound fair for someone who has rented a house for most of their life, to be asked to move to a smaller property (if available). Is it fair for a family to be kept waiting for a three bedroom house, when many are occupied by a single person ?[/p][/quote]Some Council housing may be run by housing associations but a percentage of the properties has to go to council. normally 7 out of 10 homes are for council. Kursaal76
  • Score: -4

7:10pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
They should have moved when they first had the spare room! now they have to pay for it they make a big fuss about it.
So the home is too big for them but miraculously isn't when they pay the tax..
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics.[/p][/quote]They should have moved when they first had the spare room! now they have to pay for it they make a big fuss about it.[/p][/quote]So the home is too big for them but miraculously isn't when they pay the tax.. ThisYear
  • Score: 2

7:14pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
Move where?
No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.
Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability.

You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics.[/p][/quote]Move where? No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.[/p][/quote]Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability. You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm.. ThisYear
  • Score: -1

7:16pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
Move where?
No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.
Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability.

You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..
no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics.[/p][/quote]Move where? No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.[/p][/quote]Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability. You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..[/p][/quote]no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available? Kursaal76
  • Score: -2

7:18pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Living the La Vida Legra wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..
Where to start with your rather naive post!

First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves.

All people pay tax!

If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed.

The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract...

Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal.

The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.
WRONG
Well you say that..but thats all you say?
[quote][p][bold]Living the La Vida Legra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..[/p][/quote]Where to start with your rather naive post! First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves. All people pay tax! If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed. The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract... Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal. The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.[/p][/quote]WRONG[/p][/quote]Well you say that..but thats all you say? ThisYear
  • Score: 5

7:28pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Living the La Vida Legra wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..
Where to start with your rather naive post!

First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves.

All people pay tax!

If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed.

The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract...

Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal.

The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.
WRONG
Well you say that..but thats all you say?
You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm lol
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Living the La Vida Legra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..[/p][/quote]Where to start with your rather naive post! First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves. All people pay tax! If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed. The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract... Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal. The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.[/p][/quote]WRONG[/p][/quote]Well you say that..but thats all you say?[/p][/quote]You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm lol Kursaal76
  • Score: -4

7:29pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax? ThisYear
  • Score: -4

7:31pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Letmetryagain wrote:
The majority of what used to be council housing, is now run by Housing associations.

While it doesn't sound fair for someone who has rented a house for most of their life, to be asked to move to a smaller property (if available).

Is it fair for a family to be kept waiting for a three bedroom house, when many are occupied by a single person ?
But does the bedroom tax free the house up?
[quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: The majority of what used to be council housing, is now run by Housing associations. While it doesn't sound fair for someone who has rented a house for most of their life, to be asked to move to a smaller property (if available). Is it fair for a family to be kept waiting for a three bedroom house, when many are occupied by a single person ?[/p][/quote]But does the bedroom tax free the house up? ThisYear
  • Score: 2

7:38pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?[/p][/quote]yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax? Kursaal76
  • Score: 4

7:40pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
Move where?
No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.
Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability.

You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..
no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?
Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment?

Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home...

The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land..

On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics.[/p][/quote]Move where? No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.[/p][/quote]Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability. You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..[/p][/quote]no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?[/p][/quote]Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment? Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home... The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land.. On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable. ThisYear
  • Score: -1

7:40pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?
just admit it! THIS YEAR , you live on benefits in a house to big for you and thats why you are on here commenting on this. :)
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?[/p][/quote]yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?[/p][/quote]just admit it! THIS YEAR , you live on benefits in a house to big for you and thats why you are on here commenting on this. :) Kursaal76
  • Score: 1

7:41pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Living the La Vida Legra wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..
Where to start with your rather naive post!

First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves.

All people pay tax!

If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed.

The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract...

Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal.

The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.
WRONG
Well you say that..but thats all you say?
You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm lol
Oh dear..
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Living the La Vida Legra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..[/p][/quote]Where to start with your rather naive post! First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves. All people pay tax! If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed. The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract... Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal. The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.[/p][/quote]WRONG[/p][/quote]Well you say that..but thats all you say?[/p][/quote]You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm lol[/p][/quote]Oh dear.. ThisYear
  • Score: 1

7:44pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
Move where?
No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.
Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability.

You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..
no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?
Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment?

Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home...

The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land..

On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.
no she doesn't want preferential treatment its just an example how they say there is no smaller housing when there is. why should people have extra rooms that they do not need. when there are people out there that need a bigger place and not getting it. also i think a certain number of housing should be put aside for working households.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics.[/p][/quote]Move where? No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.[/p][/quote]Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability. You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..[/p][/quote]no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?[/p][/quote]Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment? Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home... The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land.. On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.[/p][/quote]no she doesn't want preferential treatment its just an example how they say there is no smaller housing when there is. why should people have extra rooms that they do not need. when there are people out there that need a bigger place and not getting it. also i think a certain number of housing should be put aside for working households. Kursaal76
  • Score: -2

7:45pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Living the La Vida Legra wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..
Where to start with your rather naive post!

First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves.

All people pay tax!

If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed.

The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract...

Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal.

The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.
WRONG
Well you say that..but thats all you say?
You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm lol
Oh dear..
oh dear indeed.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Living the La Vida Legra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..[/p][/quote]Where to start with your rather naive post! First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves. All people pay tax! If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed. The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract... Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal. The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.[/p][/quote]WRONG[/p][/quote]Well you say that..but thats all you say?[/p][/quote]You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm lol[/p][/quote]Oh dear..[/p][/quote]oh dear indeed. Kursaal76
  • Score: -5

7:46pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?
They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS!

Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits..

You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed.

If you have children, do you not get a benefit?
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?[/p][/quote]yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?[/p][/quote]They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS! Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits.. You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed. If you have children, do you not get a benefit? ThisYear
  • Score: 2

7:50pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Living the La Vida Legra wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..
Where to start with your rather naive post!

First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves.

All people pay tax!

If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed.

The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract...

Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal.

The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.
WRONG
Well you say that..but thats all you say?
You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm lol
Oh dear..
oh dear indeed.
Seems you have nothing else to say on the issue..Well hopefully you are a bit better informed than you were when you first posted.
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Living the La Vida Legra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: Why would anyone EXPECT to live in a house provided by the goverment ie taxpayers for their entire lives as if it is their right..[/p][/quote]Where to start with your rather naive post! First off council housing belongs to the people..Not the council or the government. So people are providing homes for other people And themselves. All people pay tax! If you are referring to income tax; there is no stats on how many people living in council houses are unemployed. The state has a contract with the populace...The country operates on contract... Your comments is akin to pointing at an elephants eye and asking why is it blinking whilst oblivious to the rest of the animal. The issue in regards to the article is; there are no smaller homes for people who are victims of the bedroom tax to move into..options left..move into private accommodation which most won't be able to afford OR pay for rooms in a house they already pay for.[/p][/quote]WRONG[/p][/quote]Well you say that..but thats all you say?[/p][/quote]You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm lol[/p][/quote]Oh dear..[/p][/quote]oh dear indeed.[/p][/quote]Seems you have nothing else to say on the issue..Well hopefully you are a bit better informed than you were when you first posted. ThisYear
  • Score: -2

7:54pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?
They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS!

Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits..

You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed.

If you have children, do you not get a benefit?
I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?[/p][/quote]yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?[/p][/quote]They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS! Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits.. You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed. If you have children, do you not get a benefit?[/p][/quote]I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer. Kursaal76
  • Score: -1

7:57pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?
They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS!

Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits..

You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed.

If you have children, do you not get a benefit?
I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.
WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS LOL
So really i pay tax two times. one for working and one for benefits claimants.
Don't get me wrong a lot of people do deserve benefits it's just the odd few benefit cheats the ruin it
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?[/p][/quote]yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?[/p][/quote]They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS! Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits.. You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed. If you have children, do you not get a benefit?[/p][/quote]I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.[/p][/quote]WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS LOL So really i pay tax two times. one for working and one for benefits claimants. Don't get me wrong a lot of people do deserve benefits it's just the odd few benefit cheats the ruin it Kursaal76
  • Score: 1

7:59pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?
just admit it! THIS YEAR , you live on benefits in a house to big for you and thats why you are on here commenting on this. :)
Aw Shame...you feel because a person opposes something they have to be affected by it...but then isn't that the impression given by all those who support this dreadful tax...the 'Im alright jacks' who are barely better off than those they demean
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?[/p][/quote]yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?[/p][/quote]just admit it! THIS YEAR , you live on benefits in a house to big for you and thats why you are on here commenting on this. :)[/p][/quote]Aw Shame...you feel because a person opposes something they have to be affected by it...but then isn't that the impression given by all those who support this dreadful tax...the 'Im alright jacks' who are barely better off than those they demean ThisYear
  • Score: 3

8:05pm Tue 25 Feb 14

whateverhappened says...

If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers whateverhappened
  • Score: 2

8:06pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
Move where?
No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.
Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability.

You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..
no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?
Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment?

Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home...

The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land..

On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.
no she doesn't want preferential treatment its just an example how they say there is no smaller housing when there is. why should people have extra rooms that they do not need. when there are people out there that need a bigger place and not getting it. also i think a certain number of housing should be put aside for working households.
If they, the council, say there isn't and she says there is then she should prove to them that they are mistaken...its not the fault of those who would downgrade of they are told the same thing as she..

Who says they don't need the rooms?

The attitude you are taking should see you asking the question why homes are provided at all..for anyone!
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics.[/p][/quote]Move where? No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.[/p][/quote]Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability. You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..[/p][/quote]no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?[/p][/quote]Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment? Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home... The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land.. On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.[/p][/quote]no she doesn't want preferential treatment its just an example how they say there is no smaller housing when there is. why should people have extra rooms that they do not need. when there are people out there that need a bigger place and not getting it. also i think a certain number of housing should be put aside for working households.[/p][/quote]If they, the council, say there isn't and she says there is then she should prove to them that they are mistaken...its not the fault of those who would downgrade of they are told the same thing as she.. Who says they don't need the rooms? The attitude you are taking should see you asking the question why homes are provided at all..for anyone! ThisYear
  • Score: 3

8:11pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?
They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS!

Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits..

You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed.

If you have children, do you not get a benefit?
I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.
You feel all on benefits and subject to this bedroom infamous tax (which will repealed sooner rather than later) abuse their benefits?

Round and round and round we go...the people in question are also taxpayers..some paying income tax..so your sweeping statement does not stand up to scrutiny!
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?[/p][/quote]yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?[/p][/quote]They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS! Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits.. You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed. If you have children, do you not get a benefit?[/p][/quote]I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.[/p][/quote]You feel all on benefits and subject to this bedroom infamous tax (which will repealed sooner rather than later) abuse their benefits? Round and round and round we go...the people in question are also taxpayers..some paying income tax..so your sweeping statement does not stand up to scrutiny! ThisYear
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?
They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS!

Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits..

You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed.

If you have children, do you not get a benefit?
I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.
WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS LOL
So really i pay tax two times. one for working and one for benefits claimants.
Don't get me wrong a lot of people do deserve benefits it's just the odd few benefit cheats the ruin it
So you would punish the majority because of the minority?
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?[/p][/quote]yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?[/p][/quote]They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS! Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits.. You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed. If you have children, do you not get a benefit?[/p][/quote]I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.[/p][/quote]WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS LOL So really i pay tax two times. one for working and one for benefits claimants. Don't get me wrong a lot of people do deserve benefits it's just the odd few benefit cheats the ruin it[/p][/quote]So you would punish the majority because of the minority? ThisYear
  • Score: 3

8:15pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits? ThisYear
  • Score: -1

8:18pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?
They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS!

Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits..

You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed.

If you have children, do you not get a benefit?
I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.
WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS LOL
So really i pay tax two times. one for working and one for benefits claimants.
Don't get me wrong a lot of people do deserve benefits it's just the odd few benefit cheats the ruin it
So you would punish the majority because of the minority?
no just people abusing the system.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?[/p][/quote]yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?[/p][/quote]They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS! Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits.. You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed. If you have children, do you not get a benefit?[/p][/quote]I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.[/p][/quote]WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS LOL So really i pay tax two times. one for working and one for benefits claimants. Don't get me wrong a lot of people do deserve benefits it's just the odd few benefit cheats the ruin it[/p][/quote]So you would punish the majority because of the minority?[/p][/quote]no just people abusing the system. Kursaal76
  • Score: -3

8:20pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
sorry but when did I say income tax?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]sorry but when did I say income tax? Kursaal76
  • Score: -2

8:22pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
sorry but when did I say income tax?
sorry wrong comment lol
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]sorry but when did I say income tax?[/p][/quote]sorry wrong comment lol Kursaal76
  • Score: -5

8:32pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?
They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS!

Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits..

You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed.

If you have children, do you not get a benefit?
I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.
WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS LOL
So really i pay tax two times. one for working and one for benefits claimants.
Don't get me wrong a lot of people do deserve benefits it's just the odd few benefit cheats the ruin it
So you would punish the majority because of the minority?
no just people abusing the system.
Are those who abuse the system found within the majority facing this bedroom tax or at all?
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?[/p][/quote]yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?[/p][/quote]They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS! Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits.. You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed. If you have children, do you not get a benefit?[/p][/quote]I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.[/p][/quote]WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS LOL So really i pay tax two times. one for working and one for benefits claimants. Don't get me wrong a lot of people do deserve benefits it's just the odd few benefit cheats the ruin it[/p][/quote]So you would punish the majority because of the minority?[/p][/quote]no just people abusing the system.[/p][/quote]Are those who abuse the system found within the majority facing this bedroom tax or at all? ThisYear
  • Score: 3

8:34pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
sorry but when did I say income tax?
sorry wrong comment lol
You can answer the question if you like; Do you feel income tax pays for the benefit budget..or maybe just the unemployed segment of the budget?
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]sorry but when did I say income tax?[/p][/quote]sorry wrong comment lol[/p][/quote]You can answer the question if you like; Do you feel income tax pays for the benefit budget..or maybe just the unemployed segment of the budget? ThisYear
  • Score: 1

8:39pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

**NATIONAL NEWS

Rise in number sleeping on streets**
**NATIONAL NEWS Rise in number sleeping on streets** ThisYear
  • Score: 0

8:48pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
sorry but when did I say income tax?
sorry wrong comment lol
You can answer the question if you like; Do you feel income tax pays for the benefit budget..or maybe just the unemployed segment of the budget?
it comes from all tax we pay.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]sorry but when did I say income tax?[/p][/quote]sorry wrong comment lol[/p][/quote]You can answer the question if you like; Do you feel income tax pays for the benefit budget..or maybe just the unemployed segment of the budget?[/p][/quote]it comes from all tax we pay. Kursaal76
  • Score: -3

8:52pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?
They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS!

Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits..

You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed.

If you have children, do you not get a benefit?
I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.
WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS LOL
So really i pay tax two times. one for working and one for benefits claimants.
Don't get me wrong a lot of people do deserve benefits it's just the odd few benefit cheats the ruin it
So you would punish the majority because of the minority?
no just people abusing the system.
Are those who abuse the system found within the majority facing this bedroom tax or at all?
i was talking about people who fake they are ill just so they don't have to work.
so you think its ok for the person in the photo to live in a 3 bed house and there is only him? as you can see in the photo he does not look after that room. and by the looks of it he sleeps on that sofa. so yes some people do abuse the housing benefit.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?[/p][/quote]yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?[/p][/quote]They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS! Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits.. You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed. If you have children, do you not get a benefit?[/p][/quote]I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.[/p][/quote]WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS LOL So really i pay tax two times. one for working and one for benefits claimants. Don't get me wrong a lot of people do deserve benefits it's just the odd few benefit cheats the ruin it[/p][/quote]So you would punish the majority because of the minority?[/p][/quote]no just people abusing the system.[/p][/quote]Are those who abuse the system found within the majority facing this bedroom tax or at all?[/p][/quote]i was talking about people who fake they are ill just so they don't have to work. so you think its ok for the person in the photo to live in a 3 bed house and there is only him? as you can see in the photo he does not look after that room. and by the looks of it he sleeps on that sofa. so yes some people do abuse the housing benefit. Kursaal76
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
Move where?
No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.
Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability.

You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..
no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?
Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment?

Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home...

The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land..

On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.
no she doesn't want preferential treatment its just an example how they say there is no smaller housing when there is. why should people have extra rooms that they do not need. when there are people out there that need a bigger place and not getting it. also i think a certain number of housing should be put aside for working households.
If they, the council, say there isn't and she says there is then she should prove to them that they are mistaken...its not the fault of those who would downgrade of they are told the same thing as she..

Who says they don't need the rooms?

The attitude you are taking should see you asking the question why homes are provided at all..for anyone!
i do think homes should be provided. BUT people need to get out of this phase that a council house is there's for life it is not. once that home is to big for you, you should be moved. it may seem bad now but years down the line when this is settled down it will work. we can not keep going having 2 or 3 bed homes being occupied by 1 person.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics.[/p][/quote]Move where? No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.[/p][/quote]Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability. You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..[/p][/quote]no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?[/p][/quote]Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment? Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home... The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land.. On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.[/p][/quote]no she doesn't want preferential treatment its just an example how they say there is no smaller housing when there is. why should people have extra rooms that they do not need. when there are people out there that need a bigger place and not getting it. also i think a certain number of housing should be put aside for working households.[/p][/quote]If they, the council, say there isn't and she says there is then she should prove to them that they are mistaken...its not the fault of those who would downgrade of they are told the same thing as she.. Who says they don't need the rooms? The attitude you are taking should see you asking the question why homes are provided at all..for anyone![/p][/quote]i do think homes should be provided. BUT people need to get out of this phase that a council house is there's for life it is not. once that home is to big for you, you should be moved. it may seem bad now but years down the line when this is settled down it will work. we can not keep going having 2 or 3 bed homes being occupied by 1 person. Kursaal76
  • Score: -2

9:06pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jayman says...

whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
your of a 40% tax rate. I'm on 20%. your earning between £32,011 - £150,000. ... good for you :) guess my range of income..
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]your of a 40% tax rate. I'm on 20%. your earning between £32,011 - £150,000. ... good for you :) guess my range of income.. jayman
  • Score: -1

9:16pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
sorry but when did I say income tax?
sorry wrong comment lol
You can answer the question if you like; Do you feel income tax pays for the benefit budget..or maybe just the unemployed segment of the budget?
it comes from all tax we pay.
** it comes from all tax we pay.**

There are many who would dispute that but lets go with it as you say.

Ok..so the people who receive benefits also pay tax..so they are receiving back some of what they pay in!

Wheres the problem with that?
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]sorry but when did I say income tax?[/p][/quote]sorry wrong comment lol[/p][/quote]You can answer the question if you like; Do you feel income tax pays for the benefit budget..or maybe just the unemployed segment of the budget?[/p][/quote]it comes from all tax we pay.[/p][/quote]** it comes from all tax we pay.** There are many who would dispute that but lets go with it as you say. Ok..so the people who receive benefits also pay tax..so they are receiving back some of what they pay in! Wheres the problem with that? ThisYear
  • Score: -1

9:17pm Tue 25 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

jayman wrote:
jayman wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
why is private housing inadequate?
Because the private rental market is socially unjust, largely unregulated and is for the sole financial gain of unsavoury and ruthless landlords who maintain slum like conditions for 'working' i will say that again in case this concept has been censored by your right-wing-o-matic brain implant 'working' --as in-- participating and engaged in financial employment.!!

cap rents at affordable levels. if the housing market collapses because landlords en masse cannot afford to pay their mortgage by non parasitic type means, Then the aforementioned housing collapse and eventual adjustment to realistic house prices may be of benefit to this countries former tenants as they will be in a position to 'buy' the house that they formerly rented.
UK Banks prior to the financial crash.

Borrowed money beyond their balance sheet and expected others to pick up the costs through complex financial systems, debt warehouses, selling bundles of debt to other financial institutions, fixing rates, costs and selling bad financial products. debts where eventually secured and the banks where saved by massive government and central bank intervention.

UK private rental market on this day

landlords borrow money well beyond their balance sheet and expect others to pick up the costs through through simplistic yet brutal financial arrangements such as the governments 'help to rent'-- oops 'help to buy' scheme and through 'in work'---Working tenant 'housing benefit' . the rents are secured by a long running government 'accord tacite' landlords form the countries largest price rigging cartel. The overall condition of the product that they sell (rent) is substandard and receives less then 5% investment in the lifetime of the product. their activity affects the whole economy and lives and life choices of others.
i rarely agree with you and i'm not about to start now. however help to buy is an abortion. and stamp duty should be raised on all second home transactions to flush out speculation. the public sector is a byword for inefficiency and free markets are the only way to fix the issue (that does not mean chucking petrol on the fire though). speculators getting burned is all part and parcel of any healthy cycle. there is plenty of private sector housing and to rule it out on ideological grounds is soooo jayman
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: why is private housing inadequate?[/p][/quote]Because the private rental market is socially unjust, largely unregulated and is for the sole financial gain of unsavoury and ruthless landlords who maintain slum like conditions for 'working' i will say that again in case this concept has been censored by your right-wing-o-matic brain implant 'working' --as in-- participating and engaged in financial employment.!! cap rents at affordable levels. if the housing market collapses because landlords en masse cannot afford to pay their mortgage by non parasitic type means, Then the aforementioned housing collapse and eventual adjustment to realistic house prices may be of benefit to this countries former tenants as they will be in a position to 'buy' the house that they formerly rented.[/p][/quote]UK Banks prior to the financial crash. Borrowed money beyond their balance sheet and expected others to pick up the costs through complex financial systems, debt warehouses, selling bundles of debt to other financial institutions, fixing rates, costs and selling bad financial products. debts where eventually secured and the banks where saved by massive government and central bank intervention. UK private rental market on this day landlords borrow money well beyond their balance sheet and expect others to pick up the costs through through simplistic yet brutal financial arrangements such as the governments 'help to rent'-- oops 'help to buy' scheme and through 'in work'---Working tenant 'housing benefit' . the rents are secured by a long running government 'accord tacite' landlords form the countries largest price rigging cartel. The overall condition of the product that they sell (rent) is substandard and receives less then 5% investment in the lifetime of the product. their activity affects the whole economy and lives and life choices of others.[/p][/quote]i rarely agree with you and i'm not about to start now. however help to buy is an abortion. and stamp duty should be raised on all second home transactions to flush out speculation. the public sector is a byword for inefficiency and free markets are the only way to fix the issue (that does not mean chucking petrol on the fire though). speculators getting burned is all part and parcel of any healthy cycle. there is plenty of private sector housing and to rule it out on ideological grounds is soooo jayman profondo asbo
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
you have just shifted your argument from.

"if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax.

to

"working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits)

and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...
I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means.
Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.
You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits?

"Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up?

You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?
yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?
They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS!

Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits..

You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed.

If you have children, do you not get a benefit?
I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.
WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS LOL
So really i pay tax two times. one for working and one for benefits claimants.
Don't get me wrong a lot of people do deserve benefits it's just the odd few benefit cheats the ruin it
So you would punish the majority because of the minority?
no just people abusing the system.
Are those who abuse the system found within the majority facing this bedroom tax or at all?
i was talking about people who fake they are ill just so they don't have to work.
so you think its ok for the person in the photo to live in a 3 bed house and there is only him? as you can see in the photo he does not look after that room. and by the looks of it he sleeps on that sofa. so yes some people do abuse the housing benefit.
Now you bring in another level of who is to blame..so now its those who claim because they are deemed too ill to work..

So its not those who can't find a job as you first implied and its not those who work for minimum wages and are on working tax credit; but those pretending to be ill who receive benefits..

How many of these 'benefit abusers' do you feel are hit by this bedroom tax?
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]you have just shifted your argument from. "if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it"-- i think you will find they they already do. they are the ones who are working, requiring food bank assistance and being stung by the bedroom tax. to "working class who don't claim any benefits"--well when it comes to working class families, i think you will be hard pressed to find a family on basic wages who is not in receipt of working tax credits/housing benefit or child tax credit. (all of which are benefits) and im afraid 'politics' has a lot to do with it.. our representatives go to the big political building in the big city to make all of those boring and tiresome decisions such as. how much we get paid, should we have working rights, should we have an NHS, should the government create a dystopia of hunger and deprivation, should loving yet poor people have the right to have children... all those things that (like yourself) we shouldn't bother to pay attention to or vote for...[/p][/quote]I do not claim any benefits. the problem is people live beyond there means. Perfect example if you want a kid pay for it yourself not ring up benefits and expect the tax payer to bring your kids up.[/p][/quote]You don't claim benefits or you have never claimed benefits? "Perfect example? Do people have a child and then ring up benefits to bring the child up? You keep mentioning "taxpayer"...do people on benefits not pay tax?[/p][/quote]yeah they pay tax on the money the tax payer gives them. or am i missing something does someone else give them the tax?[/p][/quote]They pay tax on their benefits..which is an entitlement...they then pay tax from their money (it is their money or they wouldn't receive it) in the way of income tax, and taxes on food etc..those who do not work pay taxes on what they buy...WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS! Unless you are saying only income tax pays benefits.. You will of course be aware that only 3% of the benefit budget is claimed by the unemployed. If you have children, do you not get a benefit?[/p][/quote]I do not have kids. yeah benefits is an entitlement does not mean they can abuse it. same as housing benefit its not there for people to have bigger houses that they can not afford without help from the tax payer.[/p][/quote]WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS LOL So really i pay tax two times. one for working and one for benefits claimants. Don't get me wrong a lot of people do deserve benefits it's just the odd few benefit cheats the ruin it[/p][/quote]So you would punish the majority because of the minority?[/p][/quote]no just people abusing the system.[/p][/quote]Are those who abuse the system found within the majority facing this bedroom tax or at all?[/p][/quote]i was talking about people who fake they are ill just so they don't have to work. so you think its ok for the person in the photo to live in a 3 bed house and there is only him? as you can see in the photo he does not look after that room. and by the looks of it he sleeps on that sofa. so yes some people do abuse the housing benefit.[/p][/quote]Now you bring in another level of who is to blame..so now its those who claim because they are deemed too ill to work.. So its not those who can't find a job as you first implied and its not those who work for minimum wages and are on working tax credit; but those pretending to be ill who receive benefits.. How many of these 'benefit abusers' do you feel are hit by this bedroom tax? ThisYear
  • Score: -1

9:29pm Tue 25 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

jayman wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
your of a 40% tax rate. I'm on 20%. your earning between £32,011 - £150,000. ... good for you :) guess my range of income..
don't forget NICs of 12%.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]your of a 40% tax rate. I'm on 20%. your earning between £32,011 - £150,000. ... good for you :) guess my range of income..[/p][/quote]don't forget NICs of 12%. profondo asbo
  • Score: 4

9:30pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
Move where?
No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.
Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability.

You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..
no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?
Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment?

Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home...

The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land..

On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.
no she doesn't want preferential treatment its just an example how they say there is no smaller housing when there is. why should people have extra rooms that they do not need. when there are people out there that need a bigger place and not getting it. also i think a certain number of housing should be put aside for working households.
If they, the council, say there isn't and she says there is then she should prove to them that they are mistaken...its not the fault of those who would downgrade of they are told the same thing as she..

Who says they don't need the rooms?

The attitude you are taking should see you asking the question why homes are provided at all..for anyone!
i do think homes should be provided. BUT people need to get out of this phase that a council house is there's for life it is not. once that home is to big for you, you should be moved. it may seem bad now but years down the line when this is settled down it will work. we can not keep going having 2 or 3 bed homes being occupied by 1 person.
Who said a council house isn't for life? You?

** once that home is to big for you, you should be moved**

It would seem you are even willing to go further than this coalition which will go down in history as preying on the poor and vulnerable...you would simply kick people out...It cannot be a case of moving people out, as the article shows, there is not the amount of accommodation available to move people to...the coalition wre fully aware of this but that wasn't the main reason for the policy!

Do you consider yourself 'working class'? Because if you do I'm not sure you know the meaning of the term.
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics.[/p][/quote]Move where? No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.[/p][/quote]Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability. You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..[/p][/quote]no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?[/p][/quote]Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment? Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home... The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land.. On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.[/p][/quote]no she doesn't want preferential treatment its just an example how they say there is no smaller housing when there is. why should people have extra rooms that they do not need. when there are people out there that need a bigger place and not getting it. also i think a certain number of housing should be put aside for working households.[/p][/quote]If they, the council, say there isn't and she says there is then she should prove to them that they are mistaken...its not the fault of those who would downgrade of they are told the same thing as she.. Who says they don't need the rooms? The attitude you are taking should see you asking the question why homes are provided at all..for anyone![/p][/quote]i do think homes should be provided. BUT people need to get out of this phase that a council house is there's for life it is not. once that home is to big for you, you should be moved. it may seem bad now but years down the line when this is settled down it will work. we can not keep going having 2 or 3 bed homes being occupied by 1 person.[/p][/quote]Who said a council house isn't for life? You? ** once that home is to big for you, you should be moved** It would seem you are even willing to go further than this coalition which will go down in history as preying on the poor and vulnerable...you would simply kick people out...It cannot be a case of moving people out, as the article shows, there is not the amount of accommodation available to move people to...the coalition wre fully aware of this but that wasn't the main reason for the policy! Do you consider yourself 'working class'? Because if you do I'm not sure you know the meaning of the term. ThisYear
  • Score: -2

9:35pm Tue 25 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant profondo asbo
  • Score: -1

9:39pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jayman says...

profondo asbo wrote:
jayman wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
your of a 40% tax rate. I'm on 20%. your earning between £32,011 - £150,000. ... good for you :) guess my range of income..
don't forget NICs of 12%.
ah.. national insurance. linked to paying for things like the NHS and the Welfare system. George Osborne is going to attempt to change the name of NI to 'earnings tax'... I wouldn't mind an increase of 15% in my NI contributions if it meant that the NHS and the welfare system where protected.. sadly old 'Gideon Oliver' is keen to go in the other direction and change its name and destroy one of the only socially acceptable taxes.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]your of a 40% tax rate. I'm on 20%. your earning between £32,011 - £150,000. ... good for you :) guess my range of income..[/p][/quote]don't forget NICs of 12%.[/p][/quote]ah.. national insurance. linked to paying for things like the NHS and the Welfare system. George Osborne is going to attempt to change the name of NI to 'earnings tax'... I wouldn't mind an increase of 15% in my NI contributions if it meant that the NHS and the welfare system where protected.. sadly old 'Gideon Oliver' is keen to go in the other direction and change its name and destroy one of the only socially acceptable taxes. jayman
  • Score: 3

9:47pm Tue 25 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

jayman wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
jayman wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
your of a 40% tax rate. I'm on 20%. your earning between £32,011 - £150,000. ... good for you :) guess my range of income..
don't forget NICs of 12%.
ah.. national insurance. linked to paying for things like the NHS and the Welfare system. George Osborne is going to attempt to change the name of NI to 'earnings tax'... I wouldn't mind an increase of 15% in my NI contributions if it meant that the NHS and the welfare system where protected.. sadly old 'Gideon Oliver' is keen to go in the other direction and change its name and destroy one of the only socially acceptable taxes.
13 years of labour and they did nothing for the low paid. scrapping the 10% tax and nothing on the personal allowance. make sure you pay tribute to the coalition on your way to confession.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]your of a 40% tax rate. I'm on 20%. your earning between £32,011 - £150,000. ... good for you :) guess my range of income..[/p][/quote]don't forget NICs of 12%.[/p][/quote]ah.. national insurance. linked to paying for things like the NHS and the Welfare system. George Osborne is going to attempt to change the name of NI to 'earnings tax'... I wouldn't mind an increase of 15% in my NI contributions if it meant that the NHS and the welfare system where protected.. sadly old 'Gideon Oliver' is keen to go in the other direction and change its name and destroy one of the only socially acceptable taxes.[/p][/quote]13 years of labour and they did nothing for the low paid. scrapping the 10% tax and nothing on the personal allowance. make sure you pay tribute to the coalition on your way to confession. profondo asbo
  • Score: 3

9:49pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jayman says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
housing benefit is calculated on net. most other benefits are gross. tax credits use NET because you get a proportion of tax back. hence the use of the word 'tax' credits.

i always find it funny how the middle and upper classes find endless reasons to point out how easy it would be for the working classes to climb all the metaphorical ladders that are supposed to be in existence, if only they would TRY and climb up. This metaphor and the social mobility attached to them instantly vanish when one of the unwashed proles asks for a metaphorical hammer some conceptual wood and some envisaged nails so he can build his own ladder.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]housing benefit is calculated on net. most other benefits are gross. tax credits use NET because you get a proportion of tax back. hence the use of the word 'tax' credits. i always find it funny how the middle and upper classes find endless reasons to point out how easy it would be for the working classes to climb all the metaphorical ladders that are supposed to be in existence, if only they would TRY and climb up. This metaphor and the social mobility attached to them instantly vanish when one of the unwashed proles asks for a metaphorical hammer some conceptual wood and some envisaged nails so he can build his own ladder. jayman
  • Score: 1

9:58pm Tue 25 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

jayman wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
housing benefit is calculated on net. most other benefits are gross. tax credits use NET because you get a proportion of tax back. hence the use of the word 'tax' credits.

i always find it funny how the middle and upper classes find endless reasons to point out how easy it would be for the working classes to climb all the metaphorical ladders that are supposed to be in existence, if only they would TRY and climb up. This metaphor and the social mobility attached to them instantly vanish when one of the unwashed proles asks for a metaphorical hammer some conceptual wood and some envisaged nails so he can build his own ladder.
it's not funny at all. those that do have every justification to ask why those that don't, don't - particularly as they are funding the don't
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]housing benefit is calculated on net. most other benefits are gross. tax credits use NET because you get a proportion of tax back. hence the use of the word 'tax' credits. i always find it funny how the middle and upper classes find endless reasons to point out how easy it would be for the working classes to climb all the metaphorical ladders that are supposed to be in existence, if only they would TRY and climb up. This metaphor and the social mobility attached to them instantly vanish when one of the unwashed proles asks for a metaphorical hammer some conceptual wood and some envisaged nails so he can build his own ladder.[/p][/quote]it's not funny at all. those that do have every justification to ask why those that don't, don't - particularly as they are funding the don't profondo asbo
  • Score: 3

10:08pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jayman says...

profondo asbo wrote:
jayman wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
housing benefit is calculated on net. most other benefits are gross. tax credits use NET because you get a proportion of tax back. hence the use of the word 'tax' credits.

i always find it funny how the middle and upper classes find endless reasons to point out how easy it would be for the working classes to climb all the metaphorical ladders that are supposed to be in existence, if only they would TRY and climb up. This metaphor and the social mobility attached to them instantly vanish when one of the unwashed proles asks for a metaphorical hammer some conceptual wood and some envisaged nails so he can build his own ladder.
it's not funny at all. those that do have every justification to ask why those that don't, don't - particularly as they are funding the don't
yeah.. we trying that line of questioning before. this is all it managed to produce.

http://www.pinterest
.com/pin/15481192443
079170/

you have to ask questions that arrive at a positive sum game. sliding masses into deprivation will be bad for everyone..
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]housing benefit is calculated on net. most other benefits are gross. tax credits use NET because you get a proportion of tax back. hence the use of the word 'tax' credits. i always find it funny how the middle and upper classes find endless reasons to point out how easy it would be for the working classes to climb all the metaphorical ladders that are supposed to be in existence, if only they would TRY and climb up. This metaphor and the social mobility attached to them instantly vanish when one of the unwashed proles asks for a metaphorical hammer some conceptual wood and some envisaged nails so he can build his own ladder.[/p][/quote]it's not funny at all. those that do have every justification to ask why those that don't, don't - particularly as they are funding the don't[/p][/quote]yeah.. we trying that line of questioning before. this is all it managed to produce. http://www.pinterest .com/pin/15481192443 079170/ you have to ask questions that arrive at a positive sum game. sliding masses into deprivation will be bad for everyone.. jayman
  • Score: -1

10:08pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed.

But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed. But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes.. ThisYear
  • Score: -3

10:10pm Tue 25 Feb 14

whateverhappened says...

ThisYear wrote:
**NATIONAL NEWS Rise in number sleeping on streets**
Read the whole article..New arrivals from Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic account for 28 per cent of rough sleepers in the capital.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: **NATIONAL NEWS Rise in number sleeping on streets**[/p][/quote]Read the whole article..New arrivals from Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic account for 28 per cent of rough sleepers in the capital. whateverhappened
  • Score: 0

10:12pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
jayman wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
housing benefit is calculated on net. most other benefits are gross. tax credits use NET because you get a proportion of tax back. hence the use of the word 'tax' credits.

i always find it funny how the middle and upper classes find endless reasons to point out how easy it would be for the working classes to climb all the metaphorical ladders that are supposed to be in existence, if only they would TRY and climb up. This metaphor and the social mobility attached to them instantly vanish when one of the unwashed proles asks for a metaphorical hammer some conceptual wood and some envisaged nails so he can build his own ladder.
it's not funny at all. those that do have every justification to ask why those that don't, don't - particularly as they are funding the don't
Have you asked yourself why this 'funding' is in place...because you know if it didn't have to be it wouldnt..
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]housing benefit is calculated on net. most other benefits are gross. tax credits use NET because you get a proportion of tax back. hence the use of the word 'tax' credits. i always find it funny how the middle and upper classes find endless reasons to point out how easy it would be for the working classes to climb all the metaphorical ladders that are supposed to be in existence, if only they would TRY and climb up. This metaphor and the social mobility attached to them instantly vanish when one of the unwashed proles asks for a metaphorical hammer some conceptual wood and some envisaged nails so he can build his own ladder.[/p][/quote]it's not funny at all. those that do have every justification to ask why those that don't, don't - particularly as they are funding the don't[/p][/quote]Have you asked yourself why this 'funding' is in place...because you know if it didn't have to be it wouldnt.. ThisYear
  • Score: -2

10:15pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

whateverhappened wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
**NATIONAL NEWS Rise in number sleeping on streets**
Read the whole article..New arrivals from Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic account for 28 per cent of rough sleepers in the capital.
Why do you assume I haven't read the whole article?

And who are the 72%?

Which kinda makes any point you're attempting to make...vague.
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: **NATIONAL NEWS Rise in number sleeping on streets**[/p][/quote]Read the whole article..New arrivals from Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic account for 28 per cent of rough sleepers in the capital.[/p][/quote]Why do you assume I haven't read the whole article? And who are the 72%? Which kinda makes any point you're attempting to make...vague. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

10:17pm Tue 25 Feb 14

whateverhappened says...

maybe the 28% accounts for the RISE,
maybe the 28% accounts for the RISE, whateverhappened
  • Score: 1

10:18pm Tue 25 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed.

But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..
rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed. But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..[/p][/quote]rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts. profondo asbo
  • Score: 1

10:19pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jayman says...

whateverhappened wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
**NATIONAL NEWS Rise in number sleeping on streets**
Read the whole article..New arrivals from Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic account for 28 per cent of rough sleepers in the capital.
and before them it was the Irish, The Jewish, the Dutch.... ..... ..... ..... the difference is that in this era, the slums have been developed into luxury apartments and are now the property of a Saudi Arabian businessmen.
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: **NATIONAL NEWS Rise in number sleeping on streets**[/p][/quote]Read the whole article..New arrivals from Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic account for 28 per cent of rough sleepers in the capital.[/p][/quote]and before them it was the Irish, The Jewish, the Dutch.... ..... ..... ..... the difference is that in this era, the slums have been developed into luxury apartments and are now the property of a Saudi Arabian businessmen. jayman
  • Score: 3

10:21pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
Move where?
No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.
Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability.

You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..
no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?
Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment?

Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home...

The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land..

On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.
no she doesn't want preferential treatment its just an example how they say there is no smaller housing when there is. why should people have extra rooms that they do not need. when there are people out there that need a bigger place and not getting it. also i think a certain number of housing should be put aside for working households.
If they, the council, say there isn't and she says there is then she should prove to them that they are mistaken...its not the fault of those who would downgrade of they are told the same thing as she..

Who says they don't need the rooms?

The attitude you are taking should see you asking the question why homes are provided at all..for anyone!
i do think homes should be provided. BUT people need to get out of this phase that a council house is there's for life it is not. once that home is to big for you, you should be moved. it may seem bad now but years down the line when this is settled down it will work. we can not keep going having 2 or 3 bed homes being occupied by 1 person.
Who said a council house isn't for life? You?

** once that home is to big for you, you should be moved**

It would seem you are even willing to go further than this coalition which will go down in history as preying on the poor and vulnerable...you would simply kick people out...It cannot be a case of moving people out, as the article shows, there is not the amount of accommodation available to move people to...the coalition wre fully aware of this but that wasn't the main reason for the policy!

Do you consider yourself 'working class'? Because if you do I'm not sure you know the meaning of the term.
No i would not kick them out i would make sure they have accommodation to go to. but if the bedroom tax came out when we first started the council renting we would not be having this problem now.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics.[/p][/quote]Move where? No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.[/p][/quote]Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability. You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..[/p][/quote]no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?[/p][/quote]Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment? Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home... The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land.. On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.[/p][/quote]no she doesn't want preferential treatment its just an example how they say there is no smaller housing when there is. why should people have extra rooms that they do not need. when there are people out there that need a bigger place and not getting it. also i think a certain number of housing should be put aside for working households.[/p][/quote]If they, the council, say there isn't and she says there is then she should prove to them that they are mistaken...its not the fault of those who would downgrade of they are told the same thing as she.. Who says they don't need the rooms? The attitude you are taking should see you asking the question why homes are provided at all..for anyone![/p][/quote]i do think homes should be provided. BUT people need to get out of this phase that a council house is there's for life it is not. once that home is to big for you, you should be moved. it may seem bad now but years down the line when this is settled down it will work. we can not keep going having 2 or 3 bed homes being occupied by 1 person.[/p][/quote]Who said a council house isn't for life? You? ** once that home is to big for you, you should be moved** It would seem you are even willing to go further than this coalition which will go down in history as preying on the poor and vulnerable...you would simply kick people out...It cannot be a case of moving people out, as the article shows, there is not the amount of accommodation available to move people to...the coalition wre fully aware of this but that wasn't the main reason for the policy! Do you consider yourself 'working class'? Because if you do I'm not sure you know the meaning of the term.[/p][/quote]No i would not kick them out i would make sure they have accommodation to go to. but if the bedroom tax came out when we first started the council renting we would not be having this problem now. Kursaal76
  • Score: -5

10:21pm Tue 25 Feb 14

whateverhappened says...

jayman wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
ThisYear wrote: **NATIONAL NEWS Rise in number sleeping on streets**
Read the whole article..New arrivals from Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic account for 28 per cent of rough sleepers in the capital.
and before them it was the Irish, The Jewish, the Dutch.... ..... ..... ..... the difference is that in this era, the slums have been developed into luxury apartments and are now the property of a Saudi Arabian businessmen.
you want to make your mind up.... to many private slum landlords or not enough slums left
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: **NATIONAL NEWS Rise in number sleeping on streets**[/p][/quote]Read the whole article..New arrivals from Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic account for 28 per cent of rough sleepers in the capital.[/p][/quote]and before them it was the Irish, The Jewish, the Dutch.... ..... ..... ..... the difference is that in this era, the slums have been developed into luxury apartments and are now the property of a Saudi Arabian businessmen.[/p][/quote]you want to make your mind up.... to many private slum landlords or not enough slums left whateverhappened
  • Score: 1

10:28pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Janefromsouthend says...

I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place. Janefromsouthend
  • Score: 3

10:28pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jayman says...

whateverhappened wrote:
jayman wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
ThisYear wrote: **NATIONAL NEWS Rise in number sleeping on streets**
Read the whole article..New arrivals from Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic account for 28 per cent of rough sleepers in the capital.
and before them it was the Irish, The Jewish, the Dutch.... ..... ..... ..... the difference is that in this era, the slums have been developed into luxury apartments and are now the property of a Saudi Arabian businessmen.
you want to make your mind up.... to many private slum landlords or not enough slums left
just an observation on how screwed up our property market actually is. the immigrant slums never went away. they just got demoted to the pavement.

Private rental slums in general never went away. They branched out to parts of unfashionable Essex. The walls where painted magnolia and the rents went up 500%.. if you disbelieve me, take a walk down westborough road in westcliff....
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: **NATIONAL NEWS Rise in number sleeping on streets**[/p][/quote]Read the whole article..New arrivals from Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic account for 28 per cent of rough sleepers in the capital.[/p][/quote]and before them it was the Irish, The Jewish, the Dutch.... ..... ..... ..... the difference is that in this era, the slums have been developed into luxury apartments and are now the property of a Saudi Arabian businessmen.[/p][/quote]you want to make your mind up.... to many private slum landlords or not enough slums left[/p][/quote]just an observation on how screwed up our property market actually is. the immigrant slums never went away. they just got demoted to the pavement. Private rental slums in general never went away. They branched out to parts of unfashionable Essex. The walls where painted magnolia and the rents went up 500%.. if you disbelieve me, take a walk down westborough road in westcliff.... jayman
  • Score: 4

10:29pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

whateverhappened wrote:
maybe the 28% accounts for the RISE,
** The number of people sleeping rough in England continues to rise and is now up by more than a third since 2010 in what critics called a "clear warning sign" of the impact of benefit cuts**


Are these 28% eligible for benefits?

The article seems to suggest the rise is because of benefit cuts..and more likely than not the bedroom tax..
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: maybe the 28% accounts for the RISE,[/p][/quote]** The number of people sleeping rough in England continues to rise and is now up by more than a third since 2010 in what critics called a "clear warning sign" of the impact of benefit cuts** Are these 28% eligible for benefits? The article seems to suggest the rise is because of benefit cuts..and more likely than not the bedroom tax.. ThisYear
  • Score: 1

10:30pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed.

But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..
rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.
you be better talking to a brick wall than talking to ThisYear
[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]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed. But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..[/p][/quote]rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.[/p][/quote]you be better talking to a brick wall than talking to ThisYear Kursaal76
  • Score: 2

10:32pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
spot on
[quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]spot on Kursaal76
  • Score: 1

10:40pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed.

But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..
rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.
Its the fact of the tax that counts..

Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared..

Tax is all that counts.
[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]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed. But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..[/p][/quote]rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.[/p][/quote]Its the fact of the tax that counts.. Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared.. Tax is all that counts. ThisYear
  • Score: 1

10:45pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
jayman wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.
most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do!

unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.
if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.
**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that**

Move where?

**why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?**


Do they actually do this?

Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them..

The whole matter is based on politics.
Move where?
No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.
Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability.

You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..
no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?
Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment?

Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home...

The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land..

On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.
no she doesn't want preferential treatment its just an example how they say there is no smaller housing when there is. why should people have extra rooms that they do not need. when there are people out there that need a bigger place and not getting it. also i think a certain number of housing should be put aside for working households.
If they, the council, say there isn't and she says there is then she should prove to them that they are mistaken...its not the fault of those who would downgrade of they are told the same thing as she..

Who says they don't need the rooms?

The attitude you are taking should see you asking the question why homes are provided at all..for anyone!
i do think homes should be provided. BUT people need to get out of this phase that a council house is there's for life it is not. once that home is to big for you, you should be moved. it may seem bad now but years down the line when this is settled down it will work. we can not keep going having 2 or 3 bed homes being occupied by 1 person.
Who said a council house isn't for life? You?

** once that home is to big for you, you should be moved**

It would seem you are even willing to go further than this coalition which will go down in history as preying on the poor and vulnerable...you would simply kick people out...It cannot be a case of moving people out, as the article shows, there is not the amount of accommodation available to move people to...the coalition wre fully aware of this but that wasn't the main reason for the policy!

Do you consider yourself 'working class'? Because if you do I'm not sure you know the meaning of the term.
No i would not kick them out i would make sure they have accommodation to go to. but if the bedroom tax came out when we first started the council renting we would not be having this problem now.
Well there you are...there isn't accommodation for them to move to..so going by your comment you wouldn't expect them to be penalised for something thats not their fault...BUT that is happening in the way of bedroom tax..penalised because they can't move..catch 22ish..

You give the government (all colours) to much credit for any kind of hindsight.

Selling of the council stock was the start of the problem..
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: it's about time this happens. the working class would not move into or live in a house so big they can not afford. so why should people on benefits think they can. now they have to help pay for there nice houses they think its unfair. if they want extra rooms go out to work and pay for it themselves.[/p][/quote]most working class families are on benefits (in work benefits). unemployment has nothing to do with the bedroom tax. Tory prejudice and loaded arguments however, do! unemployment is a smokescreen used by the Tories to distract from what they are doing to in-work families up and down the country.[/p][/quote]if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that. why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them? Bringing politics into this will get you no where. i do not vote or care about the government. they are just as bad as benefit cheats.[/p][/quote]**if you can't afford to pay for it then move! simple as that** Move where? **why should working class who don't claim any benefits pay for everyone else to live in houses to big for them?** Do they actually do this? Do not the working class pay for the rich to live in houses too big for them.. The whole matter is based on politics.[/p][/quote]Move where? No places to go lol. my friend who is a nurse lives in a one bed flat with a kid in the same room. she can not get a two bed house there is none apparently. but people in two beds can't find 1 bed places something must be wrong here.[/p][/quote]Well of course if she is in the one bed then it isn't available and if people are in the two bed then that isn't available either...its about availability. You seem to be dipping and dunking on this thread with your views like a boat in a storm..[/p][/quote]no her flat is on the exchange obviously because how would she know there was no places available?[/p][/quote]Then she is being dealt with..what is it? Does she want preferential treatment? Sounds a bit like the woman on the other thread who complained about her accommodation conditions, yet wished for others to be placed in her predicament while she got their home... The article shows in the area in question there isn't the availability and that is probably true throughout the land.. On the political side; the unelected government obviously counted on such support as seen on here to con both sides...one to support their cash grab and the other to pay to keep a roof over their heads..despicable.[/p][/quote]no she doesn't want preferential treatment its just an example how they say there is no smaller housing when there is. why should people have extra rooms that they do not need. when there are people out there that need a bigger place and not getting it. also i think a certain number of housing should be put aside for working households.[/p][/quote]If they, the council, say there isn't and she says there is then she should prove to them that they are mistaken...its not the fault of those who would downgrade of they are told the same thing as she.. Who says they don't need the rooms? The attitude you are taking should see you asking the question why homes are provided at all..for anyone![/p][/quote]i do think homes should be provided. BUT people need to get out of this phase that a council house is there's for life it is not. once that home is to big for you, you should be moved. it may seem bad now but years down the line when this is settled down it will work. we can not keep going having 2 or 3 bed homes being occupied by 1 person.[/p][/quote]Who said a council house isn't for life? You? ** once that home is to big for you, you should be moved** It would seem you are even willing to go further than this coalition which will go down in history as preying on the poor and vulnerable...you would simply kick people out...It cannot be a case of moving people out, as the article shows, there is not the amount of accommodation available to move people to...the coalition wre fully aware of this but that wasn't the main reason for the policy! Do you consider yourself 'working class'? Because if you do I'm not sure you know the meaning of the term.[/p][/quote]No i would not kick them out i would make sure they have accommodation to go to. but if the bedroom tax came out when we first started the council renting we would not be having this problem now.[/p][/quote]Well there you are...there isn't accommodation for them to move to..so going by your comment you wouldn't expect them to be penalised for something thats not their fault...BUT that is happening in the way of bedroom tax..penalised because they can't move..catch 22ish.. You give the government (all colours) to much credit for any kind of hindsight. Selling of the council stock was the start of the problem.. ThisYear
  • Score: 1

10:47pm Tue 25 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed.

But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..
rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.
Its the fact of the tax that counts..

Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared..

Tax is all that counts.
so if you RECEIVE £6,000 FROM THE STATE when you could have RECEIVED £6,500 FROM THE STATE had tax not been taken off YOU ARE STILL A NET RECEIVER FROM THE STATE. try existing on the other side of the tax equation for a while. might give you a different perspective.

sad. you completely discredit yourself with a comment like that. all that is wrong with the benefits "entitlement" culture
[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]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed. But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..[/p][/quote]rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.[/p][/quote]Its the fact of the tax that counts.. Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared.. Tax is all that counts.[/p][/quote]so if you RECEIVE £6,000 FROM THE STATE when you could have RECEIVED £6,500 FROM THE STATE had tax not been taken off YOU ARE STILL A NET RECEIVER FROM THE STATE. try existing on the other side of the tax equation for a while. might give you a different perspective. sad. you completely discredit yourself with a comment like that. all that is wrong with the benefits "entitlement" culture profondo asbo
  • Score: -1

10:48pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent!

BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that!
[quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent! BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that! ThisYear
  • Score: -2

10:51pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed.

But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..
rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.
you be better talking to a brick wall than talking to ThisYear
You have been talking but you have been shown where you are mistaken and that is always a shock to the system if you are not one to learn by mistakes..keep the issue about the article and not the person..
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/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]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed. But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..[/p][/quote]rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.[/p][/quote]you be better talking to a brick wall than talking to ThisYear[/p][/quote]You have been talking but you have been shown where you are mistaken and that is always a shock to the system if you are not one to learn by mistakes..keep the issue about the article and not the person.. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

10:54pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed.

But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..
rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.
Its the fact of the tax that counts..

Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared..

Tax is all that counts.
so if you RECEIVE £6,000 FROM THE STATE when you could have RECEIVED £6,500 FROM THE STATE had tax not been taken off YOU ARE STILL A NET RECEIVER FROM THE STATE. try existing on the other side of the tax equation for a while. might give you a different perspective.

sad. you completely discredit yourself with a comment like that. all that is wrong with the benefits "entitlement" culture
Triyng to discredit my stance by implying I receive benefits undermines the confidence you pretend to have in your stance..

Forget net and gross and pigs in the middle...and answer yes or no

Are benefits taxed?
[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]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed. But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..[/p][/quote]rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.[/p][/quote]Its the fact of the tax that counts.. Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared.. Tax is all that counts.[/p][/quote]so if you RECEIVE £6,000 FROM THE STATE when you could have RECEIVED £6,500 FROM THE STATE had tax not been taken off YOU ARE STILL A NET RECEIVER FROM THE STATE. try existing on the other side of the tax equation for a while. might give you a different perspective. sad. you completely discredit yourself with a comment like that. all that is wrong with the benefits "entitlement" culture[/p][/quote]Triyng to discredit my stance by implying I receive benefits undermines the confidence you pretend to have in your stance.. Forget net and gross and pigs in the middle...and answer yes or no Are benefits taxed? ThisYear
  • Score: -2

10:56pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
spot on
Which part?
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]spot on[/p][/quote]Which part? ThisYear
  • Score: 0

10:56pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Janefromsouthend says...

ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent!

BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that!
I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent! BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that![/p][/quote]I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it? Janefromsouthend
  • Score: 2

10:58pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
spot on
Which part?
ThisYear you are getting so boring now. most of your comments people have disliked i just shows you no one cares. im not going to answer any of your comments any more i suggest people do the same.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]spot on[/p][/quote]Which part?[/p][/quote]ThisYear you are getting so boring now. most of your comments people have disliked i just shows you no one cares. im not going to answer any of your comments any more i suggest people do the same. Kursaal76
  • Score: 1

11:01pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jayman says...

£13,208 (minimum wage) based on 40 hrs work per week minus 20% £2,641 in tax =10.567 minus band A council tax £896.88 = £9,671 + your £6000 equals a staggering and benefit scrounging, three foreign holidays per year, multiple car owning (daily mail) person...

wait for it....

£15.671 before gas, electricity food (all vat taxable) prior to paying for food and other such luxury items.

I haven't calculated rent or housing benefit. but housing benefit is only about 60% of rent (if you are lucky) it can be considerably less depending on circumstances and the local authority...
£13,208 (minimum wage) based on 40 hrs work per week minus 20% £2,641 in tax =10.567 minus band A council tax £896.88 = £9,671 + your £6000 equals a staggering and benefit scrounging, three foreign holidays per year, multiple car owning (daily mail) person... wait for it.... £15.671 before gas, electricity food (all vat taxable) prior to paying for food and other such luxury items. I haven't calculated rent or housing benefit. but housing benefit is only about 60% of rent (if you are lucky) it can be considerably less depending on circumstances and the local authority... jayman
  • Score: -1

11:04pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent!

BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that!
I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?
** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that**
*I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what**

Seems to be a bit contradictory.

Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing!

Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to!

People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to?

A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent.

A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent

If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for!

Your analogy doesn't work..

The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation..

Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?
[quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent! BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that![/p][/quote]I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?[/p][/quote]** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that** *I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what** Seems to be a bit contradictory. Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing! Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to! People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to? A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent. A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for! Your analogy doesn't work.. The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation.. Has people paying the Tax changed your situation? ThisYear
  • Score: 3

11:06pm Tue 25 Feb 14

profondo asbo says...

ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed.

But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..
rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.
Its the fact of the tax that counts..

Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared..

Tax is all that counts.
so if you RECEIVE £6,000 FROM THE STATE when you could have RECEIVED £6,500 FROM THE STATE had tax not been taken off YOU ARE STILL A NET RECEIVER FROM THE STATE. try existing on the other side of the tax equation for a while. might give you a different perspective.

sad. you completely discredit yourself with a comment like that. all that is wrong with the benefits "entitlement" culture
Triyng to discredit my stance by implying I receive benefits undermines the confidence you pretend to have in your stance..

Forget net and gross and pigs in the middle...and answer yes or no

Are benefits taxed?
forget it...there is no implication....your stance is a full confession. even jayman is silent on the subject which tells you everything you need to know. want to know why the benefit classes are universally despised? to pretend you are contributing to the economy when really you are taking is a denial of reality.
[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]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed. But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..[/p][/quote]rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.[/p][/quote]Its the fact of the tax that counts.. Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared.. Tax is all that counts.[/p][/quote]so if you RECEIVE £6,000 FROM THE STATE when you could have RECEIVED £6,500 FROM THE STATE had tax not been taken off YOU ARE STILL A NET RECEIVER FROM THE STATE. try existing on the other side of the tax equation for a while. might give you a different perspective. sad. you completely discredit yourself with a comment like that. all that is wrong with the benefits "entitlement" culture[/p][/quote]Triyng to discredit my stance by implying I receive benefits undermines the confidence you pretend to have in your stance.. Forget net and gross and pigs in the middle...and answer yes or no Are benefits taxed?[/p][/quote]forget it...there is no implication....your stance is a full confession. even jayman is silent on the subject which tells you everything you need to know. want to know why the benefit classes are universally despised? to pretend you are contributing to the economy when really you are taking is a denial of reality. profondo asbo
  • Score: -1

11:09pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Janefromsouthend says...

ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent!

BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that!
I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?
** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that**
*I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what**

Seems to be a bit contradictory.

Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing!

Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to!

People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to?

A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent.

A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent

If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for!

Your analogy doesn't work..

The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation..

Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?
It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent! BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that![/p][/quote]I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?[/p][/quote]** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that** *I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what** Seems to be a bit contradictory. Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing! Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to! People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to? A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent. A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for! Your analogy doesn't work.. The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation.. Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?[/p][/quote]It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right. Janefromsouthend
  • Score: -5

11:09pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Janefromsouthend says...

ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent!

BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that!
I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?
** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that**
*I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what**

Seems to be a bit contradictory.

Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing!

Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to!

People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to?

A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent.

A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent

If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for!

Your analogy doesn't work..

The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation..

Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?
It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent! BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that![/p][/quote]I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?[/p][/quote]** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that** *I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what** Seems to be a bit contradictory. Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing! Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to! People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to? A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent. A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for! Your analogy doesn't work.. The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation.. Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?[/p][/quote]It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right. Janefromsouthend
  • Score: -2

11:11pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
spot on
Which part?
ThisYear you are getting so boring now. most of your comments people have disliked i just shows you no one cares. im not going to answer any of your comments any more i suggest people do the same.
If you don't like the truth or being challenged, then don't read my posts or fade away...your posts have been rather puerile and do not deal with the matter in any real way...I'll be giving my donkey jacket back if you were indicative of the working class.

As for the thumbs up/down facility..you grade yourself by the very importance you give it..

My contentions stand..the tax will be repealed, will be looked on in horror in the future, is a tax and truly indicative of a tory government!

Also benefits are taxed and we all pay tax one way or another and often many times..
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]spot on[/p][/quote]Which part?[/p][/quote]ThisYear you are getting so boring now. most of your comments people have disliked i just shows you no one cares. im not going to answer any of your comments any more i suggest people do the same.[/p][/quote]If you don't like the truth or being challenged, then don't read my posts or fade away...your posts have been rather puerile and do not deal with the matter in any real way...I'll be giving my donkey jacket back if you were indicative of the working class. As for the thumbs up/down facility..you grade yourself by the very importance you give it.. My contentions stand..the tax will be repealed, will be looked on in horror in the future, is a tax and truly indicative of a tory government! Also benefits are taxed and we all pay tax one way or another and often many times.. ThisYear
  • Score: 1

11:28pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed.

But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..
rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.
Its the fact of the tax that counts..

Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared..

Tax is all that counts.
so if you RECEIVE £6,000 FROM THE STATE when you could have RECEIVED £6,500 FROM THE STATE had tax not been taken off YOU ARE STILL A NET RECEIVER FROM THE STATE. try existing on the other side of the tax equation for a while. might give you a different perspective.

sad. you completely discredit yourself with a comment like that. all that is wrong with the benefits "entitlement" culture
Triyng to discredit my stance by implying I receive benefits undermines the confidence you pretend to have in your stance..

Forget net and gross and pigs in the middle...and answer yes or no

Are benefits taxed?
forget it...there is no implication....your stance is a full confession. even jayman is silent on the subject which tells you everything you need to know. want to know why the benefit classes are universally despised? to pretend you are contributing to the economy when really you are taking is a denial of reality.
Oh dear...Who said the benefit classes are despised..you and your tory voting chinless wonders...you probably think the working class are despised too and you know you would be right...usually by the middle class for they know how close they are to the working class and by the upper class who despise anyone not in their class especially the middle class...

Working class up to middle middle class who vote tory are desperate optimists with delusions of having done or being able to climb the class ladder...lol...you have to feel for them not despise them

I can say without fear of contradiction that you have claimed more benefits in your time than I ever have or will...but of course your trump card is to pretend that you have never claimed said benefits (not even child benefit?) while I have...not true.

I need no vouching for in regards to my stance...you are dealing with the system of the thing rather the reality of the thing..benefits are taxed...now which part of that is it you don't understand...if they were not taxed then they wouldn't be considered taxed..

Now rather than squirming and trying to distract from the issue, how about you answer the question; Yes or No... are benefits taxed?
[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]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed. But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..[/p][/quote]rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.[/p][/quote]Its the fact of the tax that counts.. Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared.. Tax is all that counts.[/p][/quote]so if you RECEIVE £6,000 FROM THE STATE when you could have RECEIVED £6,500 FROM THE STATE had tax not been taken off YOU ARE STILL A NET RECEIVER FROM THE STATE. try existing on the other side of the tax equation for a while. might give you a different perspective. sad. you completely discredit yourself with a comment like that. all that is wrong with the benefits "entitlement" culture[/p][/quote]Triyng to discredit my stance by implying I receive benefits undermines the confidence you pretend to have in your stance.. Forget net and gross and pigs in the middle...and answer yes or no Are benefits taxed?[/p][/quote]forget it...there is no implication....your stance is a full confession. even jayman is silent on the subject which tells you everything you need to know. want to know why the benefit classes are universally despised? to pretend you are contributing to the economy when really you are taking is a denial of reality.[/p][/quote]Oh dear...Who said the benefit classes are despised..you and your tory voting chinless wonders...you probably think the working class are despised too and you know you would be right...usually by the middle class for they know how close they are to the working class and by the upper class who despise anyone not in their class especially the middle class... Working class up to middle middle class who vote tory are desperate optimists with delusions of having done or being able to climb the class ladder...lol...you have to feel for them not despise them I can say without fear of contradiction that you have claimed more benefits in your time than I ever have or will...but of course your trump card is to pretend that you have never claimed said benefits (not even child benefit?) while I have...not true. I need no vouching for in regards to my stance...you are dealing with the system of the thing rather the reality of the thing..benefits are taxed...now which part of that is it you don't understand...if they were not taxed then they wouldn't be considered taxed.. Now rather than squirming and trying to distract from the issue, how about you answer the question; Yes or No... are benefits taxed? ThisYear
  • Score: 2

11:33pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed.

But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..
rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.
Its the fact of the tax that counts..

Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared..

Tax is all that counts.
so if you RECEIVE £6,000 FROM THE STATE when you could have RECEIVED £6,500 FROM THE STATE had tax not been taken off YOU ARE STILL A NET RECEIVER FROM THE STATE. try existing on the other side of the tax equation for a while. might give you a different perspective.

sad. you completely discredit yourself with a comment like that. all that is wrong with the benefits "entitlement" culture
Triyng to discredit my stance by implying I receive benefits undermines the confidence you pretend to have in your stance..

Forget net and gross and pigs in the middle...and answer yes or no

Are benefits taxed?
You can not make a NET contribution by paying tax on our tax. We have already paid it! The article say it is a reduction to benefit dubbed a "tax" by opponents and, for once, the Echo has got it right.

If you feel you are "entitled" to another £500 benefit top up, George can cut that from the money tree growing in the garden at No.11 and give it to you.
[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]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed. But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..[/p][/quote]rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.[/p][/quote]Its the fact of the tax that counts.. Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared.. Tax is all that counts.[/p][/quote]so if you RECEIVE £6,000 FROM THE STATE when you could have RECEIVED £6,500 FROM THE STATE had tax not been taken off YOU ARE STILL A NET RECEIVER FROM THE STATE. try existing on the other side of the tax equation for a while. might give you a different perspective. sad. you completely discredit yourself with a comment like that. all that is wrong with the benefits "entitlement" culture[/p][/quote]Triyng to discredit my stance by implying I receive benefits undermines the confidence you pretend to have in your stance.. Forget net and gross and pigs in the middle...and answer yes or no Are benefits taxed?[/p][/quote]You can not make a NET contribution by paying tax on our tax. We have already paid it! The article say it is a reduction to benefit dubbed a "tax" by opponents and, for once, the Echo has got it right. If you feel you are "entitled" to another £500 benefit top up, George can cut that from the money tree growing in the garden at No.11 and give it to you. Alekhine
  • Score: -2

11:34pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Janefromsouthend says...

This year, how are benefits taxed.? I can see that they would count as part of your income for the tax year when you start working, but if you never worked in that tax year how do the government tax your benefit?
This year, how are benefits taxed.? I can see that they would count as part of your income for the tax year when you start working, but if you never worked in that tax year how do the government tax your benefit? Janefromsouthend
  • Score: -1

11:39pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent!

BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that!
I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?
** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that**
*I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what**

Seems to be a bit contradictory.

Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing!

Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to!

People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to?

A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent.

A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent

If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for!

Your analogy doesn't work..

The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation..

Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?
It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.
Reality check!

Your view is less important than your situation...you are supporting a policy that strikes at the most vulnerable and poor of the land while it has no affect on you by bettering your situation!

Their rent is paid for them or they get help to pay some of their right by way of law given entitlement...again that has no affect on you or your situation.

But they then have to come up with money to pay over their rent because of the tax..again this does not affect your situation

All in all you are supporting a tory policy that has no affect on you.

** The system is never going to work for every one**

Quite true..but at the same time it should not victimise people...this bedroom tax does just that!

We all have the right to complain...you don't have to earn it.
[quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent! BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that![/p][/quote]I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?[/p][/quote]** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that** *I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what** Seems to be a bit contradictory. Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing! Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to! People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to? A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent. A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for! Your analogy doesn't work.. The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation.. Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?[/p][/quote]It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.[/p][/quote]Reality check! Your view is less important than your situation...you are supporting a policy that strikes at the most vulnerable and poor of the land while it has no affect on you by bettering your situation! Their rent is paid for them or they get help to pay some of their right by way of law given entitlement...again that has no affect on you or your situation. But they then have to come up with money to pay over their rent because of the tax..again this does not affect your situation All in all you are supporting a tory policy that has no affect on you. ** The system is never going to work for every one** Quite true..but at the same time it should not victimise people...this bedroom tax does just that! We all have the right to complain...you don't have to earn it. ThisYear
  • Score: 2

11:49pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers
Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages...

Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?
incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant
The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed.

But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..
rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.
Its the fact of the tax that counts..

Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared..

Tax is all that counts.
so if you RECEIVE £6,000 FROM THE STATE when you could have RECEIVED £6,500 FROM THE STATE had tax not been taken off YOU ARE STILL A NET RECEIVER FROM THE STATE. try existing on the other side of the tax equation for a while. might give you a different perspective.

sad. you completely discredit yourself with a comment like that. all that is wrong with the benefits "entitlement" culture
Triyng to discredit my stance by implying I receive benefits undermines the confidence you pretend to have in your stance..

Forget net and gross and pigs in the middle...and answer yes or no

Are benefits taxed?
You can not make a NET contribution by paying tax on our tax. We have already paid it! The article say it is a reduction to benefit dubbed a "tax" by opponents and, for once, the Echo has got it right.

If you feel you are "entitled" to another £500 benefit top up, George can cut that from the money tree growing in the garden at No.11 and give it to you.
Go away you...we had all this trollism of you on the last thread..benefits are taxed...get your head around it..I know it stops you attacking benefit claimants now that you are aware of the tax..

What do you call the policy? I could never get you to give a name to the policy on the other thread..


a 10 minute bill had been submitted in parliament on the policy referring to the policy as the bedroom tax...are the highest civil servants in the land confused by the term for the policy?

Another who tries to support his feeble argument with pretence I oppose this tax because it affects me...it doesn't and never will...now do you understand that contention?

Good, so lets not have me having to repeat it again on another thread as I have over a few others.

I do hope you are not going to repeat the very same claptrap you did on the other thread..you have already started to do so..stop it...you were made to look stupid the last time you did that.

No 11 gives nothing to me but I give to it.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/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]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: If those in reciept of benefits had to give away 40% of them before they got to spend it (and pay tax) they would understand the mind set of income tax and NI payers[/p][/quote]Benefits are indeed taxed before the claimant receives them in much the same way workers are taxed before they receive their wages... Again I ask; why do you feel income tax pays benefits?[/p][/quote]incorrect. benefits are paid gross. tax maybe payable on benefits but if you are in receipt of benefits you are clearly not a NET taxpayer and that is the only thing that matters. a tax payer is a NET giver. a benefit claimant is a NET receiver ie a drain. everything else is irrelevant[/p][/quote]The benefit is taxed..THATS all that matters..not net or gross...but the fact it is taxed..ipso facto; benefit claimants are taxed. But im surprised, as someone who implies they know a bit, you even use that argument...I'd thought you would be aware of where the tax, all tax, goes..[/p][/quote]rubbish. if you receive £6,000 in state benefits of which £500 is taxed you are not a NET taxpayer. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NET is all that counts.[/p][/quote]Its the fact of the tax that counts.. Using your own example; If you could have received £6,500 but only receive £6,000 because £500 is taken as tax then you HAVE been taxed..you are short of that money...its gone, wisped away..disappeared.. Tax is all that counts.[/p][/quote]so if you RECEIVE £6,000 FROM THE STATE when you could have RECEIVED £6,500 FROM THE STATE had tax not been taken off YOU ARE STILL A NET RECEIVER FROM THE STATE. try existing on the other side of the tax equation for a while. might give you a different perspective. sad. you completely discredit yourself with a comment like that. all that is wrong with the benefits "entitlement" culture[/p][/quote]Triyng to discredit my stance by implying I receive benefits undermines the confidence you pretend to have in your stance.. Forget net and gross and pigs in the middle...and answer yes or no Are benefits taxed?[/p][/quote]You can not make a NET contribution by paying tax on our tax. We have already paid it! The article say it is a reduction to benefit dubbed a "tax" by opponents and, for once, the Echo has got it right. If you feel you are "entitled" to another £500 benefit top up, George can cut that from the money tree growing in the garden at No.11 and give it to you.[/p][/quote]Go away you...we had all this trollism of you on the last thread..benefits are taxed...get your head around it..I know it stops you attacking benefit claimants now that you are aware of the tax.. What do you call the policy? I could never get you to give a name to the policy on the other thread.. a 10 minute bill had been submitted in parliament on the policy referring to the policy as the bedroom tax...are the highest civil servants in the land confused by the term for the policy? Another who tries to support his feeble argument with pretence I oppose this tax because it affects me...it doesn't and never will...now do you understand that contention? Good, so lets not have me having to repeat it again on another thread as I have over a few others. I do hope you are not going to repeat the very same claptrap you did on the other thread..you have already started to do so..stop it...you were made to look stupid the last time you did that. No 11 gives nothing to me but I give to it. ThisYear
  • Score: 2

11:50pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Janefromsouthend says...

ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent!

BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that!
I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?
** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that**
*I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what**

Seems to be a bit contradictory.

Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing!

Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to!

People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to?

A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent.

A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent

If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for!

Your analogy doesn't work..

The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation..

Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?
It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.
Reality check!

Your view is less important than your situation...you are supporting a policy that strikes at the most vulnerable and poor of the land while it has no affect on you by bettering your situation!

Their rent is paid for them or they get help to pay some of their right by way of law given entitlement...again that has no affect on you or your situation.

But they then have to come up with money to pay over their rent because of the tax..again this does not affect your situation

All in all you are supporting a tory policy that has no affect on you.

** The system is never going to work for every one**

Quite true..but at the same time it should not victimise people...this bedroom tax does just that!

We all have the right to complain...you don't have to earn it.
So what is your answer to the problem ? Should some people regardless of income etc live in over crowded homes whilst others have spare rooms. I know of family's who all live in one room because there are no bigger affordable property's available whilst just down the road one person is living in a two bedroomed home. Are the family living in to small a house as much victims as the one paying bedroom tax.? I am not look at any of this from a political point of view nor do I personal seek to benefit from the system
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent! BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that![/p][/quote]I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?[/p][/quote]** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that** *I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what** Seems to be a bit contradictory. Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing! Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to! People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to? A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent. A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for! Your analogy doesn't work.. The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation.. Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?[/p][/quote]It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.[/p][/quote]Reality check! Your view is less important than your situation...you are supporting a policy that strikes at the most vulnerable and poor of the land while it has no affect on you by bettering your situation! Their rent is paid for them or they get help to pay some of their right by way of law given entitlement...again that has no affect on you or your situation. But they then have to come up with money to pay over their rent because of the tax..again this does not affect your situation All in all you are supporting a tory policy that has no affect on you. ** The system is never going to work for every one** Quite true..but at the same time it should not victimise people...this bedroom tax does just that! We all have the right to complain...you don't have to earn it.[/p][/quote]So what is your answer to the problem ? Should some people regardless of income etc live in over crowded homes whilst others have spare rooms. I know of family's who all live in one room because there are no bigger affordable property's available whilst just down the road one person is living in a two bedroomed home. Are the family living in to small a house as much victims as the one paying bedroom tax.? I am not look at any of this from a political point of view nor do I personal seek to benefit from the system Janefromsouthend
  • Score: -2

11:50pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Janefromsouthend says...

ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent!

BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that!
I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?
** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that**
*I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what**

Seems to be a bit contradictory.

Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing!

Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to!

People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to?

A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent.

A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent

If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for!

Your analogy doesn't work..

The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation..

Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?
It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.
Reality check!

Your view is less important than your situation...you are supporting a policy that strikes at the most vulnerable and poor of the land while it has no affect on you by bettering your situation!

Their rent is paid for them or they get help to pay some of their right by way of law given entitlement...again that has no affect on you or your situation.

But they then have to come up with money to pay over their rent because of the tax..again this does not affect your situation

All in all you are supporting a tory policy that has no affect on you.

** The system is never going to work for every one**

Quite true..but at the same time it should not victimise people...this bedroom tax does just that!

We all have the right to complain...you don't have to earn it.
So what is your answer to the problem ? Should some people regardless of income etc live in over crowded homes whilst others have spare rooms. I know of family's who all live in one room because there are no bigger affordable property's available whilst just down the road one person is living in a two bedroomed home. Are the family living in to small a house as much victims as the one paying bedroom tax.? I am not look at any of this from a political point of view nor do I personal seek to benefit from the system
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent! BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that![/p][/quote]I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?[/p][/quote]** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that** *I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what** Seems to be a bit contradictory. Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing! Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to! People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to? A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent. A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for! Your analogy doesn't work.. The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation.. Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?[/p][/quote]It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.[/p][/quote]Reality check! Your view is less important than your situation...you are supporting a policy that strikes at the most vulnerable and poor of the land while it has no affect on you by bettering your situation! Their rent is paid for them or they get help to pay some of their right by way of law given entitlement...again that has no affect on you or your situation. But they then have to come up with money to pay over their rent because of the tax..again this does not affect your situation All in all you are supporting a tory policy that has no affect on you. ** The system is never going to work for every one** Quite true..but at the same time it should not victimise people...this bedroom tax does just that! We all have the right to complain...you don't have to earn it.[/p][/quote]So what is your answer to the problem ? Should some people regardless of income etc live in over crowded homes whilst others have spare rooms. I know of family's who all live in one room because there are no bigger affordable property's available whilst just down the road one person is living in a two bedroomed home. Are the family living in to small a house as much victims as the one paying bedroom tax.? I am not look at any of this from a political point of view nor do I personal seek to benefit from the system Janefromsouthend
  • Score: -4

11:59pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Janefromsouthend wrote:
This year, how are benefits taxed.? I can see that they would count as part of your income for the tax year when you start working, but if you never worked in that tax year how do the government tax your benefit?
**how do the government tax your benefit?**

A better question might be WHY do they tax the benefits..

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

3. 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
Weekly Bereavement Allowance

* note it says income tax?

As I stated before...benefit claimant pay TAX and in some cases INCOME TAX!
[quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: This year, how are benefits taxed.? I can see that they would count as part of your income for the tax year when you start working, but if you never worked in that tax year how do the government tax your benefit?[/p][/quote]**how do the government tax your benefit?** A better question might be WHY do they tax the benefits.. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable 3. 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 Weekly Bereavement Allowance * note it says income tax? As I stated before...benefit claimant pay TAX and in some cases INCOME TAX! ThisYear
  • Score: 0

12:01am Wed 26 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Just fill out a CB101 complaint benefit application form.
Just fill out a CB101 complaint benefit application form. Alekhine
  • Score: -4

12:05am Wed 26 Feb 14

runwellian says...

Happy Chickie wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
why is private housing inadequate?
I wondered the same thing. How can it be adequate for other people but not social tenants?
Because other people own the land their house stands on ... if you want the state to keep you then you have to live by their rules!

Haven't heard anyone complain about David Beckham and all the houses he owns, or the queen and the vast amount of castles she owns, or MP's and the second homes the tax payer provides for them!

Bedroom tax is not the right approach but why should a single occupant in a three bed house be allowed to stay when needy families cannot fine anywhere to live.

It is wrong to penalise folk if they haven't smaller propertied fro them to move into, so the tax should be stopped until the person has had at least one offer of smaller home, and the council meet the expense of moving them.

Most folk would have to buy new furniture an fittings, carpets etc, which doesn't come cheap.

councils always come up with these money grabbing ideas without thinking them through!
[quote][p][bold]Happy Chickie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: why is private housing inadequate?[/p][/quote]I wondered the same thing. How can it be adequate for other people but not social tenants?[/p][/quote]Because other people own the land their house stands on ... if you want the state to keep you then you have to live by their rules! Haven't heard anyone complain about David Beckham and all the houses he owns, or the queen and the vast amount of castles she owns, or MP's and the second homes the tax payer provides for them! Bedroom tax is not the right approach but why should a single occupant in a three bed house be allowed to stay when needy families cannot fine anywhere to live. It is wrong to penalise folk if they haven't smaller propertied fro them to move into, so the tax should be stopped until the person has had at least one offer of smaller home, and the council meet the expense of moving them. Most folk would have to buy new furniture an fittings, carpets etc, which doesn't come cheap. councils always come up with these money grabbing ideas without thinking them through! runwellian
  • Score: 4

12:05am Wed 26 Feb 14

Janefromsouthend says...

ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
This year, how are benefits taxed.? I can see that they would count as part of your income for the tax year when you start working, but if you never worked in that tax year how do the government tax your benefit?
**how do the government tax your benefit?**

A better question might be WHY do they tax the benefits..

https://www.gov.uk/t

axable-income/state-

benefits-that-are-ta

xable

3. 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
Weekly Bereavement Allowance

* note it says income tax?

As I stated before...benefit claimant pay TAX and in some cases INCOME TAX!
My understand of this is that you only pay tax on these once you start work or go over a certain amount the same as someone not on any benefits . Is this not so?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: This year, how are benefits taxed.? I can see that they would count as part of your income for the tax year when you start working, but if you never worked in that tax year how do the government tax your benefit?[/p][/quote]**how do the government tax your benefit?** A better question might be WHY do they tax the benefits.. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable 3. 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 Weekly Bereavement Allowance * note it says income tax? As I stated before...benefit claimant pay TAX and in some cases INCOME TAX![/p][/quote]My understand of this is that you only pay tax on these once you start work or go over a certain amount the same as someone not on any benefits . Is this not so? Janefromsouthend
  • Score: -2

12:25am Wed 26 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent!

BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that!
I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?
** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that**
*I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what**

Seems to be a bit contradictory.

Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing!

Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to!

People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to?

A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent.

A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent

If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for!

Your analogy doesn't work..

The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation..

Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?
It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.
Reality check!

Your view is less important than your situation...you are supporting a policy that strikes at the most vulnerable and poor of the land while it has no affect on you by bettering your situation!

Their rent is paid for them or they get help to pay some of their right by way of law given entitlement...again that has no affect on you or your situation.

But they then have to come up with money to pay over their rent because of the tax..again this does not affect your situation

All in all you are supporting a tory policy that has no affect on you.

** The system is never going to work for every one**

Quite true..but at the same time it should not victimise people...this bedroom tax does just that!

We all have the right to complain...you don't have to earn it.
So what is your answer to the problem ? Should some people regardless of income etc live in over crowded homes whilst others have spare rooms. I know of family's who all live in one room because there are no bigger affordable property's available whilst just down the road one person is living in a two bedroomed home. Are the family living in to small a house as much victims as the one paying bedroom tax.? I am not look at any of this from a political point of view nor do I personal seek to benefit from the system
It has nothing to do with income really does it? Unless it is a lot of income.

Most people living in council property either can't afford a mortgage or haven't got the credit rating to get one..

The issue of people living in overcrowded accommodation would be lessened by more council housing being built, and those that remain not being offered for sale..

Taking people from their homes without having suitable accommodation to move them to, is worse than overcrowding in my opinion..

The council have procedures in place stopping them putting people into overcrowded accommodation..which begs the question how they became overcrowded... all they can offer people in 'under occupied' accommodation, in most cases, is the options of finding their own accommodation or paying for their 'spare' room(s)

If people are not protected by having a council tenancy then they are not in the system in the first place...if they are on the waiting list then there is no guarantee that they would get the home of the poor chap/woman moved from their home under financial penalty.

If a council tenant can be made to pay for spare rooms why cant those who 'own' their homes not also be made to pay?

After all council property belongs to the people and so belongs to the council tenant as much as a private 'home owner'
[quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent! BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that![/p][/quote]I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?[/p][/quote]** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that** *I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what** Seems to be a bit contradictory. Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing! Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to! People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to? A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent. A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for! Your analogy doesn't work.. The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation.. Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?[/p][/quote]It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.[/p][/quote]Reality check! Your view is less important than your situation...you are supporting a policy that strikes at the most vulnerable and poor of the land while it has no affect on you by bettering your situation! Their rent is paid for them or they get help to pay some of their right by way of law given entitlement...again that has no affect on you or your situation. But they then have to come up with money to pay over their rent because of the tax..again this does not affect your situation All in all you are supporting a tory policy that has no affect on you. ** The system is never going to work for every one** Quite true..but at the same time it should not victimise people...this bedroom tax does just that! We all have the right to complain...you don't have to earn it.[/p][/quote]So what is your answer to the problem ? Should some people regardless of income etc live in over crowded homes whilst others have spare rooms. I know of family's who all live in one room because there are no bigger affordable property's available whilst just down the road one person is living in a two bedroomed home. Are the family living in to small a house as much victims as the one paying bedroom tax.? I am not look at any of this from a political point of view nor do I personal seek to benefit from the system[/p][/quote]It has nothing to do with income really does it? Unless it is a lot of income. Most people living in council property either can't afford a mortgage or haven't got the credit rating to get one.. The issue of people living in overcrowded accommodation would be lessened by more council housing being built, and those that remain not being offered for sale.. Taking people from their homes without having suitable accommodation to move them to, is worse than overcrowding in my opinion.. The council have procedures in place stopping them putting people into overcrowded accommodation..which begs the question how they became overcrowded... all they can offer people in 'under occupied' accommodation, in most cases, is the options of finding their own accommodation or paying for their 'spare' room(s) If people are not protected by having a council tenancy then they are not in the system in the first place...if they are on the waiting list then there is no guarantee that they would get the home of the poor chap/woman moved from their home under financial penalty. If a council tenant can be made to pay for spare rooms why cant those who 'own' their homes not also be made to pay? After all council property belongs to the people and so belongs to the council tenant as much as a private 'home owner' ThisYear
  • Score: 4

12:35am Wed 26 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
This year, how are benefits taxed.? I can see that they would count as part of your income for the tax year when you start working, but if you never worked in that tax year how do the government tax your benefit?
**how do the government tax your benefit?**

A better question might be WHY do they tax the benefits..

https://www.gov.uk/t


axable-income/state-


benefits-that-are-ta


xable

3. 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
Weekly Bereavement Allowance

* note it says income tax?

As I stated before...benefit claimant pay TAX and in some cases INCOME TAX!
My understand of this is that you only pay tax on these once you start work or go over a certain amount the same as someone not on any benefits . Is this not so?
The benefits are taxed...its not a delayed tax for the future, but taxed before it is paid.
[quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: This year, how are benefits taxed.? I can see that they would count as part of your income for the tax year when you start working, but if you never worked in that tax year how do the government tax your benefit?[/p][/quote]**how do the government tax your benefit?** A better question might be WHY do they tax the benefits.. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable 3. 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 Weekly Bereavement Allowance * note it says income tax? As I stated before...benefit claimant pay TAX and in some cases INCOME TAX![/p][/quote]My understand of this is that you only pay tax on these once you start work or go over a certain amount the same as someone not on any benefits . Is this not so?[/p][/quote]The benefits are taxed...its not a delayed tax for the future, but taxed before it is paid. ThisYear
  • Score: 5

12:42am Wed 26 Feb 14

Janefromsouthend says...

ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent!

BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that!
I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?
** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that**
*I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what**

Seems to be a bit contradictory.

Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing!

Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to!

People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to?

A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent.

A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent

If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for!

Your analogy doesn't work..

The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation..

Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?
It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.
Reality check!

Your view is less important than your situation...you are supporting a policy that strikes at the most vulnerable and poor of the land while it has no affect on you by bettering your situation!

Their rent is paid for them or they get help to pay some of their right by way of law given entitlement...again that has no affect on you or your situation.

But they then have to come up with money to pay over their rent because of the tax..again this does not affect your situation

All in all you are supporting a tory policy that has no affect on you.

** The system is never going to work for every one**

Quite true..but at the same time it should not victimise people...this bedroom tax does just that!

We all have the right to complain...you don't have to earn it.
So what is your answer to the problem ? Should some people regardless of income etc live in over crowded homes whilst others have spare rooms. I know of family's who all live in one room because there are no bigger affordable property's available whilst just down the road one person is living in a two bedroomed home. Are the family living in to small a house as much victims as the one paying bedroom tax.? I am not look at any of this from a political point of view nor do I personal seek to benefit from the system
It has nothing to do with income really does it? Unless it is a lot of income.

Most people living in council property either can't afford a mortgage or haven't got the credit rating to get one..

The issue of people living in overcrowded accommodation would be lessened by more council housing being built, and those that remain not being offered for sale..

Taking people from their homes without having suitable accommodation to move them to, is worse than overcrowding in my opinion..

The council have procedures in place stopping them putting people into overcrowded accommodation..which begs the question how they became overcrowded... all they can offer people in 'under occupied' accommodation, in most cases, is the options of finding their own accommodation or paying for their 'spare' room(s)

If people are not protected by having a council tenancy then they are not in the system in the first place...if they are on the waiting list then there is no guarantee that they would get the home of the poor chap/woman moved from their home under financial penalty.

If a council tenant can be made to pay for spare rooms why cant those who 'own' their homes not also be made to pay?

After all council property belongs to the people and so belongs to the council tenant as much as a private 'home owner'
If you are a council tenant and are working and not getting any help towards your rent and your child grows up and leaves home , do you then have to pay extra rent on that empty bedroom? Is the rent on a council property more for some one who is working than it is for some one on benefit? I live in private rented and my landlord would expect the same amount of rent if I was claiming housing benefit living on my own or with x amount of other people.
If people don't pay the full rent on council properties how can the council afford to build more?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent! BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that![/p][/quote]I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?[/p][/quote]** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that** *I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what** Seems to be a bit contradictory. Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing! Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to! People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to? A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent. A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for! Your analogy doesn't work.. The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation.. Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?[/p][/quote]It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.[/p][/quote]Reality check! Your view is less important than your situation...you are supporting a policy that strikes at the most vulnerable and poor of the land while it has no affect on you by bettering your situation! Their rent is paid for them or they get help to pay some of their right by way of law given entitlement...again that has no affect on you or your situation. But they then have to come up with money to pay over their rent because of the tax..again this does not affect your situation All in all you are supporting a tory policy that has no affect on you. ** The system is never going to work for every one** Quite true..but at the same time it should not victimise people...this bedroom tax does just that! We all have the right to complain...you don't have to earn it.[/p][/quote]So what is your answer to the problem ? Should some people regardless of income etc live in over crowded homes whilst others have spare rooms. I know of family's who all live in one room because there are no bigger affordable property's available whilst just down the road one person is living in a two bedroomed home. Are the family living in to small a house as much victims as the one paying bedroom tax.? I am not look at any of this from a political point of view nor do I personal seek to benefit from the system[/p][/quote]It has nothing to do with income really does it? Unless it is a lot of income. Most people living in council property either can't afford a mortgage or haven't got the credit rating to get one.. The issue of people living in overcrowded accommodation would be lessened by more council housing being built, and those that remain not being offered for sale.. Taking people from their homes without having suitable accommodation to move them to, is worse than overcrowding in my opinion.. The council have procedures in place stopping them putting people into overcrowded accommodation..which begs the question how they became overcrowded... all they can offer people in 'under occupied' accommodation, in most cases, is the options of finding their own accommodation or paying for their 'spare' room(s) If people are not protected by having a council tenancy then they are not in the system in the first place...if they are on the waiting list then there is no guarantee that they would get the home of the poor chap/woman moved from their home under financial penalty. If a council tenant can be made to pay for spare rooms why cant those who 'own' their homes not also be made to pay? After all council property belongs to the people and so belongs to the council tenant as much as a private 'home owner'[/p][/quote]If you are a council tenant and are working and not getting any help towards your rent and your child grows up and leaves home , do you then have to pay extra rent on that empty bedroom? Is the rent on a council property more for some one who is working than it is for some one on benefit? I live in private rented and my landlord would expect the same amount of rent if I was claiming housing benefit living on my own or with x amount of other people. If people don't pay the full rent on council properties how can the council afford to build more? Janefromsouthend
  • Score: 1

12:45am Wed 26 Feb 14

Janefromsouthend says...

ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
This year, how are benefits taxed.? I can see that they would count as part of your income for the tax year when you start working, but if you never worked in that tax year how do the government tax your benefit?
**how do the government tax your benefit?**

A better question might be WHY do they tax the benefits..

https://www.gov.uk/t



axable-income/state-



benefits-that-are-ta



xable

3. 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
Weekly Bereavement Allowance

* note it says income tax?

As I stated before...benefit claimant pay TAX and in some cases INCOME TAX!
My understand of this is that you only pay tax on these once you start work or go over a certain amount the same as someone not on any benefits . Is this not so?
The benefits are taxed...its not a delayed tax for the future, but taxed before it is paid.
Thank you for clearing that up for me
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: This year, how are benefits taxed.? I can see that they would count as part of your income for the tax year when you start working, but if you never worked in that tax year how do the government tax your benefit?[/p][/quote]**how do the government tax your benefit?** A better question might be WHY do they tax the benefits.. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable 3. 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 Weekly Bereavement Allowance * note it says income tax? As I stated before...benefit claimant pay TAX and in some cases INCOME TAX![/p][/quote]My understand of this is that you only pay tax on these once you start work or go over a certain amount the same as someone not on any benefits . Is this not so?[/p][/quote]The benefits are taxed...its not a delayed tax for the future, but taxed before it is paid.[/p][/quote]Thank you for clearing that up for me Janefromsouthend
  • Score: 0

7:55am Wed 26 Feb 14

pembury53 says...

Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote: This year, how are benefits taxed.? I can see that they would count as part of your income for the tax year when you start working, but if you never worked in that tax year how do the government tax your benefit?
**how do the government tax your benefit?** A better question might be WHY do they tax the benefits.. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable 3. 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 Weekly Bereavement Allowance * note it says income tax? As I stated before...benefit claimant pay TAX and in some cases INCOME TAX!
My understand of this is that you only pay tax on these once you start work or go over a certain amount the same as someone not on any benefits . Is this not so?
The benefits are taxed...its not a delayed tax for the future, but taxed before it is paid.
Thank you for clearing that up for me
from april 1st you don't pay income tax on the first 10 grand of income, regardless if from earnings or benefits.....
[quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: This year, how are benefits taxed.? I can see that they would count as part of your income for the tax year when you start working, but if you never worked in that tax year how do the government tax your benefit?[/p][/quote]**how do the government tax your benefit?** A better question might be WHY do they tax the benefits.. https://www.gov.uk/t axable-income/state- benefits-that-are-ta xable 3. 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 Weekly Bereavement Allowance * note it says income tax? As I stated before...benefit claimant pay TAX and in some cases INCOME TAX![/p][/quote]My understand of this is that you only pay tax on these once you start work or go over a certain amount the same as someone not on any benefits . Is this not so?[/p][/quote]The benefits are taxed...its not a delayed tax for the future, but taxed before it is paid.[/p][/quote]Thank you for clearing that up for me[/p][/quote]from april 1st you don't pay income tax on the first 10 grand of income, regardless if from earnings or benefits..... pembury53
  • Score: 3

9:16am Wed 26 Feb 14

rodgdodge says...

Extra rooms available?
Perhaps `joint tenanties`, could help.
The council could offer some rooms ( with the co-operation of the existing tenant) to those who need accomodation.
This would allow the existing tenant the opportunity to continue to live in ` his` home ( possible having spent many thousands of pounds in decoration ect ( over the years).
The manipulation of the housing market is another thing.
Back in the days where property was not considered an investment ( a way of making money), because the value of it, did not really change much.
People could plan to save for a deposit, knowing that in say 4 or 5 years, they would be able to buy a place to live.
Due to `political` interference in the housing market.
It is now the case that unless one is earning a fortune, the increase in property price, outstrips the capability to save enough for the deposit!!
This lead to people ( A la Northen Rock ect) jumping at the chance of 100% or more mortgages.
We saw where this lead in 2008.
The system now, is so entrenched.
That for a realistic ability of people ( working) to actually own their own property, is restricted to those earning well- above the ` average` wage, let alone the minimum wage.
Therefore the need for ` affordable housing ( private and social)`.
The decision must be made, either to accept a vast reduction in property values ( with its associated implications on the banking industry!), or ( which would have a similar effect) a huge increase in new construction ( not a few hundred thousand dwellings, but in excess off at least 1.5 million), in as short a time as possible ( possibly using ( German type) factory produced ` kit homes` with far better insulation and pre-installed electics and plumbing ect).
Extra rooms available? Perhaps `joint tenanties`, could help. The council could offer some rooms ( with the co-operation of the existing tenant) to those who need accomodation. This would allow the existing tenant the opportunity to continue to live in ` his` home ( possible having spent many thousands of pounds in decoration ect ( over the years). The manipulation of the housing market is another thing. Back in the days where property was not considered an investment ( a way of making money), because the value of it, did not really change much. People could plan to save for a deposit, knowing that in say 4 or 5 years, they would be able to buy a place to live. Due to `political` interference in the housing market. It is now the case that unless one is earning a fortune, the increase in property price, outstrips the capability to save enough for the deposit!! This lead to people ( A la Northen Rock ect) jumping at the chance of 100% or more mortgages. We saw where this lead in 2008. The system now, is so entrenched. That for a realistic ability of people ( working) to actually own their own property, is restricted to those earning well- above the ` average` wage, let alone the minimum wage. Therefore the need for ` affordable housing ( private and social)`. The decision must be made, either to accept a vast reduction in property values ( with its associated implications on the banking industry!), or ( which would have a similar effect) a huge increase in new construction ( not a few hundred thousand dwellings, but in excess off at least 1.5 million), in as short a time as possible ( possibly using ( German type) factory produced ` kit homes` with far better insulation and pre-installed electics and plumbing ect). rodgdodge
  • Score: 5

2:02pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Fedup123 says...

I worked three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage (and keep) my two bed flat - i've lost my main source of income twice since the market crash and have only taken JSA for two weeks in this time (i took temp jobs, and waitressed to keep a roof over my head - which took me over 16 hours so lost my entitlement)... after 11 years I would very much love a house with a little garden but I can't afford it....

.... my friend from school lives in a council rented flat down the road with her husband... their combined income is £25k a year more than mine... and live a fab life with holidays and 3D tv's and a new car ever 2 years..... their plan is have a baby (due any day) get moved to a house then buy it under the right to buy scheme at 50% less than the market value....

Doesn't seem fair some how...
I worked three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage (and keep) my two bed flat - i've lost my main source of income twice since the market crash and have only taken JSA for two weeks in this time (i took temp jobs, and waitressed to keep a roof over my head - which took me over 16 hours so lost my entitlement)... after 11 years I would very much love a house with a little garden but I can't afford it.... .... my friend from school lives in a council rented flat down the road with her husband... their combined income is £25k a year more than mine... and live a fab life with holidays and 3D tv's and a new car ever 2 years..... their plan is have a baby (due any day) get moved to a house then buy it under the right to buy scheme at 50% less than the market value.... Doesn't seem fair some how... Fedup123
  • Score: 4

2:03pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Fedup123 says...

.... whole scheme is a mess.. my point is they can afford to buy/private rent - why aren't they being made to?
.... whole scheme is a mess.. my point is they can afford to buy/private rent - why aren't they being made to? Fedup123
  • Score: 4

3:20pm Wed 26 Feb 14

echoforum says...

End of the day,we can all knock up a reason/excuse for special treatment...too many have had it on a plate for too long and have developed a aggressive 'me want ,me need' approach to life.
Don't forget the UK is still probably the best place to be born if you don't fancy grafting...some countries you'd be dead by now.
End of the day,we can all knock up a reason/excuse for special treatment...too many have had it on a plate for too long and have developed a aggressive 'me want ,me need' approach to life. Don't forget the UK is still probably the best place to be born if you don't fancy grafting...some countries you'd be dead by now. echoforum
  • Score: 2

3:36pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

Fedup123 wrote:
I worked three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage (and keep) my two bed flat - i've lost my main source of income twice since the market crash and have only taken JSA for two weeks in this time (i took temp jobs, and waitressed to keep a roof over my head - which took me over 16 hours so lost my entitlement)... after 11 years I would very much love a house with a little garden but I can't afford it.... .... my friend from school lives in a council rented flat down the road with her husband... their combined income is £25k a year more than mine... and live a fab life with holidays and 3D tv's and a new car ever 2 years..... their plan is have a baby (due any day) get moved to a house then buy it under the right to buy scheme at 50% less than the market value.... Doesn't seem fair some how...
Do you think the so called "bedroom tax" was right in principle?
[quote][p][bold]Fedup123[/bold] wrote: I worked three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage (and keep) my two bed flat - i've lost my main source of income twice since the market crash and have only taken JSA for two weeks in this time (i took temp jobs, and waitressed to keep a roof over my head - which took me over 16 hours so lost my entitlement)... after 11 years I would very much love a house with a little garden but I can't afford it.... .... my friend from school lives in a council rented flat down the road with her husband... their combined income is £25k a year more than mine... and live a fab life with holidays and 3D tv's and a new car ever 2 years..... their plan is have a baby (due any day) get moved to a house then buy it under the right to buy scheme at 50% less than the market value.... Doesn't seem fair some how...[/p][/quote]Do you think the so called "bedroom tax" was right in principle? Alekhine
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
Fedup123 wrote:
I worked three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage (and keep) my two bed flat - i've lost my main source of income twice since the market crash and have only taken JSA for two weeks in this time (i took temp jobs, and waitressed to keep a roof over my head - which took me over 16 hours so lost my entitlement)... after 11 years I would very much love a house with a little garden but I can't afford it.... .... my friend from school lives in a council rented flat down the road with her husband... their combined income is £25k a year more than mine... and live a fab life with holidays and 3D tv's and a new car ever 2 years..... their plan is have a baby (due any day) get moved to a house then buy it under the right to buy scheme at 50% less than the market value.... Doesn't seem fair some how...
Do you think the so called "bedroom tax" was right in principle?
"so called" what do you refer to it as?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fedup123[/bold] wrote: I worked three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage (and keep) my two bed flat - i've lost my main source of income twice since the market crash and have only taken JSA for two weeks in this time (i took temp jobs, and waitressed to keep a roof over my head - which took me over 16 hours so lost my entitlement)... after 11 years I would very much love a house with a little garden but I can't afford it.... .... my friend from school lives in a council rented flat down the road with her husband... their combined income is £25k a year more than mine... and live a fab life with holidays and 3D tv's and a new car ever 2 years..... their plan is have a baby (due any day) get moved to a house then buy it under the right to buy scheme at 50% less than the market value.... Doesn't seem fair some how...[/p][/quote]Do you think the so called "bedroom tax" was right in principle?[/p][/quote]"so called" what do you refer to it as? ThisYear
  • Score: 1

4:42pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Fedup123 wrote: I worked three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage (and keep) my two bed flat - i've lost my main source of income twice since the market crash and have only taken JSA for two weeks in this time (i took temp jobs, and waitressed to keep a roof over my head - which took me over 16 hours so lost my entitlement)... after 11 years I would very much love a house with a little garden but I can't afford it.... .... my friend from school lives in a council rented flat down the road with her husband... their combined income is £25k a year more than mine... and live a fab life with holidays and 3D tv's and a new car ever 2 years..... their plan is have a baby (due any day) get moved to a house then buy it under the right to buy scheme at 50% less than the market value.... Doesn't seem fair some how...
Do you think the so called "bedroom tax" was right in principle?
"so called" what do you refer to it as?
The so called bedroom tax (........because it is not really a tax, it is a reduction in benefit). Here are some quotes from the article which you do not appear to have read.....
.
TENANTS who have their housing benefit slashed for every spare room.....
The Government has cut the benefit for social housing tenants......
In theory, the cut, dubbed the “bedroom tax” by critics,......
But while more than 648 Southend tenants had their benefits cut this month.....
.
You should phone the Echo and put them right. While you are at it, you can phone all the other major papers too.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fedup123[/bold] wrote: I worked three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage (and keep) my two bed flat - i've lost my main source of income twice since the market crash and have only taken JSA for two weeks in this time (i took temp jobs, and waitressed to keep a roof over my head - which took me over 16 hours so lost my entitlement)... after 11 years I would very much love a house with a little garden but I can't afford it.... .... my friend from school lives in a council rented flat down the road with her husband... their combined income is £25k a year more than mine... and live a fab life with holidays and 3D tv's and a new car ever 2 years..... their plan is have a baby (due any day) get moved to a house then buy it under the right to buy scheme at 50% less than the market value.... Doesn't seem fair some how...[/p][/quote]Do you think the so called "bedroom tax" was right in principle?[/p][/quote]"so called" what do you refer to it as?[/p][/quote]The so called bedroom tax (........because it is not really a tax, it is a reduction in benefit). Here are some quotes from the article which you do not appear to have read..... . TENANTS who have their housing benefit slashed for every spare room..... The Government has cut the benefit for social housing tenants...... In theory, the cut, dubbed the “bedroom tax” by critics,...... But while more than 648 Southend tenants had their benefits cut this month..... . You should phone the Echo and put them right. While you are at it, you can phone all the other major papers too. Alekhine
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Wed 26 Feb 14

whateverhappened says...

jayman wrote:
£13,208 (minimum wage) based on 40 hrs work per week minus 20% £2,641 in tax =10.567 minus band A council tax £896.88 = £9,671 + your £6000 equals a staggering and benefit scrounging, three foreign holidays per year, multiple car owning (daily mail) person... wait for it.... £15.671 before gas, electricity food (all vat taxable) prior to paying for food and other such luxury items. I haven't calculated rent or housing benefit. but housing benefit is only about 60% of rent (if you are lucky) it can be considerably less depending on circumstances and the local authority...
not true you would pay £1693 tax and NI on £13208...
http://www.worksmart
.org.uk/tools/tax_ca
lc.php
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: £13,208 (minimum wage) based on 40 hrs work per week minus 20% £2,641 in tax =10.567 minus band A council tax £896.88 = £9,671 + your £6000 equals a staggering and benefit scrounging, three foreign holidays per year, multiple car owning (daily mail) person... wait for it.... £15.671 before gas, electricity food (all vat taxable) prior to paying for food and other such luxury items. I haven't calculated rent or housing benefit. but housing benefit is only about 60% of rent (if you are lucky) it can be considerably less depending on circumstances and the local authority...[/p][/quote]not true you would pay £1693 tax and NI on £13208... http://www.worksmart .org.uk/tools/tax_ca lc.php whateverhappened
  • Score: 2

7:04pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Fedup123 wrote: I worked three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage (and keep) my two bed flat - i've lost my main source of income twice since the market crash and have only taken JSA for two weeks in this time (i took temp jobs, and waitressed to keep a roof over my head - which took me over 16 hours so lost my entitlement)... after 11 years I would very much love a house with a little garden but I can't afford it.... .... my friend from school lives in a council rented flat down the road with her husband... their combined income is £25k a year more than mine... and live a fab life with holidays and 3D tv's and a new car ever 2 years..... their plan is have a baby (due any day) get moved to a house then buy it under the right to buy scheme at 50% less than the market value.... Doesn't seem fair some how...
Do you think the so called "bedroom tax" was right in principle?
"so called" what do you refer to it as?
The so called bedroom tax (........because it is not really a tax, it is a reduction in benefit). Here are some quotes from the article which you do not appear to have read.....
.
TENANTS who have their housing benefit slashed for every spare room.....
The Government has cut the benefit for social housing tenants......
In theory, the cut, dubbed the “bedroom tax” by critics,......
But while more than 648 Southend tenants had their benefits cut this month.....
.
You should phone the Echo and put them right. While you are at it, you can phone all the other major papers too.
AGAIN.. for the umpteth time...you ignore the question of what term YOU use for the bedroom tax!

You apparently call it what you think it isn't..

Now why is that?

And again the strawman argument to avoid the question...

What do you feel is the correct term for this despicable tax and attack on poor and vulnerable people.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fedup123[/bold] wrote: I worked three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage (and keep) my two bed flat - i've lost my main source of income twice since the market crash and have only taken JSA for two weeks in this time (i took temp jobs, and waitressed to keep a roof over my head - which took me over 16 hours so lost my entitlement)... after 11 years I would very much love a house with a little garden but I can't afford it.... .... my friend from school lives in a council rented flat down the road with her husband... their combined income is £25k a year more than mine... and live a fab life with holidays and 3D tv's and a new car ever 2 years..... their plan is have a baby (due any day) get moved to a house then buy it under the right to buy scheme at 50% less than the market value.... Doesn't seem fair some how...[/p][/quote]Do you think the so called "bedroom tax" was right in principle?[/p][/quote]"so called" what do you refer to it as?[/p][/quote]The so called bedroom tax (........because it is not really a tax, it is a reduction in benefit). Here are some quotes from the article which you do not appear to have read..... . TENANTS who have their housing benefit slashed for every spare room..... The Government has cut the benefit for social housing tenants...... In theory, the cut, dubbed the “bedroom tax” by critics,...... But while more than 648 Southend tenants had their benefits cut this month..... . You should phone the Echo and put them right. While you are at it, you can phone all the other major papers too.[/p][/quote]AGAIN.. for the umpteth time...you ignore the question of what term YOU use for the bedroom tax! You apparently call it what you think it isn't.. Now why is that? And again the strawman argument to avoid the question... What do you feel is the correct term for this despicable tax and attack on poor and vulnerable people. ThisYear
  • Score: 1

8:07pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Fedup123 wrote: I worked three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage (and keep) my two bed flat - i've lost my main source of income twice since the market crash and have only taken JSA for two weeks in this time (i took temp jobs, and waitressed to keep a roof over my head - which took me over 16 hours so lost my entitlement)... after 11 years I would very much love a house with a little garden but I can't afford it.... .... my friend from school lives in a council rented flat down the road with her husband... their combined income is £25k a year more than mine... and live a fab life with holidays and 3D tv's and a new car ever 2 years..... their plan is have a baby (due any day) get moved to a house then buy it under the right to buy scheme at 50% less than the market value.... Doesn't seem fair some how...
Do you think the so called "bedroom tax" was right in principle?
"so called" what do you refer to it as?
The so called bedroom tax (........because it is not really a tax, it is a reduction in benefit). Here are some quotes from the article which you do not appear to have read.....
.
TENANTS who have their housing benefit slashed for every spare room.....
The Government has cut the benefit for social housing tenants......
In theory, the cut, dubbed the “bedroom tax” by critics,......
But while more than 648 Southend tenants had their benefits cut this month.....
.
You should phone the Echo and put them right. While you are at it, you can phone all the other major papers too.
So you refer to the bedroom tax as "the so called bedroom tax"

Good enough shows that you understand that the majority of people in the country consider it a tax...and refer to it as the bedroom tax..including the highest civil servants in the land...

The so called spare bedroom subsidy...and the term I feel you are shying away from 'under-occupancy penalty' are redundant terms used only by the architects of the diabolical policy and the nit-wit tory voters...who would vote for a rabid badger as long as it dribbled right-wing rhetoric
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fedup123[/bold] wrote: I worked three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage (and keep) my two bed flat - i've lost my main source of income twice since the market crash and have only taken JSA for two weeks in this time (i took temp jobs, and waitressed to keep a roof over my head - which took me over 16 hours so lost my entitlement)... after 11 years I would very much love a house with a little garden but I can't afford it.... .... my friend from school lives in a council rented flat down the road with her husband... their combined income is £25k a year more than mine... and live a fab life with holidays and 3D tv's and a new car ever 2 years..... their plan is have a baby (due any day) get moved to a house then buy it under the right to buy scheme at 50% less than the market value.... Doesn't seem fair some how...[/p][/quote]Do you think the so called "bedroom tax" was right in principle?[/p][/quote]"so called" what do you refer to it as?[/p][/quote]The so called bedroom tax (........because it is not really a tax, it is a reduction in benefit). Here are some quotes from the article which you do not appear to have read..... . TENANTS who have their housing benefit slashed for every spare room..... The Government has cut the benefit for social housing tenants...... In theory, the cut, dubbed the “bedroom tax” by critics,...... But while more than 648 Southend tenants had their benefits cut this month..... . You should phone the Echo and put them right. While you are at it, you can phone all the other major papers too.[/p][/quote]So you refer to the bedroom tax as "the so called bedroom tax" Good enough shows that you understand that the majority of people in the country consider it a tax...and refer to it as the bedroom tax..including the highest civil servants in the land... The so called spare bedroom subsidy...and the term I feel you are shying away from 'under-occupancy penalty' are redundant terms used only by the architects of the diabolical policy and the nit-wit tory voters...who would vote for a rabid badger as long as it dribbled right-wing rhetoric ThisYear
  • Score: 1

10:47pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.
But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent!

BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that!
I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?
** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that**
*I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what**

Seems to be a bit contradictory.

Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing!

Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to!

People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to?

A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent.

A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent

If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for!

Your analogy doesn't work..

The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation..

Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?
It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.
Reality check!

Your view is less important than your situation...you are supporting a policy that strikes at the most vulnerable and poor of the land while it has no affect on you by bettering your situation!

Their rent is paid for them or they get help to pay some of their right by way of law given entitlement...again that has no affect on you or your situation.

But they then have to come up with money to pay over their rent because of the tax..again this does not affect your situation

All in all you are supporting a tory policy that has no affect on you.

** The system is never going to work for every one**

Quite true..but at the same time it should not victimise people...this bedroom tax does just that!

We all have the right to complain...you don't have to earn it.
So what is your answer to the problem ? Should some people regardless of income etc live in over crowded homes whilst others have spare rooms. I know of family's who all live in one room because there are no bigger affordable property's available whilst just down the road one person is living in a two bedroomed home. Are the family living in to small a house as much victims as the one paying bedroom tax.? I am not look at any of this from a political point of view nor do I personal seek to benefit from the system
It has nothing to do with income really does it? Unless it is a lot of income.

Most people living in council property either can't afford a mortgage or haven't got the credit rating to get one..

The issue of people living in overcrowded accommodation would be lessened by more council housing being built, and those that remain not being offered for sale..

Taking people from their homes without having suitable accommodation to move them to, is worse than overcrowding in my opinion..

The council have procedures in place stopping them putting people into overcrowded accommodation..which begs the question how they became overcrowded... all they can offer people in 'under occupied' accommodation, in most cases, is the options of finding their own accommodation or paying for their 'spare' room(s)

If people are not protected by having a council tenancy then they are not in the system in the first place...if they are on the waiting list then there is no guarantee that they would get the home of the poor chap/woman moved from their home under financial penalty.

If a council tenant can be made to pay for spare rooms why cant those who 'own' their homes not also be made to pay?

After all council property belongs to the people and so belongs to the council tenant as much as a private 'home owner'
If you are a council tenant and are working and not getting any help towards your rent and your child grows up and leaves home , do you then have to pay extra rent on that empty bedroom? Is the rent on a council property more for some one who is working than it is for some one on benefit? I live in private rented and my landlord would expect the same amount of rent if I was claiming housing benefit living on my own or with x amount of other people.
If people don't pay the full rent on council properties how can the council afford to build more?
The bedroom tax means if they deem you to have a spare bedroom...although the policy has been called spare room ' subsidy' and 'under occupancy penalty'
you fit the criteria to pay the bedroom tax....

There are problems with this, the govt didn't clearly specify what a bedroom was..is this a room that has a bed in it...or one upstairs that could have a bed in it, but may be used for other things ie holding medical machines.

The rent is the same whether you are working or not.

Your landlord might expect the same amount for his property regardless if you live their alone..but he wouldn't then come and ask you to pay extra because you live alone...the govt policy if equated to a package holiday is a supplement for living alone or for spare room..

Do the council use rent to build houses?

If so why are they not building any.
[quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that. The house myself and my two sons live in is far to small for all three of us but it is what I can afford. I work blooming hard to pay my way in life and put a roof over our heads so I can't see why people who don't work shouldn't have to pay for the extra space they have. May be they shouldn't have thought they were "entitled" to such a big house in the first place.[/p][/quote]But they are paying for the extra space...over and above their rent! BTW its the law that says they are entitled to this and that![/p][/quote]I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what. I just think that people in this country expect to much for nothing. It's about time people learnt to live within their means. If you live in a 1 bedroom house you pay the going rate , if you live in a three bedroom house then you should pay the going rate etc.. Would you go into a restaurant and order 3 meals and say you thought you should only pay for one because you couldn't t afford it?[/p][/quote]** I am fed up of people saying they are entitled to this or that** *I'm not arguing about who says anyone is entitled to what** Seems to be a bit contradictory. Expecting what you are entitled to is not expecting too much for nothing! Ans it is the law that decides what you are entitled to! People receiving their entitlement are not to blame..should they not take what they are entitled to? A person living in a one bed council property pays the going rate...rent. A person living in a 3 bed council property pays the going rate...rent If they fall foul of the bedroom tax they pay over the going rate by paying again for room(s) they have already paid for! Your analogy doesn't work.. The truth of the matter is the bedroom tax takes money of those who can least afford it, while having virtually no impact on the housing situation.. Has people paying the Tax changed your situation?[/p][/quote]It doesn't change my view point or my situation. They are not paying over the odds for their rent because someone else is pay most of it for them . The system is never going to work for every one . And I am entitled to complain about if if I so wish. I earned the right.[/p][/quote]Reality check! Your view is less important than your situation...you are supporting a policy that strikes at the most vulnerable and poor of the land while it has no affect on you by bettering your situation! Their rent is paid for them or they get help to pay some of their right by way of law given entitlement...again that has no affect on you or your situation. But they then have to come up with money to pay over their rent because of the tax..again this does not affect your situation All in all you are supporting a tory policy that has no affect on you. ** The system is never going to work for every one** Quite true..but at the same time it should not victimise people...this bedroom tax does just that! We all have the right to complain...you don't have to earn it.[/p][/quote]So what is your answer to the problem ? Should some people regardless of income etc live in over crowded homes whilst others have spare rooms. I know of family's who all live in one room because there are no bigger affordable property's available whilst just down the road one person is living in a two bedroomed home. Are the family living in to small a house as much victims as the one paying bedroom tax.? I am not look at any of this from a political point of view nor do I personal seek to benefit from the system[/p][/quote]It has nothing to do with income really does it? Unless it is a lot of income. Most people living in council property either can't afford a mortgage or haven't got the credit rating to get one.. The issue of people living in overcrowded accommodation would be lessened by more council housing being built, and those that remain not being offered for sale.. Taking people from their homes without having suitable accommodation to move them to, is worse than overcrowding in my opinion.. The council have procedures in place stopping them putting people into overcrowded accommodation..which begs the question how they became overcrowded... all they can offer people in 'under occupied' accommodation, in most cases, is the options of finding their own accommodation or paying for their 'spare' room(s) If people are not protected by having a council tenancy then they are not in the system in the first place...if they are on the waiting list then there is no guarantee that they would get the home of the poor chap/woman moved from their home under financial penalty. If a council tenant can be made to pay for spare rooms why cant those who 'own' their homes not also be made to pay? After all council property belongs to the people and so belongs to the council tenant as much as a private 'home owner'[/p][/quote]If you are a council tenant and are working and not getting any help towards your rent and your child grows up and leaves home , do you then have to pay extra rent on that empty bedroom? Is the rent on a council property more for some one who is working than it is for some one on benefit? I live in private rented and my landlord would expect the same amount of rent if I was claiming housing benefit living on my own or with x amount of other people. If people don't pay the full rent on council properties how can the council afford to build more?[/p][/quote]The bedroom tax means if they deem you to have a spare bedroom...although the policy has been called spare room ' subsidy' and 'under occupancy penalty' you fit the criteria to pay the bedroom tax.... There are problems with this, the govt didn't clearly specify what a bedroom was..is this a room that has a bed in it...or one upstairs that could have a bed in it, but may be used for other things ie holding medical machines. The rent is the same whether you are working or not. Your landlord might expect the same amount for his property regardless if you live their alone..but he wouldn't then come and ask you to pay extra because you live alone...the govt policy if equated to a package holiday is a supplement for living alone or for spare room.. Do the council use rent to build houses? If so why are they not building any. ThisYear
  • Score: 1

11:38am Thu 27 Feb 14

Southendguy says...

If this guy has lived in this property since 1996 and received housing benefit since then up to now he's exempt from the vile Bedroom tax. Dont ask why i dont understand it but was a loophole in rules recently found. Perhaps should have a word with Citizens Advice! But be quick as the evil Duncan Smith rewriting the rules as we speak!
If this guy has lived in this property since 1996 and received housing benefit since then up to now he's exempt from the vile Bedroom tax. Dont ask why i dont understand it but was a loophole in rules recently found. Perhaps should have a word with Citizens Advice! But be quick as the evil Duncan Smith rewriting the rules as we speak! Southendguy
  • Score: 5

3:45pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Janefromsouthend says...

So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?
So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.? Janefromsouthend
  • Score: 1

3:46pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Fedup123 says...

Personally I think the bedroom tax is fair. I know many that have had a 3 bedroom house, their children have moved out and got married and they are still sat in a 2 bedroom house.

My school friend is a perfect example of a couple in currently in a one bed flat subsidized by me when they earn more than me and could well afford a mortgage... their aim it to buy a house up cheap - this is a one bed home that could have a person that needs it in it and free up a 3 bed elsewhere..

The government need to do two things with welfare:

1) centralised benefits you fill out one form for everything, one department deals with you and you receive "x" amount in vouchers for shops (to ensure you a spending it on nececcities - food, clothes, heating and not gadgets or habits) and the a small cash amount for spends.

2) employ more staff to carry out annual reassesments. The couple I refer to have not been means tested since they were awarded the flat and have since had 3 pay rises. Each you everyone should be reassessed and given 6 months notice should they be deemed able to mortgage. there are two many people my age taking advantage of the system and two many desperate people on the list. it would also put pay to those that sub let.
Personally I think the bedroom tax is fair. I know many that have had a 3 bedroom house, their children have moved out and got married and they are still sat in a 2 bedroom house. My school friend is a perfect example of a couple in currently in a one bed flat subsidized by me when they earn more than me and could well afford a mortgage... their aim it to buy a house up cheap - this is a one bed home that could have a person that needs it in it and free up a 3 bed elsewhere.. The government need to do two things with welfare: 1) centralised benefits you fill out one form for everything, one department deals with you and you receive "x" amount in vouchers for shops (to ensure you a spending it on nececcities - food, clothes, heating and not gadgets or habits) and the a small cash amount for spends. 2) employ more staff to carry out annual reassesments. The couple I refer to have not been means tested since they were awarded the flat and have since had 3 pay rises. Each you everyone should be reassessed and given 6 months notice should they be deemed able to mortgage. there are two many people my age taking advantage of the system and two many desperate people on the list. it would also put pay to those that sub let. Fedup123
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Fedup123 says...

This approach would also help those with a genuine need for a spare room as the accessor would see the history of the disability and need for medical equipement.
This approach would also help those with a genuine need for a spare room as the accessor would see the history of the disability and need for medical equipement. Fedup123
  • Score: 2

3:49pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Fedup123 says...

Fedup123 wrote:
Personally I think the bedroom tax is fair. I know many that have had a 3 bedroom house, their children have moved out and got married and they are still sat in a 2 bedroom house. My school friend is a perfect example of a couple in currently in a one bed flat subsidized by me when they earn more than me and could well afford a mortgage... their aim it to buy a house up cheap - this is a one bed home that could have a person that needs it in it and free up a 3 bed elsewhere.. The government need to do two things with welfare: 1) centralised benefits you fill out one form for everything, one department deals with you and you receive "x" amount in vouchers for shops (to ensure you a spending it on nececcities - food, clothes, heating and not gadgets or habits) and the a small cash amount for spends. 2) employ more staff to carry out annual reassesments. The couple I refer to have not been means tested since they were awarded the flat and have since had 3 pay rises. Each you everyone should be reassessed and given 6 months notice should they be deemed able to mortgage. there are two many people my age taking advantage of the system and two many desperate people on the list. it would also put pay to those that sub let.
Sorry few typo's!
[quote][p][bold]Fedup123[/bold] wrote: Personally I think the bedroom tax is fair. I know many that have had a 3 bedroom house, their children have moved out and got married and they are still sat in a 2 bedroom house. My school friend is a perfect example of a couple in currently in a one bed flat subsidized by me when they earn more than me and could well afford a mortgage... their aim it to buy a house up cheap - this is a one bed home that could have a person that needs it in it and free up a 3 bed elsewhere.. The government need to do two things with welfare: 1) centralised benefits you fill out one form for everything, one department deals with you and you receive "x" amount in vouchers for shops (to ensure you a spending it on nececcities - food, clothes, heating and not gadgets or habits) and the a small cash amount for spends. 2) employ more staff to carry out annual reassesments. The couple I refer to have not been means tested since they were awarded the flat and have since had 3 pay rises. Each you everyone should be reassessed and given 6 months notice should they be deemed able to mortgage. there are two many people my age taking advantage of the system and two many desperate people on the list. it would also put pay to those that sub let.[/p][/quote]Sorry few typo's! Fedup123
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Thu 27 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Janefromsouthend wrote:
So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?
It is a perpetual tory policy, regardless of what year, decade or century, to attack the poor and most vulnerable in the country!

There doesn't have to be rhythm or reason to it.

The government have no idea how many people are affected by this diabolical attack on people...never mind how/if it actually helps anyone...
[quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?[/p][/quote]It is a perpetual tory policy, regardless of what year, decade or century, to attack the poor and most vulnerable in the country! There doesn't have to be rhythm or reason to it. The government have no idea how many people are affected by this diabolical attack on people...never mind how/if it actually helps anyone... ThisYear
  • Score: -2

4:30pm Thu 27 Feb 14

pembury53 says...

Janefromsouthend wrote:
So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?
it has nothing to do with profiting, the idea of the bedroom tax is that it is not paid at all..... the objective is to remove people from larger, valuable properties mainly in london and dump them in places like westcliff...... and thanks to that policy we now have a crime epidemic the likes of which has never been seen, with much worse to come....
[quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?[/p][/quote]it has nothing to do with profiting, the idea of the bedroom tax is that it is not paid at all..... the objective is to remove people from larger, valuable properties mainly in london and dump them in places like westcliff...... and thanks to that policy we now have a crime epidemic the likes of which has never been seen, with much worse to come.... pembury53
  • Score: 2

4:38pm Thu 27 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

pembury53 wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?
it has nothing to do with profiting, the idea of the bedroom tax is that it is not paid at all..... the objective is to remove people from larger, valuable properties mainly in london and dump them in places like westcliff...... and thanks to that policy we now have a crime epidemic the likes of which has never been seen, with much worse to come....
The council (peoples) property on estates in London must be worth billions!
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?[/p][/quote]it has nothing to do with profiting, the idea of the bedroom tax is that it is not paid at all..... the objective is to remove people from larger, valuable properties mainly in london and dump them in places like westcliff...... and thanks to that policy we now have a crime epidemic the likes of which has never been seen, with much worse to come....[/p][/quote]The council (peoples) property on estates in London must be worth billions! ThisYear
  • Score: 3

4:45pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Janefromsouthend says...

pembury53 wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?
it has nothing to do with profiting, the idea of the bedroom tax is that it is not paid at all..... the objective is to remove people from larger, valuable properties mainly in london and dump them in places like westcliff...... and thanks to that policy we now have a crime epidemic the likes of which has never been seen, with much worse to come....
Not all people that live in council houses are criminals so I don't think you can blame the rise in crime on that. Anyway the houses would have been vacated by previous council tenants . I can t see that moving some one from one house to another would cause them to start committing crime. Just because someone owns their own house doesn't make them a better person.
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?[/p][/quote]it has nothing to do with profiting, the idea of the bedroom tax is that it is not paid at all..... the objective is to remove people from larger, valuable properties mainly in london and dump them in places like westcliff...... and thanks to that policy we now have a crime epidemic the likes of which has never been seen, with much worse to come....[/p][/quote]Not all people that live in council houses are criminals so I don't think you can blame the rise in crime on that. Anyway the houses would have been vacated by previous council tenants . I can t see that moving some one from one house to another would cause them to start committing crime. Just because someone owns their own house doesn't make them a better person. Janefromsouthend
  • Score: 4

10:28pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Nebs says...

Janefromsouthend wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?
it has nothing to do with profiting, the idea of the bedroom tax is that it is not paid at all..... the objective is to remove people from larger, valuable properties mainly in london and dump them in places like westcliff...... and thanks to that policy we now have a crime epidemic the likes of which has never been seen, with much worse to come....
Not all people that live in council houses are criminals so I don't think you can blame the rise in crime on that. Anyway the houses would have been vacated by previous council tenants . I can t see that moving some one from one house to another would cause them to start committing crime. Just because someone owns their own house doesn't make them a better person.
Owning your own home means you have an asset that can be seized in the event of criminal activity.
[quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?[/p][/quote]it has nothing to do with profiting, the idea of the bedroom tax is that it is not paid at all..... the objective is to remove people from larger, valuable properties mainly in london and dump them in places like westcliff...... and thanks to that policy we now have a crime epidemic the likes of which has never been seen, with much worse to come....[/p][/quote]Not all people that live in council houses are criminals so I don't think you can blame the rise in crime on that. Anyway the houses would have been vacated by previous council tenants . I can t see that moving some one from one house to another would cause them to start committing crime. Just because someone owns their own house doesn't make them a better person.[/p][/quote]Owning your own home means you have an asset that can be seized in the event of criminal activity. Nebs
  • Score: -1

12:40pm Fri 28 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Nebs wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
Janefromsouthend wrote:
So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?
it has nothing to do with profiting, the idea of the bedroom tax is that it is not paid at all..... the objective is to remove people from larger, valuable properties mainly in london and dump them in places like westcliff...... and thanks to that policy we now have a crime epidemic the likes of which has never been seen, with much worse to come....
Not all people that live in council houses are criminals so I don't think you can blame the rise in crime on that. Anyway the houses would have been vacated by previous council tenants . I can t see that moving some one from one house to another would cause them to start committing crime. Just because someone owns their own house doesn't make them a better person.
Owning your own home means you have an asset that can be seized in the event of criminal activity.
Surprising the CPS doesn't provide mortgages then!
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Janefromsouthend[/bold] wrote: So how much money will the councils make with this bedroom tax ? From what I can see that is the only reason for having it. If they can't move the tenants they already have into smaller property's and can't reduce the number of families living in over crowded conditions then why have it in the first place unless some one somewhere is profiting from it.?[/p][/quote]it has nothing to do with profiting, the idea of the bedroom tax is that it is not paid at all..... the objective is to remove people from larger, valuable properties mainly in london and dump them in places like westcliff...... and thanks to that policy we now have a crime epidemic the likes of which has never been seen, with much worse to come....[/p][/quote]Not all people that live in council houses are criminals so I don't think you can blame the rise in crime on that. Anyway the houses would have been vacated by previous council tenants . I can t see that moving some one from one house to another would cause them to start committing crime. Just because someone owns their own house doesn't make them a better person.[/p][/quote]Owning your own home means you have an asset that can be seized in the event of criminal activity.[/p][/quote]Surprising the CPS doesn't provide mortgages then! ThisYear
  • Score: -2

3:55pm Fri 28 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Fedup123 wrote:
Personally I think the bedroom tax is fair. I know many that have had a 3 bedroom house, their children have moved out and got married and they are still sat in a 2 bedroom house.

My school friend is a perfect example of a couple in currently in a one bed flat subsidized by me when they earn more than me and could well afford a mortgage... their aim it to buy a house up cheap - this is a one bed home that could have a person that needs it in it and free up a 3 bed elsewhere..

The government need to do two things with welfare:

1) centralised benefits you fill out one form for everything, one department deals with you and you receive "x" amount in vouchers for shops (to ensure you a spending it on nececcities - food, clothes, heating and not gadgets or habits) and the a small cash amount for spends.

2) employ more staff to carry out annual reassesments. The couple I refer to have not been means tested since they were awarded the flat and have since had 3 pay rises. Each you everyone should be reassessed and given 6 months notice should they be deemed able to mortgage. there are two many people my age taking advantage of the system and two many desperate people on the list. it would also put pay to those that sub let.
Perhaps you would like the government to breathe for us too?
[quote][p][bold]Fedup123[/bold] wrote: Personally I think the bedroom tax is fair. I know many that have had a 3 bedroom house, their children have moved out and got married and they are still sat in a 2 bedroom house. My school friend is a perfect example of a couple in currently in a one bed flat subsidized by me when they earn more than me and could well afford a mortgage... their aim it to buy a house up cheap - this is a one bed home that could have a person that needs it in it and free up a 3 bed elsewhere.. The government need to do two things with welfare: 1) centralised benefits you fill out one form for everything, one department deals with you and you receive "x" amount in vouchers for shops (to ensure you a spending it on nececcities - food, clothes, heating and not gadgets or habits) and the a small cash amount for spends. 2) employ more staff to carry out annual reassesments. The couple I refer to have not been means tested since they were awarded the flat and have since had 3 pay rises. Each you everyone should be reassessed and given 6 months notice should they be deemed able to mortgage. there are two many people my age taking advantage of the system and two many desperate people on the list. it would also put pay to those that sub let.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you would like the government to breathe for us too? ThisYear
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree