Granny blames 'bedroom tax' for her suicide | The Sun |News
I am very sorry Stephanie Bottrill committed suicide especially at the age of 53.
But as with the case of the Hoax nurse, the Samaritans say:
The Samaritans said: "Although a catalyst may appear to be obvious, suicide is never the result of a single factor or event and is likely to have several inter-related causes."
Reading this article, she was offered not one but 3 other properties where If she had downsized as requested and the whole point of the Bedroom Tax, she would not have been out of pocket.
I also read that she had two grown children ... where were they during this time ?
It's tragic that she killed herself but to blame the government ???
It's a sad fact that In social housing, people lose sight of the fact that they are tenants. She was rattling around In a 3 bedroom house while young families live In one room In hotels waiting for a house.
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
What is it with your news stories over there loving to use "granny" in their titles? 53 is hardly old.
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Obviously it's a tragic ending to this lady's life and my sympathy goes to her family.
However, I can't see why the so called bedroom tax is seen as unfair. If you own your home and you can't afford to keep it, then you have to sell it and either downsize or move into private rented accommodation. So, if you live in social housing with more bedrooms than you need, it's only fair that you pay for the additional rooms or move to a smaller property.
However, I can't see why the so called bedroom tax is seen as unfair. If you own your home and you can't afford to keep it, then you have to sell it and either downsize or move into private rented accommodation. So, if you live in social housing with more bedrooms than you need, it's only fair that you pay for the additional rooms or move to a smaller property.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
SnoozeAgain;1427005 wrote: What is it with your news stories over there loving to use "granny" in their titles? 53 is hardly old.
First of all she is actually a grandmother. Secondly the bedroom tax is just one of a number of measures this government is bringing in that hit people on middle incomes like this lady but they are also changing the tax system so it effectively taxes pensioners on middle income at a higher rate than hitherto. The opponents call them granny taxes. Bear in mind they are doing this while also reducing tax for the well off, nothing about bankers bonuses and even less about companies that are dodging paying tax despite massive profits.
The bedroom tax is a draconian measure brought in by a party that is mainly responsible for their being a shortage of social housing acerbated by the increasing number of people having to sell up thanks to the economic mess caused by the bankers. As usual they are making ordinary people pay more while the rich pay less. There are many reasons why someone might have a spare bedroom there was no scope given for any kind of appeal or assessment of circumstances the income was just cut.
Granny tax: 'Cuts' to income allowance looms - Telegraph
First of all she is actually a grandmother. Secondly the bedroom tax is just one of a number of measures this government is bringing in that hit people on middle incomes like this lady but they are also changing the tax system so it effectively taxes pensioners on middle income at a higher rate than hitherto. The opponents call them granny taxes. Bear in mind they are doing this while also reducing tax for the well off, nothing about bankers bonuses and even less about companies that are dodging paying tax despite massive profits.
The bedroom tax is a draconian measure brought in by a party that is mainly responsible for their being a shortage of social housing acerbated by the increasing number of people having to sell up thanks to the economic mess caused by the bankers. As usual they are making ordinary people pay more while the rich pay less. There are many reasons why someone might have a spare bedroom there was no scope given for any kind of appeal or assessment of circumstances the income was just cut.
Granny tax: 'Cuts' to income allowance looms - Telegraph
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Women can be grandmothers in their 30s... call me overly sensitive but I don't care for that terminology and the politically correct over here would lose their minds if they tried calling something a 'granny tax.'
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
SnoozeAgain;1427067 wrote: Women can be grandmothers in their 30s... call me overly sensitive but I don't care for that terminology and the politically correct over here would lose their minds if they tried calling something a 'granny tax.' I agree with you. I know a 32 year old Grandmother... It's an Insulting way of reporting. It's because at the word ' Granny' we conjure up an image of an old lady and so the story seems more shocking If It's an old lady suffering.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
gmc;1427065 wrote: First of all she is actually a grandmother. Secondly the bedroom tax is just one of a number of measures this government is bringing in that hit people on middle incomes like this lady but they are also changing the tax system so it effectively taxes pensioners on middle income at a higher rate than hitherto. The opponents call them granny taxes. Bear in mind they are doing this while also reducing tax for the well off, nothing about bankers bonuses and even less about companies that are dodging paying tax despite massive profits.
The bedroom tax is a draconian measure brought in by a party that is mainly responsible for their being a shortage of social housing acerbated by the increasing number of people having to sell up thanks to the economic mess caused by the bankers. As usual they are making ordinary people pay more while the rich pay less. There are many reasons why someone might have a spare bedroom there was no scope given for any kind of appeal or assessment of circumstances the income was just cut.
Granny tax: 'Cuts' to income allowance looms - Telegraph
You'll be bringing out the violins next.
People In social housing are tenants and they lose sight of that.
The woman was not thrown out Into the street, she was offered 3 alternative properties.
What part of ' the country Is full of young families living In unsuitable accomodation and one rooms In B and B's do you not get?
The use of bed and breakfasts to house homeless families beyond the legal time limit has risen by 800% since the coalition took office – with a third of the country's councils unlawfully placing adults and children in B&Bs for more than six weeks, new figures reveal.
An analysis shows that local authorities across England are now spending on average up to £650 a week to keep people off the streets. Freedom of information requests by Labour to 325 councils, to which 242 responded, reveal that 125 had resorted to placing destitute families in hotel rooms for six weeks or more since April 2010. This figure challenges claims by ministers that only a "small number" of town halls put families in bed and breakfast accommodation beyond the legal limit.
Charities and councils say a combination of welfare cuts and lack of affordable housing has led to the almost ninefold increase. The latest figures show 900 adults and children had been housed in B&Bs for a month and a half at a time, often sharing a single room without a kitchen or any meaningful storage space.
Guest houses and hotels are meant to be a short-term solution while families wait for council accommodation, and local authorities are flouting the law when they families stay for more than six weeks. Such decisions are subject to judicial review.
Illegal use of B&Bs to house homeless soars by 800% | Society | The Guardian
The bedroom tax is a draconian measure brought in by a party that is mainly responsible for their being a shortage of social housing acerbated by the increasing number of people having to sell up thanks to the economic mess caused by the bankers. As usual they are making ordinary people pay more while the rich pay less. There are many reasons why someone might have a spare bedroom there was no scope given for any kind of appeal or assessment of circumstances the income was just cut.
Granny tax: 'Cuts' to income allowance looms - Telegraph
You'll be bringing out the violins next.
People In social housing are tenants and they lose sight of that.
The woman was not thrown out Into the street, she was offered 3 alternative properties.
What part of ' the country Is full of young families living In unsuitable accomodation and one rooms In B and B's do you not get?
The use of bed and breakfasts to house homeless families beyond the legal time limit has risen by 800% since the coalition took office – with a third of the country's councils unlawfully placing adults and children in B&Bs for more than six weeks, new figures reveal.
An analysis shows that local authorities across England are now spending on average up to £650 a week to keep people off the streets. Freedom of information requests by Labour to 325 councils, to which 242 responded, reveal that 125 had resorted to placing destitute families in hotel rooms for six weeks or more since April 2010. This figure challenges claims by ministers that only a "small number" of town halls put families in bed and breakfast accommodation beyond the legal limit.
Charities and councils say a combination of welfare cuts and lack of affordable housing has led to the almost ninefold increase. The latest figures show 900 adults and children had been housed in B&Bs for a month and a half at a time, often sharing a single room without a kitchen or any meaningful storage space.
Guest houses and hotels are meant to be a short-term solution while families wait for council accommodation, and local authorities are flouting the law when they families stay for more than six weeks. Such decisions are subject to judicial review.
Illegal use of B&Bs to house homeless soars by 800% | Society | The Guardian
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
So this "granny" was living for free in a three bedroom house and didn't want to move? FREE?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
SnoozeAgain;1427072 wrote: So this "granny" was living for free in a three bedroom house and didn't want to move? FREE? Technically Yes, she was living rent free because the article said she didn't work. If she didn't work, then her subsidised rent would be paid by the benefits system along with her council tax.
She was In a 3 bed Council house alone. The whole point of the Bedroom Tax Is so that people like her downsize to free up family houses like hers for young families and children living In unsuitable accomodation.
She was offered 3 alternative smaller properties but tuned them down so she had to pay the tax of £20 for her two unused bedrooms out of her living expenses.
She was In a 3 bed Council house alone. The whole point of the Bedroom Tax Is so that people like her downsize to free up family houses like hers for young families and children living In unsuitable accomodation.
She was offered 3 alternative smaller properties but tuned them down so she had to pay the tax of £20 for her two unused bedrooms out of her living expenses.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
So she'd basically be paying money BACK to the government agency that gave it to her in the first place, in addition to the free housing. It sounds like none of this is money out of her own pocket. And she was supposedly suicidal because she didn't want to move.
Alrighty then.
Alrighty then.
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
SnoozeAgain;1427074 wrote: So she'd basically be paying money BACK to the government agency that gave it to her in the first place, in addition to the free housing. It sounds like none of this is money out of her own pocket. And she was supposedly suicidal because she didn't want to move.
Alrighty then.
You don't know all the circumstances I suggest you reserve judgement. We have a welfare state and that is something most people in this country support. It's a flawed system but at it's heart the idea that people should not be left homeless, to die or starve to death because of poverty or illness. The american attitude that you are basically on your own and tough **** if you are too poor for medical care or homeless it's basically because you are a failure and not worth bothering about is one we find equally alien.
This is tory politics at it's best. Bread and circuses for the masses pick on people on benefits and immigrants pillory them as wastrels and scroungers and give the puling masses someone to blame for all that is wrong with the country is a great way to distract people from the reality that our political, parties have failed us in a major way over the last thirty or so years. They are clawing back money from those at the bottom end of society because they can't sort those at the top end playing the system or rather don't want to. Many of the MP's voting for this kind of thing have a second house paid for courtesy of the taxpayer and voted themselves a massive pay rise while capping benefits.
MPs demand a 32% pay increase in the week they capped benefits rises at 1% | Mail Online
All in this together? Now MPs demand a 32% pay increase as £65,000 they earn 'is not enough'
Steal a loaf of bread and you go to jail, Fiddle the libor rates and cost the country billions and you get a slap on the wrist the sheer hypocrisy and injustice of it all totally escapes the Oscars of this world. A daily mail and sun reader complaining about sensationalist reporting? next she'll be telling us everything she reads in them is true.
Alrighty then.
You don't know all the circumstances I suggest you reserve judgement. We have a welfare state and that is something most people in this country support. It's a flawed system but at it's heart the idea that people should not be left homeless, to die or starve to death because of poverty or illness. The american attitude that you are basically on your own and tough **** if you are too poor for medical care or homeless it's basically because you are a failure and not worth bothering about is one we find equally alien.
This is tory politics at it's best. Bread and circuses for the masses pick on people on benefits and immigrants pillory them as wastrels and scroungers and give the puling masses someone to blame for all that is wrong with the country is a great way to distract people from the reality that our political, parties have failed us in a major way over the last thirty or so years. They are clawing back money from those at the bottom end of society because they can't sort those at the top end playing the system or rather don't want to. Many of the MP's voting for this kind of thing have a second house paid for courtesy of the taxpayer and voted themselves a massive pay rise while capping benefits.
MPs demand a 32% pay increase in the week they capped benefits rises at 1% | Mail Online
All in this together? Now MPs demand a 32% pay increase as £65,000 they earn 'is not enough'
Steal a loaf of bread and you go to jail, Fiddle the libor rates and cost the country billions and you get a slap on the wrist the sheer hypocrisy and injustice of it all totally escapes the Oscars of this world. A daily mail and sun reader complaining about sensationalist reporting? next she'll be telling us everything she reads in them is true.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
gmc;1427091 wrote: You don't know all the circumstances I suggest you reserve judgement. We have a welfare state and that is something most people in this country support. It's a flawed system but at it's heart the idea that people should not be left homeless, to die or starve to death because of poverty or illness. The american attitude that you are basically on your own and tough **** if you are too poor for medical care or homeless it's basically because you are a failure and not worth bothering about is one we find equally alien.
Exactly and why I don't believe or one minute that finding £20 a week was the sole reason to kill herself.
Exactly and why I don't believe or one minute that finding £20 a week was the sole reason to kill herself.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Originally Posted by gmc
The american attitude that you are basically on your own and tough **** if you are too poor for medical care or homeless it's basically because you are a failure and not worth bothering about is one we find equally alien.
I find it alien too. It's hateful & mean.
The american attitude that you are basically on your own and tough **** if you are too poor for medical care or homeless it's basically because you are a failure and not worth bothering about is one we find equally alien.
I find it alien too. It's hateful & mean.
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Did it seem that I was suggesting that she be thrown out on the street and medical treatments taken from her? From what it sounds like, the woman was completely dependent on welfare and she resented being forced to move from a three bedroom home in which she lived alone. Personally I'd be grateful for a one room apartment if I was unemployed and I'd be overjoyed to have my other expenses paid for as well. You lot sound as though you resent having to downgrade, like you deserve the best even when you're not working for it. That kind of thinking boggles my mind.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
SnoozeAgain;1427173 wrote: Did it seem that I was suggesting that she be thrown out on the street and medical treatments taken from her? From what it sounds like, the woman was completely dependent on welfare and she resented being forced to move from a three bedroom home in which she lived alone. Personally I'd be grateful for a one room apartment if I was unemployed and I'd be overjoyed to have my other expenses paid for as well. You lot sound as though you resent having to downgrade, like you deserve the best even when you're not working for it. That kind of thinking boggles my mind.
It's the ' Sense of entitlement' that this generation has given to them by the previous Labour Government that people like gmc thinks Is right and why they hate the Tory government we have now for ending this culture of ' something for nothing'.
Some people have had It way too easy and now whine and whinge because Cameron has got tough........ tough.
It's the ' Sense of entitlement' that this generation has given to them by the previous Labour Government that people like gmc thinks Is right and why they hate the Tory government we have now for ending this culture of ' something for nothing'.
Some people have had It way too easy and now whine and whinge because Cameron has got tough........ tough.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
AnneBoleyn;1427171 wrote: I find it alien too. It's hateful & mean.
And incorrect, at least in this thread. Nice try though.
And incorrect, at least in this thread. Nice try though.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
SnoozeAgain;1427176 wrote: And incorrect, at least in this thread. Nice try though.
Please explain.
Please explain.
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
oscar;1427174 wrote: It's the ' Sense of entitlement' that this generation has given to them by the previous Labour Government that people like gmc thinks Is right and why they hate the Tory government we have now for ending this culture of ' something for nothing'.
Some people have had It way too easy and now whine and whinge because Cameron has got tough........ tough.
Bollocks. Don't think i need to elaborate there. What really annoys me is people like you who suck up this nonsense and ignore the sense of entitlement being shown by the bankers who still don't think they have done anything wrong ,or by companies that think it acceptable to make billions of profit in this country and pay no tax on it., why not get annoyed about their sense of entitlement? They must be pissing themselves laughing because we let them away with it. All the freedoms, protection from the powerful behaving as they like things like welfare we have because we have taken them them from the ruling classes at the point of a gun or latterly at the ballot box. The legacy of those who fought in ww1 and ww2 and who set up the welfare state, free education etc etc and who just were not going to go back to the way things had been in this country is being destroyed right in front of our eyes and all you can say is yeah maybe they're right we should not have a sense of entitlement and a lot of people play the system. Some do the vast majority do not.
It's the sheer hypocrisy of a government that imposes austerity on a nation and then somehow convinces them it is all their fault cheered on by idiots like you.
Some people have had It way too easy and now whine and whinge because Cameron has got tough........ tough.
Bollocks. Don't think i need to elaborate there. What really annoys me is people like you who suck up this nonsense and ignore the sense of entitlement being shown by the bankers who still don't think they have done anything wrong ,or by companies that think it acceptable to make billions of profit in this country and pay no tax on it., why not get annoyed about their sense of entitlement? They must be pissing themselves laughing because we let them away with it. All the freedoms, protection from the powerful behaving as they like things like welfare we have because we have taken them them from the ruling classes at the point of a gun or latterly at the ballot box. The legacy of those who fought in ww1 and ww2 and who set up the welfare state, free education etc etc and who just were not going to go back to the way things had been in this country is being destroyed right in front of our eyes and all you can say is yeah maybe they're right we should not have a sense of entitlement and a lot of people play the system. Some do the vast majority do not.
It's the sheer hypocrisy of a government that imposes austerity on a nation and then somehow convinces them it is all their fault cheered on by idiots like you.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
gmc;1427226 wrote: Bollocks. Don't think i need to elaborate there. What really annoys me is people like you who suck up this nonsense and ignore the sense of entitlement being shown by the bankers who still don't think they have done anything wrong ,or by companies that think it acceptable to make billions of profit in this country and pay no tax on it., why not get annoyed about their sense of entitlement? They must be pissing themselves laughing because we let them away with it. All the freedoms, protection from the powerful behaving as they like things like welfare we have because we have taken them them from the ruling classes at the point of a gun or latterly at the ballot box. The legacy of those who fought in ww1 and ww2 and who set up the welfare state, free education etc etc and who just were not going to go back to the way things had been in this country is being destroyed right in front of our eyes and all you can say is yeah maybe they're right we should not have a sense of entitlement and a lot of people play the system. Some do the vast majority do not.
It's the sheer hypocrisy of a government that imposes austerity on a nation and then somehow convinces them it is all their fault cheered on by idiots like you.
Bollocks
Is there a remote possibility that you can actually stick to a topic Instead of bringing up the banking Issue over and over again?
Yes we have had a banking scandal but we also have a generation with a sense of entitlement such as the woman In my OP. Just because we have wealthy people In the UK who are not affected by public sector and welfare cuts does not mean asa country, we have to pander to the bone Idle.
You name me one country where a tenant, and that's what she was, a tenant, who has her rent paid by the government along with her taxes Is asked for her house back for people worse off than her and Is offered not one but 3 alternative properties that she has turned down.
Do you understand the effect living In one room In a B and B has on young children or the health Issue's suffered by some children living In unsuitable accomodation with mould and damp while selfish bastards continue to rattle around In family sized homes alone but won't move or downsize because they are too far away from their bingo hall or some other such nonsence?
That has absolutely nothing to do with banking and the banking scandal. The welfare system was Introduced as a safety net not a lifestyle choice which for many In this country, it Is.
I was raised to understand that no job garunteed a job for life, no-one owed you a living and you reaped the rewards of your own work.
Look around the world Instead of keep whining about bankers bonus's. Look at the hardship of other countries and then remember our free education, free higher education, free health service, generous benefits system, affordable social housing etc etc and shut the hell up moaning.
You are quick to put down the Blair/Brown government but It was their government that created the sense of entitlement we see now. But as soon as Cmeron gets tough and says he'll end the culture of something for nothing, idiots like you harp back to that very government who allowed the reckless and workshy to piss all over the tax payer... hence Cameron capping benefits. Forget the bankers.. you tell me how the hell someone ho has never worked a day could receive more In benefits than the average wage?
Now he's got tough, out come the bleeding hearts and the first thing they do Is blame the banks.
So ner
It's the sheer hypocrisy of a government that imposes austerity on a nation and then somehow convinces them it is all their fault cheered on by idiots like you.
Bollocks
Is there a remote possibility that you can actually stick to a topic Instead of bringing up the banking Issue over and over again?
Yes we have had a banking scandal but we also have a generation with a sense of entitlement such as the woman In my OP. Just because we have wealthy people In the UK who are not affected by public sector and welfare cuts does not mean asa country, we have to pander to the bone Idle.
You name me one country where a tenant, and that's what she was, a tenant, who has her rent paid by the government along with her taxes Is asked for her house back for people worse off than her and Is offered not one but 3 alternative properties that she has turned down.
Do you understand the effect living In one room In a B and B has on young children or the health Issue's suffered by some children living In unsuitable accomodation with mould and damp while selfish bastards continue to rattle around In family sized homes alone but won't move or downsize because they are too far away from their bingo hall or some other such nonsence?
That has absolutely nothing to do with banking and the banking scandal. The welfare system was Introduced as a safety net not a lifestyle choice which for many In this country, it Is.
I was raised to understand that no job garunteed a job for life, no-one owed you a living and you reaped the rewards of your own work.
Look around the world Instead of keep whining about bankers bonus's. Look at the hardship of other countries and then remember our free education, free higher education, free health service, generous benefits system, affordable social housing etc etc and shut the hell up moaning.
You are quick to put down the Blair/Brown government but It was their government that created the sense of entitlement we see now. But as soon as Cmeron gets tough and says he'll end the culture of something for nothing, idiots like you harp back to that very government who allowed the reckless and workshy to piss all over the tax payer... hence Cameron capping benefits. Forget the bankers.. you tell me how the hell someone ho has never worked a day could receive more In benefits than the average wage?
Now he's got tough, out come the bleeding hearts and the first thing they do Is blame the banks.
So ner
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Bollocks
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Snowfire;1427238 wrote: Bollocks So you think It's bollocks that someone like Betty Boops children live In unsuitable accomodation paying sky high rent to a private landlord because people like the lady In the OP won't downsize and free up a 3 bed house?
That's why we have a dire shortage of social housing.
That's why we have a dire shortage of social housing.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Just like the word bollocks
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16988
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
theia;1427007 wrote: Obviously it's a tragic ending to this lady's life and my sympathy goes to her family.
However, I can't see why the so called bedroom tax is seen as unfair. If you own your home and you can't afford to keep it, then you have to sell it and either downsize or move into private rented accommodation. So, if you live in social housing with more bedrooms than you need, it's only fair that you pay for the additional rooms or move to a smaller property.
It does seem only fair, yes. However, in the last few weeks I have come across two people 'stuck' in their social housing homes. One is an older lady in a two bed first floor flat who had been looking to swap to a ground floor flat for mobility reasons for quite a while with no luck. In the meantime she was assessed by social services as being unable to climb into her bath so she has had the bath removed and a shower cubicle fitted 18 months ago. At the time the work was carried out she was required to sign a disclaimer that should she leave the property within five years she would have to cover the cost of the changes made.
A friend who has an autistic son is now left in a three bed house since her daughter moved out, she'd been looking to downsize but then suddenly remembered that she'd also signed a disclaimer that she wouldn't move for five years after social services deemed that it wasn't appropriate for her to be helping her 14 year old autistic son in and out of a bath.
Both are stuck, they haven't the money to pay for the work that was done, or to pay for it to be done again if they were to move!
What seems like a good idea on paper isn't going to work for lots of people stuck in this sort of situation. What needs to happen now is they need to let the disclaimers go or not charge these people the bedroom tax at all. They are both happy to move to smaller properties but held back by disability needs.
However, I can't see why the so called bedroom tax is seen as unfair. If you own your home and you can't afford to keep it, then you have to sell it and either downsize or move into private rented accommodation. So, if you live in social housing with more bedrooms than you need, it's only fair that you pay for the additional rooms or move to a smaller property.
It does seem only fair, yes. However, in the last few weeks I have come across two people 'stuck' in their social housing homes. One is an older lady in a two bed first floor flat who had been looking to swap to a ground floor flat for mobility reasons for quite a while with no luck. In the meantime she was assessed by social services as being unable to climb into her bath so she has had the bath removed and a shower cubicle fitted 18 months ago. At the time the work was carried out she was required to sign a disclaimer that should she leave the property within five years she would have to cover the cost of the changes made.
A friend who has an autistic son is now left in a three bed house since her daughter moved out, she'd been looking to downsize but then suddenly remembered that she'd also signed a disclaimer that she wouldn't move for five years after social services deemed that it wasn't appropriate for her to be helping her 14 year old autistic son in and out of a bath.
Both are stuck, they haven't the money to pay for the work that was done, or to pay for it to be done again if they were to move!
What seems like a good idea on paper isn't going to work for lots of people stuck in this sort of situation. What needs to happen now is they need to let the disclaimers go or not charge these people the bedroom tax at all. They are both happy to move to smaller properties but held back by disability needs.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
The bedroom Tax Is In essence fair. However, I will admit that I don't believe some of It was thought through especially regarding the disabled.
Just a thought Betty... If the two people you now who are stuck put It In writing that they are willing to downsize but In order to do this, they need the disclaimer wavered, It's very possible the council will weigh up the options and agree to waver. If the Council do not agree to waver, then citizens advice may be able to force the council or benefit office Into wavering the extra charges until such time that they can move out.... just a thought.
Just a thought Betty... If the two people you now who are stuck put It In writing that they are willing to downsize but In order to do this, they need the disclaimer wavered, It's very possible the council will weigh up the options and agree to waver. If the Council do not agree to waver, then citizens advice may be able to force the council or benefit office Into wavering the extra charges until such time that they can move out.... just a thought.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16988
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Surely the dependency on welfare really began when Thatcher destroyed our industries. But that's a whole other argument.
I was pleased when Cameron stated he had changed things so that it paid to work, another pile of bollocks, its becoming clear that single mothers are still worse off working than if staying at home.
I was pleased when Cameron stated he had changed things so that it paid to work, another pile of bollocks, its becoming clear that single mothers are still worse off working than if staying at home.
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16988
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
oscar;1427244 wrote: The bedroom Tax Is In essence fair. However, I will admit that I don't believe some of It was thought through especially regarding the disabled.
Just a thought Betty... If the two people you now who are stuck put It In writing that they are willing to downsize but In order to do this, they need the disclaimer wavered, It's very possible the council will weigh up the options and agree to waver. If the Council do not agree to waver, then citizens advice may be able to force the council or benefit office Into wavering the extra charges until such time that they can move out.... just a thought.
The mother of the autistic child wrote to our local MP, the out come is that originally she had to pay full bedroom tax of £26, now it's down to £13.
Just a thought Betty... If the two people you now who are stuck put It In writing that they are willing to downsize but In order to do this, they need the disclaimer wavered, It's very possible the council will weigh up the options and agree to waver. If the Council do not agree to waver, then citizens advice may be able to force the council or benefit office Into wavering the extra charges until such time that they can move out.... just a thought.
The mother of the autistic child wrote to our local MP, the out come is that originally she had to pay full bedroom tax of £26, now it's down to £13.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Betty Boop;1427246 wrote: The mother of the autistic child wrote to our local MP, the out come is that originally she had to pay full bedroom tax of £26, now it's down to £13. Oh well, at least that is something and shows councils and the benefit dept Is negotiable,
As for your earlier post.... surely It all started under the government prior to Thatcher, with socialists such as Tony Ben who pandered to the unions and borrowed so much money that the country came uninvestable forcing Thatcher to sell the countries assets In order to promote new growth. ?
But please let's not go down that route...
Or bang on about the bloody bankers or religion.
As for your earlier post.... surely It all started under the government prior to Thatcher, with socialists such as Tony Ben who pandered to the unions and borrowed so much money that the country came uninvestable forcing Thatcher to sell the countries assets In order to promote new growth. ?
But please let's not go down that route...
Or bang on about the bloody bankers or religion.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Betty Boop;1427243 wrote: It does seem only fair, yes. However, in the last few weeks I have come across two people 'stuck' in their social housing homes. One is an older lady in a two bed first floor flat who had been looking to swap to a ground floor flat for mobility reasons for quite a while with no luck. In the meantime she was assessed by social services as being unable to climb into her bath so she has had the bath removed and a shower cubicle fitted 18 months ago. At the time the work was carried out she was required to sign a disclaimer that should she leave the property within five years she would have to cover the cost of the changes made.
A friend who has an autistic son is now left in a three bed house since her daughter moved out, she'd been looking to downsize but then suddenly remembered that she'd also signed a disclaimer that she wouldn't move for five years after social services deemed that it wasn't appropriate for her to be helping her 14 year old autistic son in and out of a bath.
Both are stuck, they haven't the money to pay for the work that was done, or to pay for it to be done again if they were to move!
What seems like a good idea on paper isn't going to work for lots of people stuck in this sort of situation. What needs to happen now is they need to let the disclaimers go or not charge these people the bedroom tax at all. They are both happy to move to smaller properties but held back by disability needs.
No, of course there will always be individual circumstances that require separate consideration. But these exceptions don't warrant what I feel is a reasonable change in social housing tenancies.
A friend who has an autistic son is now left in a three bed house since her daughter moved out, she'd been looking to downsize but then suddenly remembered that she'd also signed a disclaimer that she wouldn't move for five years after social services deemed that it wasn't appropriate for her to be helping her 14 year old autistic son in and out of a bath.
Both are stuck, they haven't the money to pay for the work that was done, or to pay for it to be done again if they were to move!
What seems like a good idea on paper isn't going to work for lots of people stuck in this sort of situation. What needs to happen now is they need to let the disclaimers go or not charge these people the bedroom tax at all. They are both happy to move to smaller properties but held back by disability needs.
No, of course there will always be individual circumstances that require separate consideration. But these exceptions don't warrant what I feel is a reasonable change in social housing tenancies.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16988
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
oscar;1427248 wrote: Oh well, at least that is something and shows councils and the benefit dept Is negotiable,
As for your earlier post.... surely It all started under the government prior to Thatcher, with socialists such as Tony Ben who pandered to the unions and borrowed so much money that the country came uninvestable forcing Thatcher to sell the countries assets In order to promote new growth. ?
But please let's not go down that route...
Or bang on about the bloody bankers or religion.
Ah... religion
Did you ever get to the spiritualist church?
As for your earlier post.... surely It all started under the government prior to Thatcher, with socialists such as Tony Ben who pandered to the unions and borrowed so much money that the country came uninvestable forcing Thatcher to sell the countries assets In order to promote new growth. ?
But please let's not go down that route...
Or bang on about the bloody bankers or religion.
Ah... religion
Did you ever get to the spiritualist church?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Betty Boop;1427250 wrote: Ah... religion
Did you ever get to the spiritualist church? Not as such... Yet... I was Invited to a Christian Spiritualist church In the centre of Bristol as a meet and greet type thing and we went for the free food. However, I am looking forward to my first Spiritualist meeting there next month.
Did you ever get to the spiritualist church? Not as such... Yet... I was Invited to a Christian Spiritualist church In the centre of Bristol as a meet and greet type thing and we went for the free food. However, I am looking forward to my first Spiritualist meeting there next month.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16988
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
theia;1427249 wrote: No, of course there will always be individual circumstances that require separate consideration. But these exceptions don't warrant what I feel is a reasonable change in social housing tenancies.
It is reasonable, I'd be happy to see single elderly people moved out of three bed houses that they are clinging on to because they raised their family there but refuse to acknowledge the fact they can't cope with the size of the place anymore. Glad my Mum is already in a one bed flat in the centre of town now she is getting less able.
Think the idea was thought up without the realization of how many people are tied into these disclaimers, there is only a discretionary allowance on the bedroom tax governed by each individual council on a first come first served basis.
It is reasonable, I'd be happy to see single elderly people moved out of three bed houses that they are clinging on to because they raised their family there but refuse to acknowledge the fact they can't cope with the size of the place anymore. Glad my Mum is already in a one bed flat in the centre of town now she is getting less able.
Think the idea was thought up without the realization of how many people are tied into these disclaimers, there is only a discretionary allowance on the bedroom tax governed by each individual council on a first come first served basis.
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Betty Boop;1427253 wrote: It is reasonable, I'd be happy to see single elderly people moved out of three bed houses that they are clinging on to because they raised their family there but refuse to acknowledge the fact they can't cope with the size of the place anymore. Glad my Mum is already in a one bed flat in the centre of town now she is getting less able.
Think the idea was thought up without the realization of how many people are tied into these disclaimers, there is only a discretionary allowance on the bedroom tax governed by each individual council on a first come first served basis.
As a single older person I'm hoping to work for as long as my health allows because I don't relish the idea of having to accept help from the state. But, if that time comes, I'll be one of the people who won't be able to claim full housing benefit as I have a second bedroom...and that too will be fair
Think the idea was thought up without the realization of how many people are tied into these disclaimers, there is only a discretionary allowance on the bedroom tax governed by each individual council on a first come first served basis.
As a single older person I'm hoping to work for as long as my health allows because I don't relish the idea of having to accept help from the state. But, if that time comes, I'll be one of the people who won't be able to claim full housing benefit as I have a second bedroom...and that too will be fair
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
oscar;1427252 wrote: I am looking forward to my first Spiritualist meeting there next month.
See if you can have a word with Maggie....................ask her what she thinks about the present bunch.
See if you can have a word with Maggie....................ask her what she thinks about the present bunch.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16988
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
theia;1427254 wrote: As a single older person I'm hoping to work for as long as my health allows because I don't relish the idea of having to accept help from the state. But, if that time comes, I'll be one of the people who won't be able to claim full housing benefit as I have a second bedroom...and that too will be fair
You're in private rent, the bedroom tax won't apply but the private let housing benefit side has been limited for a few years now. You will be granted the 'allowance' for one person which will be the maximum they will pay regardless of how many rooms you have. The bedroom tax has in actual fact made it fairer given that those in private rent have had the amount of housing benefit allowed capped for a while now.
I just hope that this tax manages to do what it is intended to do, free up housing for families in need.
You're in private rent, the bedroom tax won't apply but the private let housing benefit side has been limited for a few years now. You will be granted the 'allowance' for one person which will be the maximum they will pay regardless of how many rooms you have. The bedroom tax has in actual fact made it fairer given that those in private rent have had the amount of housing benefit allowed capped for a while now.
I just hope that this tax manages to do what it is intended to do, free up housing for families in need.
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Revealed: Devastating impact of 'bedroom tax' sees huge leap in demand for emergency hardship handouts for tenants - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
The extent of the suffering inflicted by the “bedroom tax can be revealed for the first time today as figures show a 338 per cent leap in the number of people applying for emergency handouts in the month since it was imposed.
You're in private rent, the bedroom tax won't apply but the private let housing benefit side has been limited for a few years now. You will be granted the 'allowance' for one person which will be the maximum they will pay regardless of how many rooms you have. The bedroom tax has in actual fact made it fairer given that those in private rent have had the amount of housing benefit allowed capped for a while now.
I just hope that this tax manages to do what it is intended to do, free up housing for families in need.
In theory they have a point about single people sitting in three bedroom houses What it is more likely to do is render people homeless as they find themselves unable to pay their bills or rent. At least in the old days they would have been homeless or put in the workhouse to the Victorians, the poor were deserving or undeserving some to be helped, most to be condemned. This was the principle behind the workhouse - conditions had to be so appalling that the poor would put themselves through any indignity rather than seek assistance from the state. Having left us with no industry it seems we are all to be forced in to jobs in the service sector and show due gratitude for any handouts we receive meanwhile the private sector is somehow going to create jobs or all those who have lost their jobs or seen their livelihoods destroyed by an economic crisis not of their making. Fascism doesn't work we need a proper capitalist high wage economy not the perversion we currently have where a few earn ridiculous amounts for doing very little.
The extent of the suffering inflicted by the “bedroom tax can be revealed for the first time today as figures show a 338 per cent leap in the number of people applying for emergency handouts in the month since it was imposed.
You're in private rent, the bedroom tax won't apply but the private let housing benefit side has been limited for a few years now. You will be granted the 'allowance' for one person which will be the maximum they will pay regardless of how many rooms you have. The bedroom tax has in actual fact made it fairer given that those in private rent have had the amount of housing benefit allowed capped for a while now.
I just hope that this tax manages to do what it is intended to do, free up housing for families in need.
In theory they have a point about single people sitting in three bedroom houses What it is more likely to do is render people homeless as they find themselves unable to pay their bills or rent. At least in the old days they would have been homeless or put in the workhouse to the Victorians, the poor were deserving or undeserving some to be helped, most to be condemned. This was the principle behind the workhouse - conditions had to be so appalling that the poor would put themselves through any indignity rather than seek assistance from the state. Having left us with no industry it seems we are all to be forced in to jobs in the service sector and show due gratitude for any handouts we receive meanwhile the private sector is somehow going to create jobs or all those who have lost their jobs or seen their livelihoods destroyed by an economic crisis not of their making. Fascism doesn't work we need a proper capitalist high wage economy not the perversion we currently have where a few earn ridiculous amounts for doing very little.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
gmc;1427481 wrote: Revealed: Devastating impact of 'bedroom tax' sees huge leap in demand for emergency hardship handouts for tenants - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
In theory they have a point about single people sitting in three bedroom houses What it is more likely to do is render people homeless as they find themselves unable to pay their bills or rent. At least in the old days they would have been homeless or put in the workhouse to the Victorians, the poor were deserving or undeserving some to be helped, most to be condemned. This was the principle behind the workhouse - conditions had to be so appalling that the poor would put themselves through any indignity rather than seek assistance from the state. Having left us with no industry it seems we are all to be forced in to jobs in the service sector and show due gratitude for any handouts we receive meanwhile the private sector is somehow going to create jobs or all those who have lost their jobs or seen their livelihoods destroyed by an economic crisis not of their making. Fascism doesn't work we need a proper capitalist high wage economy not the perversion we currently have where a few earn ridiculous amounts for doing very little.
Read the article In the OP. The woman was offered 3 choices of house to downsize and she refused.
Some councils are sending out leaflets about a scheme based on swopping and on top of that councils are helping with moving costs.
No one Is being made homeless. That is scare mongering. Councils will offer a choice of 3 properties. If they refuse to accept them and refuse to move so that some family living In one room can have a family home, then tough, pay the tax.
There are families all over the country In Bed and Breakfast costing the benefit system millions where If the families had an affordable family home then they would be able to pay the rent themselves and lessen the burden on the tax payer and the state.
And so what If we have a few people earning ridiculous amounts for doing very little?What's that got to do with this topic? Oh don't tell me... Bankers again.
Those people no doubt put themselves through Uni and worked their way up the system. Why the hell should they be paid less? They pay more ta than the rest of us which then In part goes to pay for selfish bastards rattling around In 3 bed houses depriving young children of a family home.
In theory they have a point about single people sitting in three bedroom houses What it is more likely to do is render people homeless as they find themselves unable to pay their bills or rent. At least in the old days they would have been homeless or put in the workhouse to the Victorians, the poor were deserving or undeserving some to be helped, most to be condemned. This was the principle behind the workhouse - conditions had to be so appalling that the poor would put themselves through any indignity rather than seek assistance from the state. Having left us with no industry it seems we are all to be forced in to jobs in the service sector and show due gratitude for any handouts we receive meanwhile the private sector is somehow going to create jobs or all those who have lost their jobs or seen their livelihoods destroyed by an economic crisis not of their making. Fascism doesn't work we need a proper capitalist high wage economy not the perversion we currently have where a few earn ridiculous amounts for doing very little.
Read the article In the OP. The woman was offered 3 choices of house to downsize and she refused.
Some councils are sending out leaflets about a scheme based on swopping and on top of that councils are helping with moving costs.
No one Is being made homeless. That is scare mongering. Councils will offer a choice of 3 properties. If they refuse to accept them and refuse to move so that some family living In one room can have a family home, then tough, pay the tax.
There are families all over the country In Bed and Breakfast costing the benefit system millions where If the families had an affordable family home then they would be able to pay the rent themselves and lessen the burden on the tax payer and the state.
And so what If we have a few people earning ridiculous amounts for doing very little?What's that got to do with this topic? Oh don't tell me... Bankers again.
Those people no doubt put themselves through Uni and worked their way up the system. Why the hell should they be paid less? They pay more ta than the rest of us which then In part goes to pay for selfish bastards rattling around In 3 bed houses depriving young children of a family home.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
oscar;1427482 wrote: Read the article In the OP. The woman was offered 3 choices of house to downsize and she refused.
Some councils are sending out leaflets about a scheme based on swopping and on top of that councils are helping with moving costs.
No one Is being made homeless. That is scare mongering. Councils will offer a choice of 3 properties. If they refuse to accept them and refuse to move so that some family living In one room can have a family home, then tough, pay the tax.
There are families all over the country In Bed and Breakfast costing the benefit system millions where If the families had an affordable family home then they would be able to pay the rent themselves and lessen the burden on the tax payer and the state.
And so what If we have a few people earning ridiculous amounts for doing very little?What's that got to do with this topic? Oh don't tell me... Bankers again.
Those people no doubt put themselves through Uni and worked their way up the system. Why the hell should they be paid less? They pay more ta than the rest of us which then In part goes to pay for selfish bastards rattling around In 3 bed houses depriving young children of a family home.
I was generalising. It is not as simple that there are loads of selfish bastards in three bedroom houses that should be kicked out. Do you really think a banker is worth more than a teacher or a nurse? Those bankers - like gordon brown and many other of our politicians, probably went to university paid for by the state. Now fwer people will have the opportunity for further education because of the ending of university fees being paid. Over rthe last thirty years the gulf between rich and poor has grown in this country in large opart because iof the way our economy has been run, destroying the very industry which helped create britian as a financial centre in the first place. Those bankers get paid massive n=bonuses for moving wealth around noty for creating it. They are also in large part responsible for the collapse of the financial system and quite frankly are overpaid for doing a job that is just not that difficult.
Some councils are sending out leaflets about a scheme based on swopping and on top of that councils are helping with moving costs.
No one Is being made homeless. That is scare mongering. Councils will offer a choice of 3 properties. If they refuse to accept them and refuse to move so that some family living In one room can have a family home, then tough, pay the tax.
There are families all over the country In Bed and Breakfast costing the benefit system millions where If the families had an affordable family home then they would be able to pay the rent themselves and lessen the burden on the tax payer and the state.
And so what If we have a few people earning ridiculous amounts for doing very little?What's that got to do with this topic? Oh don't tell me... Bankers again.
Those people no doubt put themselves through Uni and worked their way up the system. Why the hell should they be paid less? They pay more ta than the rest of us which then In part goes to pay for selfish bastards rattling around In 3 bed houses depriving young children of a family home.
I was generalising. It is not as simple that there are loads of selfish bastards in three bedroom houses that should be kicked out. Do you really think a banker is worth more than a teacher or a nurse? Those bankers - like gordon brown and many other of our politicians, probably went to university paid for by the state. Now fwer people will have the opportunity for further education because of the ending of university fees being paid. Over rthe last thirty years the gulf between rich and poor has grown in this country in large opart because iof the way our economy has been run, destroying the very industry which helped create britian as a financial centre in the first place. Those bankers get paid massive n=bonuses for moving wealth around noty for creating it. They are also in large part responsible for the collapse of the financial system and quite frankly are overpaid for doing a job that is just not that difficult.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
gmc;1427506 wrote: I was generalising. It is not as simple that there are loads of selfish bastards in three bedroom houses that should be kicked out. Do you really think a banker is worth more than a teacher or a nurse? Those bankers - like gordon brown and many other of our politicians, probably went to university paid for by the state. Now fwer people will have the opportunity for further education because of the ending of university fees being paid. Over rthe last thirty years the gulf between rich and poor has grown in this country in large opart because iof the way our economy has been run, destroying the very industry which helped create britian as a financial centre in the first place. Those bankers get paid massive n=bonuses for moving wealth around noty for creating it. They are also in large part responsible for the collapse of the financial system and quite frankly are overpaid for doing a job that is just not that difficult.
The banking crisis has nothing at all to do with the sense of entitlement given by the previous Labour Government.
The banking crisis has nothing at all to do with the sense of entitlement given by the previous Labour Government.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
oscar;1427512 wrote: The banking crisis has nothing at all to do with the sense of entitlement given by the previous Labour Government.
There's a real bee in your bonnet about this. You've been reading the daily mail too much. Some people play the system and have been long term unemployed from choice the vast majority do not. This measure is resulting in real hardship for some people not just this sad individual who committed suicide - and I doubt very much if the reasom was the bedroom tax. On the other hand can I presume you agree with the other points I am making.
Why do you not object to the sense of entitlement that bankers feel to large bonuses when their companies are actually bankrupt and have needed to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Why do you not object to the sense of entitlement that MP's feel when they fiddle their expenses or the likes of Blair who has made himself a millionaire when he should be on trial for changing evidence to persuade the nation to go to war? How about the sense of entitlement the likes of google and amazon have as they avoid paying tax in the UK and elsewhere. You ignore that but complain about the fiddling of welfare scroungers when it is nothing in comparison.
You're a mug being taken in by the propaganda of a right wing press that is diverting attention away from the real problems ion this country. You know there are regular protests all over Europe about austerity measures, ever see mention of them in our mainstream press? We do;t hav a capitalist economy any more it's a fascist one I suppose that pleases you. Osbourne even had the cheek to suggest now is a good time to remove employment rights and offer employees meaningless shares in the company they work for. Apart from anything else most people work for firms with less than 50 employees not big corporations, the man hasn't a clue.
There's a real bee in your bonnet about this. You've been reading the daily mail too much. Some people play the system and have been long term unemployed from choice the vast majority do not. This measure is resulting in real hardship for some people not just this sad individual who committed suicide - and I doubt very much if the reasom was the bedroom tax. On the other hand can I presume you agree with the other points I am making.
Why do you not object to the sense of entitlement that bankers feel to large bonuses when their companies are actually bankrupt and have needed to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Why do you not object to the sense of entitlement that MP's feel when they fiddle their expenses or the likes of Blair who has made himself a millionaire when he should be on trial for changing evidence to persuade the nation to go to war? How about the sense of entitlement the likes of google and amazon have as they avoid paying tax in the UK and elsewhere. You ignore that but complain about the fiddling of welfare scroungers when it is nothing in comparison.
You're a mug being taken in by the propaganda of a right wing press that is diverting attention away from the real problems ion this country. You know there are regular protests all over Europe about austerity measures, ever see mention of them in our mainstream press? We do;t hav a capitalist economy any more it's a fascist one I suppose that pleases you. Osbourne even had the cheek to suggest now is a good time to remove employment rights and offer employees meaningless shares in the company they work for. Apart from anything else most people work for firms with less than 50 employees not big corporations, the man hasn't a clue.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
gmc;1427523 wrote: There's a real bee in your bonnet about this. You've been reading the daily mail too much. Some people play the system and have been long term unemployed from choice the vast majority do not. This measure is resulting in real hardship for some people not just this sad individual who committed suicide - and I doubt very much if the reasom was the bedroom tax. On the other hand can I presume you agree with the other points I am making.
Why do you not object to the sense of entitlement that bankers feel to large bonuses when their companies are actually bankrupt and have needed to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Why do you not object to the sense of entitlement that MP's feel when they fiddle their expenses or the likes of Blair who has made himself a millionaire when he should be on trial for changing evidence to persuade the nation to go to war? How about the sense of entitlement the likes of google and amazon have as they avoid paying tax in the UK and elsewhere. You ignore that but complain about the fiddling of welfare scroungers when it is nothing in comparison.
You're a mug being taken in by the propaganda of a right wing press that is diverting attention away from the real problems ion this country. You know there are regular protests all over Europe about austerity measures, ever see mention of them in our mainstream press? We do;t hav a capitalist economy any more it's a fascist one I suppose that pleases you. Osbourne even had the cheek to suggest now is a good time to remove employment rights and offer employees meaningless shares in the company they work for. Apart from anything else most people work for firms with less than 50 employees not big corporations, the man hasn't a clue.
I understand why you are pissed at bankers but you are bordering obsessive.
It's like me condeming all teenagers as yobs because I had a run In once with a group of yobs.
If a Plumber Is a convicted rapist, not all plumbers are rapists.
I really believe you fail to see the wider picture that has nothing to do with right wing propaganda.
If you have a country paying out more In benefit that you are receiving Income Tax, like any account, you are going to go Into the red.
We have In the last three decades gone from benefit being a safety net for the genuine needy to a lifestyle choice and sooner or later, the government had to get tough and Introduce welfare cuts.
If you have a country, as we did before the recent caps on welfare. where benefit paid more than the average weekly wage, that Is what leads to strikes and discontent, not someone whining because they have to downsize.
You need to get out more.
Why do you not object to the sense of entitlement that bankers feel to large bonuses when their companies are actually bankrupt and have needed to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Why do you not object to the sense of entitlement that MP's feel when they fiddle their expenses or the likes of Blair who has made himself a millionaire when he should be on trial for changing evidence to persuade the nation to go to war? How about the sense of entitlement the likes of google and amazon have as they avoid paying tax in the UK and elsewhere. You ignore that but complain about the fiddling of welfare scroungers when it is nothing in comparison.
You're a mug being taken in by the propaganda of a right wing press that is diverting attention away from the real problems ion this country. You know there are regular protests all over Europe about austerity measures, ever see mention of them in our mainstream press? We do;t hav a capitalist economy any more it's a fascist one I suppose that pleases you. Osbourne even had the cheek to suggest now is a good time to remove employment rights and offer employees meaningless shares in the company they work for. Apart from anything else most people work for firms with less than 50 employees not big corporations, the man hasn't a clue.
I understand why you are pissed at bankers but you are bordering obsessive.
It's like me condeming all teenagers as yobs because I had a run In once with a group of yobs.
If a Plumber Is a convicted rapist, not all plumbers are rapists.
I really believe you fail to see the wider picture that has nothing to do with right wing propaganda.
If you have a country paying out more In benefit that you are receiving Income Tax, like any account, you are going to go Into the red.
We have In the last three decades gone from benefit being a safety net for the genuine needy to a lifestyle choice and sooner or later, the government had to get tough and Introduce welfare cuts.
If you have a country, as we did before the recent caps on welfare. where benefit paid more than the average weekly wage, that Is what leads to strikes and discontent, not someone whining because they have to downsize.
You need to get out more.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
oscar;1427567 wrote: I understand why you are pissed at bankers but you are bordering obsessive.
It's like me condeming all teenagers as yobs because I had a run In once with a group of yobs.
If a Plumber Is a convicted rapist, not all plumbers are rapists.
I really believe you fail to see the wider picture that has nothing to do with right wing propaganda.
If you have a country paying out more In benefit that you are receiving Income Tax, like any account, you are going to go Into the red.
We have In the last three decades gone from benefit being a safety net for the genuine needy to a lifestyle choice and sooner or later, the government had to get tough and Introduce welfare cuts.
If you have a country, as we did before the recent caps on welfare. where benefit paid more than the average weekly wage, that Is what leads to strikes and discontent, not someone whining because they have to downsize.
You need to get out more.
I would agree the benefit sustem was in need of reform - in large part due to labour and in particular gordon brown and his obsession with means testing - something that was anathema to old time socialists.
If you have a country paying out more In benefit that you are receiving Income Tax, like any account, you are going to go Into the red.
Wouldn't it be nice if they actually collected all the tax they are due. Small businesses get hounded by HMRC over paltry amounts while big companies get tea and biscuits and gratitude they pay anything at all.
It's like me condeming all teenagers as yobs because I had a run In once with a group of yobs.
If a Plumber Is a convicted rapist, not all plumbers are rapists.
I really believe you fail to see the wider picture that has nothing to do with right wing propaganda.
If you have a country paying out more In benefit that you are receiving Income Tax, like any account, you are going to go Into the red.
We have In the last three decades gone from benefit being a safety net for the genuine needy to a lifestyle choice and sooner or later, the government had to get tough and Introduce welfare cuts.
If you have a country, as we did before the recent caps on welfare. where benefit paid more than the average weekly wage, that Is what leads to strikes and discontent, not someone whining because they have to downsize.
You need to get out more.
I would agree the benefit sustem was in need of reform - in large part due to labour and in particular gordon brown and his obsession with means testing - something that was anathema to old time socialists.
If you have a country paying out more In benefit that you are receiving Income Tax, like any account, you are going to go Into the red.
Wouldn't it be nice if they actually collected all the tax they are due. Small businesses get hounded by HMRC over paltry amounts while big companies get tea and biscuits and gratitude they pay anything at all.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
gmc;1427580 wrote: I would agree the benefit sustem was in need of reform - in large part due to labour and in particular gordon brown and his obsession with means testing - something that was anathema to old time socialists.
Wouldn't it be nice if they actually collected all the tax they are due. Small businesses get hounded by HMRC over paltry amounts while big companies get tea and biscuits and gratitude they pay anything at all. Loopholes In the tax system need to be addressed I agree but I am not In favour of taxing the rich to the hilt. All we do Is drive them oversea's and their money Into offshore accounts and foreign banks.
The Government won't get tough with the likes of Starbucks for fear of driving their Investment out of the UK and Into Europe. I think Cameron is between a rock and a hard place there.
The benefit system has needed reform for years. A very sense of discontentment Is felt by tax payers on an average weekly wage when they see people who have never worked get more In benefits. That should never have been allowed to happen but now Cameron has capped It, the only real whiners are the one's who have never worked because they are borne of a generation that makes them believe they are entitled to something for nothing.
There again, I stand by my prediction two years ago that we will see a Labour Landslide In the net general In 2015. All the reforms will be abolished,
Wouldn't it be nice if they actually collected all the tax they are due. Small businesses get hounded by HMRC over paltry amounts while big companies get tea and biscuits and gratitude they pay anything at all. Loopholes In the tax system need to be addressed I agree but I am not In favour of taxing the rich to the hilt. All we do Is drive them oversea's and their money Into offshore accounts and foreign banks.
The Government won't get tough with the likes of Starbucks for fear of driving their Investment out of the UK and Into Europe. I think Cameron is between a rock and a hard place there.
The benefit system has needed reform for years. A very sense of discontentment Is felt by tax payers on an average weekly wage when they see people who have never worked get more In benefits. That should never have been allowed to happen but now Cameron has capped It, the only real whiners are the one's who have never worked because they are borne of a generation that makes them believe they are entitled to something for nothing.
There again, I stand by my prediction two years ago that we will see a Labour Landslide In the net general In 2015. All the reforms will be abolished,
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
oscar;1427586 wrote: Loopholes In the tax system need to be addressed I agree but I am not In favour of taxing the rich to the hilt. All we do Is drive them oversea's and their money Into offshore accounts and foreign banks.
The Government won't get tough with the likes of Starbucks for fear of driving their Investment out of the UK and Into Europe. I think Cameron is between a rock and a hard place there.
The benefit system has needed reform for years. A very sense of discontentment Is felt by tax payers on an average weekly wage when they see people who have never worked get more In benefits. That should never have been allowed to happen but now Cameron has capped It, the only real whiners are the one's who have never worked because they are borne of a generation that makes them believe they are entitled to something for nothing.
There again, I stand by my prediction two years ago that we will see a Labour Landslide In the net general In 2015. All the reforms will be abolished,
So basically you have bought in to the myth that we need not to tax the rich so they spend their money here, the other myth that they can't do anything about Starbucks and the like but it's OK to go after the business system because the people involved are powerless and people want to give the scroungers a good kicking.
The Government won't get tough with the likes of Starbucks for fear of driving their Investment out of the UK and Into Europe. I think Cameron is between a rock and a hard place there.
The benefit system has needed reform for years. A very sense of discontentment Is felt by tax payers on an average weekly wage when they see people who have never worked get more In benefits. That should never have been allowed to happen but now Cameron has capped It, the only real whiners are the one's who have never worked because they are borne of a generation that makes them believe they are entitled to something for nothing.
There again, I stand by my prediction two years ago that we will see a Labour Landslide In the net general In 2015. All the reforms will be abolished,
So basically you have bought in to the myth that we need not to tax the rich so they spend their money here, the other myth that they can't do anything about Starbucks and the like but it's OK to go after the business system because the people involved are powerless and people want to give the scroungers a good kicking.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
gmc;1427716 wrote: So basically you have bought in to the myth that we need not to tax the rich so they spend their money here, the other myth that they can't do anything about Starbucks and the like but it's OK to go after the business system because the people involved are powerless and people want to give the scroungers a good kicking.
Where have I said that?
Read my post.
I have said the government are In fear of addressing the likes of starbucks for fear of driving them oversea's. I didn't say they should get away with It.
But No, I am not In favour of over taxing the rich. Why should we? Give me one good reason why they should pay more.
You will always have the Inherited rich but why should the likes of Lord Sugar who starting off selling car ariels out of the boot of his car In the Old kent road be taxed over and above others? Why should the likes of Mick Jagger who happened to have a talent be driven over-sea's because of ludicrous taxes?
You need to get out more.
Where have I said that?
Read my post.
I have said the government are In fear of addressing the likes of starbucks for fear of driving them oversea's. I didn't say they should get away with It.
But No, I am not In favour of over taxing the rich. Why should we? Give me one good reason why they should pay more.
You will always have the Inherited rich but why should the likes of Lord Sugar who starting off selling car ariels out of the boot of his car In the Old kent road be taxed over and above others? Why should the likes of Mick Jagger who happened to have a talent be driven over-sea's because of ludicrous taxes?
You need to get out more.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
Posted by iscar
Where have I said that?
Read my post.
but I am not In favour of taxing the rich to the hilt. All we do Is drive them oversea's and their money Into offshore accounts and foreign banks.
I have said the government are In fear of addressing the likes of starbucks for fear of driving them oversea's. I didn't say they should get away with It.
If they wanted to they could sort them out in no time. Don't pay tax any right to trade in the UK ends. The tax amazon pays is roughly equivalent to what they were given as an incentive to open up here. The UK is too lucrative a market to lose. Amazon are in danger of becoming a de facto monopoly getting some competition in would not be too hard.
You will always have the Inherited rich but why should the likes of Lord Sugar who starting off selling car ariels out of the boot of his car In the Old kent road be taxed over and above others? Why should the likes of Mick Jagger who happened to have a talent be driven over-sea's because of ludicrous taxes?
Don't tell me you have also fallen for the flat rate tax as being fairer argument?
Where have I said that?
Read my post.
but I am not In favour of taxing the rich to the hilt. All we do Is drive them oversea's and their money Into offshore accounts and foreign banks.
I have said the government are In fear of addressing the likes of starbucks for fear of driving them oversea's. I didn't say they should get away with It.
If they wanted to they could sort them out in no time. Don't pay tax any right to trade in the UK ends. The tax amazon pays is roughly equivalent to what they were given as an incentive to open up here. The UK is too lucrative a market to lose. Amazon are in danger of becoming a de facto monopoly getting some competition in would not be too hard.
You will always have the Inherited rich but why should the likes of Lord Sugar who starting off selling car ariels out of the boot of his car In the Old kent road be taxed over and above others? Why should the likes of Mick Jagger who happened to have a talent be driven over-sea's because of ludicrous taxes?
Don't tell me you have also fallen for the flat rate tax as being fairer argument?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sensationalist reporting at It's worst...
gmc;1427809 wrote: Posted by iscar
If they wanted to they could sort them out in no time. Don't pay tax any right to trade in the UK ends. The tax amazon pays is roughly equivalent to what they were given as an incentive to open up here. The UK is too lucrative a market to lose. Amazon are in danger of becoming a de facto monopoly getting some competition in would not be too hard.
Don't tell me you have also fallen for the flat rate tax as being fairer argument?
It's not a case of a fairer argument but what is best for the country.
There Is something very nasty about some British people who see success and resent It, wanting them taxed to the hilt. They don't have the fore-sight to realise that In many cases, all we do Is drive them over-sea's and their money into off shore accounts.
If someone starts a business at 18 years old as my brother did with no help from banks or lending outlets, works 80 hours a week to make that business grow so one shop becomes two, then three etc etc over a period of 15 years sacrificing family life and a social life, you tell me why the hell he should pay more tax than someone employed In a 30 hour a week job?
If they wanted to they could sort them out in no time. Don't pay tax any right to trade in the UK ends. The tax amazon pays is roughly equivalent to what they were given as an incentive to open up here. The UK is too lucrative a market to lose. Amazon are in danger of becoming a de facto monopoly getting some competition in would not be too hard.
Don't tell me you have also fallen for the flat rate tax as being fairer argument?
It's not a case of a fairer argument but what is best for the country.
There Is something very nasty about some British people who see success and resent It, wanting them taxed to the hilt. They don't have the fore-sight to realise that In many cases, all we do Is drive them over-sea's and their money into off shore accounts.
If someone starts a business at 18 years old as my brother did with no help from banks or lending outlets, works 80 hours a week to make that business grow so one shop becomes two, then three etc etc over a period of 15 years sacrificing family life and a social life, you tell me why the hell he should pay more tax than someone employed In a 30 hour a week job?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon