Fears foster care will be hit by bedroom tax (From Swindon Advertiser)

Surely the room that would be used for a fostered child would be deemed empty if they did not foster. So how are they any worse off? They'd be paying it anyway.

Other than that it does seem like a bit of an oversight in the bedroom tax legislation.

The family placement team will hold an event at the Lyndhurst Centre in Park North today from 6pm to 7.30pm, to find people to help make up the shortfall of foster carers. It is estimated that nationally an extra 9,000 foster carers must be found.


Typical Adver efficiency, posting the information 30 mins after the event finished.
Isn't the idea of an "Ad" to publicise an event before it happens

This bedroom tax is a joke anda bad one at that. I have found out that the council will pay more £123 a month more for me to move from my very small 2 bed bungalow to a private rent 1 bed. That is crazy.I also think all the MPs who voted for this should be big enough to tell us how much they claim per month for there seconed home.And how many bedrooms it is.Its not that long ago the adver told us one of our MPs was claiming £2000 per month for his seconed home .That would cover my rent for 6 months

I'm surprised with the current attitudes towards the lower classes that families in social housing are even allowed to foster!

nigelej wrote:
This bedroom tax is a joke anda bad one at that. I have found out that the council will pay more £123 a month more for me to move from my very small 2 bed bungalow to a private rent 1 bed. That is crazy.I also think all the MPs who voted for this should be big enough to tell us how much they claim per month for there seconed home.And how many bedrooms it is.Its not that long ago the adver told us one of our MPs was claiming £2000 per month for his seconed home .That would cover my rent for 6 months

I think this bedroom tax is a good idea in principle, if people feel so strongly about staying in a house (which most get at knock down prices) then they shouldn't mind having to pay a fee for a spare room. I rent privately and have a spare room but if I needed to save a few quid i would happily move to somewhere smaller.

Localboy86 wrote:

nigelej wrote:
This bedroom tax is a joke anda bad one at that. I have found out that the council will pay more £123 a month more for me to move from my very small 2 bed bungalow to a private rent 1 bed. That is crazy.I also think all the MPs who voted for this should be big enough to tell us how much they claim per month for there seconed home.And how many bedrooms it is.Its not that long ago the adver told us one of our MPs was claiming £2000 per month for his seconed home .That would cover my rent for 6 months

I think this bedroom tax is a good idea in principle, if people feel so strongly about staying in a house (which most get at knock down prices) then they shouldn't mind having to pay a fee for a spare room. I rent privately and have a spare room but if I needed to save a few quid i would happily move to somewhere smaller.

Local boy
That is a fair comment what you say .However there seams to be no logic to what they are doing. I have pointed out that I can go and get private property and they will pay more .Now anyone can fall on hard times and need help.My block of 4 bungalows would easily fit into any other property in my village they are very small.Its been adapted to my needs.How ever my O/T told us its not big enough for me to move my wheelchair around .But we like it so much I get around it .We have all ready down sized from a 3 bed. And I'm not moving again until its to kings down road. It's funny no one picks up my point about our MPs second homes .

Because your point of about second homes has nothing to do with it, yes we could save a few quid clamping down on it, not the millions we need to. What I think your missing is that, yes the council may have to pay more for you, but they will be saving more as the family they are currantly having to pay to live in a 3/4 privetly rented place could move into your house. Don't see why you will only move to kingsdown road, if you were renting privetly and couldn't afford a place on kingsdown rd, what would you do then?

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Surely the room that would be used for a fostered child would be deemed empty if they did not foster. So how are they any worse off? They'd be paying it anyway.

Other than that it does seem like a bit of an oversight in the bedroom tax legislation.

Exactly. If they have a spare bedroom, they'll be losing money in any case.

If they take on a foster child, the £500-£600 per month salary they'll receive will more than cover the £12 a month they'll lose under the bedroom tax.

So, if anything, the bedroom tax is actually MORE of an incentive for those with bigger houses than they actually need to foster children.

Nigelj ther is a bigger picture here. It may cost more to move you but there will also be a saving for moving a family into yours so overall there should be a saving which is the whole point of this. Sometimes sadly we dont look at the bigger picture, just at indivdual situations which are not representative of the whole.

Agree with Local boy, not sure why people who are subsidised by the state feel they should have a right to extra rooms, there are thousands who pay their own way who would love another bedroom, I know I would. This is about basic economics and making the limited money available help as many people as possible and this is the first step. The next one is to move out those who no longer need subsidised housing and wouldnt qualify for it if they applied today, they are blocking thousands of homes that familes who have a real "need" are unable to access it. Ok you cant blame someone who gets back on their feet to want to stay in cheap subsidised accommodation, but we can no longer afford for them to do so whether we want to or not.

The welfare state including social housing must be based on need and not want for it to survive. The money is no longer there so we really have no option.

house on the hill wrote:
Nigelj ther is a bigger picture here. It may cost more to move you but there will also be a saving for moving a family into yours so overall there should be a saving which is the whole point of this. Sometimes sadly we dont look at the bigger picture, just at indivdual situations which are not representative of the whole.

Agree with Local boy, not sure why people who are subsidised by the state feel they should have a right to extra rooms, there are thousands who pay their own way who would love another bedroom, I know I would. This is about basic economics and making the limited money available help as many people as possible and this is the first step. The next one is to move out those who no longer need subsidised housing and wouldnt qualify for it if they applied today, they are blocking thousands of homes that familes who have a real "need" are unable to access it. Ok you cant blame someone who gets back on their feet to want to stay in cheap subsidised accommodation, but we can no longer afford for them to do so whether we want to or not.

The welfare state including social housing must be based on need and not want for it to survive. The money is no longer there so we really have no option.

Clear rational thinking, you sure you should be posting on here HOTH?

house on the hill wrote:
Nigelj ther is a bigger picture here. It may cost more to move you but there will also be a saving for moving a family into yours so overall there should be a saving which is the whole point of this. Sometimes sadly we dont look at the bigger picture, just at indivdual situations which are not representative of the whole.

Agree with Local boy, not sure why people who are subsidised by the state feel they should have a right to extra rooms, there are thousands who pay their own way who would love another bedroom, I know I would. This is about basic economics and making the limited money available help as many people as possible and this is the first step. The next one is to move out those who no longer need subsidised housing and wouldnt qualify for it if they applied today, they are blocking thousands of homes that familes who have a real "need" are unable to access it. Ok you cant blame someone who gets back on their feet to want to stay in cheap subsidised accommodation, but we can no longer afford for them to do so whether we want to or not.

The welfare state including social housing must be based on need and not want for it to survive. The money is no longer there so we really have no option.

Absolutely agree. There is no justifiable reason why the taxpayer should be paying for people to live in houses with spare bedrooms.

With any luck, it may also act as a psychological influence on disuading people from having additional children that they have no means of supporting.

house on the hill wrote:
Nigelj ther is a bigger picture here. It may cost more to move you but there will also be a saving for moving a family into yours so overall there should be a saving which is the whole point of this. Sometimes sadly we dont look at the bigger picture, just at indivdual situations which are not representative of the whole.

Agree with Local boy, not sure why people who are subsidised by the state feel they should have a right to extra rooms, there are thousands who pay their own way who would love another bedroom, I know I would. This is about basic economics and making the limited money available help as many people as possible and this is the first step. The next one is to move out those who no longer need subsidised housing and wouldnt qualify for it if they applied today, they are blocking thousands of homes that familes who have a real "need" are unable to access it. Ok you cant blame someone who gets back on their feet to want to stay in cheap subsidised accommodation, but we can no longer afford for them to do so whether we want to or not.

The welfare state including social housing must be based on need and not want for it to survive. The money is no longer there so we really have no option.

I'm certainly not missing any points .And I don't just feel for myself I know many disabled people who are not only being kicked out of there homes but are losing there benefits . We over the 6 years of living here have invested lots to make this a nice home not only indoors but the garden too. Last year my sons paid over £600 for a fish pond to be put in so I had something to enjoy.Before I fell ILL ihad my own property and my own business . And I had worked from the age of 14 .Local boy my reference to kings down road was infact my last resting place the crematurian.Also the second home for MPs is very important because these are the people who have voted for this yet are happy to take what they do. The biggest problem is this government have gone out of there way to put a divide in this country between those who work and those that do .They have most people believing we get £26000 per year that is complete rubbish and from previous letters I have said we don't even get half of that and I'm more than happy to prove .Maybe some of you should look at a council bungalow and the size of it .I think you would be shocked

SAM2WIN wrote:
The family placement team will hold an event at the Lyndhurst Centre in Park North today from 6pm to 7.30pm, to find people to help make up the shortfall of foster carers. It is estimated that nationally an extra 9,000 foster carers must be found.


Typical Adver efficiency, posting the information 30 mins after the event finished.
Isn't the idea of an "Ad" to publicise an event before it happens

Sam2win, I think the article will be in todays paper, so the event is tonight. Im slightly confused about the article - foster carers are employed, they get paid for having the children, and therefore shouldnt be able to claim housing benefit?

nigelej wrote:

house on the hill wrote:
Nigelj ther is a bigger picture here. It may cost more to move you but there will also be a saving for moving a family into yours so overall there should be a saving which is the whole point of this. Sometimes sadly we dont look at the bigger picture, just at indivdual situations which are not representative of the whole.

Agree with Local boy, not sure why people who are subsidised by the state feel they should have a right to extra rooms, there are thousands who pay their own way who would love another bedroom, I know I would. This is about basic economics and making the limited money available help as many people as possible and this is the first step. The next one is to move out those who no longer need subsidised housing and wouldnt qualify for it if they applied today, they are blocking thousands of homes that familes who have a real "need" are unable to access it. Ok you cant blame someone who gets back on their feet to want to stay in cheap subsidised accommodation, but we can no longer afford for them to do so whether we want to or not.

The welfare state including social housing must be based on need and not want for it to survive. The money is no longer there so we really have no option.

I'm certainly not missing any points .And I don't just feel for myself I know many disabled people who are not only being kicked out of there homes but are losing there benefits . We over the 6 years of living here have invested lots to make this a nice home not only indoors but the garden too. Last year my sons paid over £600 for a fish pond to be put in so I had something to enjoy.Before I fell ILL ihad my own property and my own business . And I had worked from the age of 14 .Local boy my reference to kings down road was infact my last resting place the crematurian.Also the second home for MPs is very important because these are the people who have voted for this yet are happy to take what they do. The biggest problem is this government have gone out of there way to put a divide in this country between those who work and those that do .They have most people believing we get £26000 per year that is complete rubbish and from previous letters I have said we don't even get half of that and I'm more than happy to prove .Maybe some of you should look at a council bungalow and the size of it .I think you would be shocked

Sorry, that bit about the kingsdown crem clearly Went straight over my head. You are not being kicked out of your house, it is not yours, plus you can stay there (for a small fee) or be moved at no cost to yourself, you have nothing to moan about it is completely reasonable, would u rather I pay more tax to avoid this minor inconvenience? Also the fishpond is a silly argument, if anything it should encourage u to pay the fee for having a spare room as u also get to keep your nice garden / pond. I'm sure your son will help, using your logic from earlier, £600 for the pond would cover the spare room fee for nearly a year

nigelej wrote:

house on the hill wrote:
Nigelj ther is a bigger picture here. It may cost more to move you but there will also be a saving for moving a family into yours so overall there should be a saving which is the whole point of this. Sometimes sadly we dont look at the bigger picture, just at indivdual situations which are not representative of the whole.

Agree with Local boy, not sure why people who are subsidised by the state feel they should have a right to extra rooms, there are thousands who pay their own way who would love another bedroom, I know I would. This is about basic economics and making the limited money available help as many people as possible and this is the first step. The next one is to move out those who no longer need subsidised housing and wouldnt qualify for it if they applied today, they are blocking thousands of homes that familes who have a real "need" are unable to access it. Ok you cant blame someone who gets back on their feet to want to stay in cheap subsidised accommodation, but we can no longer afford for them to do so whether we want to or not.

The welfare state including social housing must be based on need and not want for it to survive. The money is no longer there so we really have no option.

I'm certainly not missing any points .And I don't just feel for myself I know many disabled people who are not only being kicked out of there homes but are losing there benefits . We over the 6 years of living here have invested lots to make this a nice home not only indoors but the garden too. Last year my sons paid over £600 for a fish pond to be put in so I had something to enjoy.Before I fell ILL ihad my own property and my own business . And I had worked from the age of 14 .Local boy my reference to kings down road was infact my last resting place the crematurian.Also the second home for MPs is very important because these are the people who have voted for this yet are happy to take what they do. The biggest problem is this government have gone out of there way to put a divide in this country between those who work and those that do .They have most people believing we get £26000 per year that is complete rubbish and from previous letters I have said we don't even get half of that and I'm more than happy to prove .Maybe some of you should look at a council bungalow and the size of it .I think you would be shocked

I've been in plenty of different council houses, on various estates and in various towns and cities.

One of the immediately noticeable things about them is that their room sizes and, especially, gardens tend to be larger than private housing, especially new builds.

There are actually very specific reasons for this.

Tim Newroman wrote:

house on the hill wrote:
Nigelj ther is a bigger picture here. It may cost more to move you but there will also be a saving for moving a family into yours so overall there should be a saving which is the whole point of this. Sometimes sadly we dont look at the bigger picture, just at indivdual situations which are not representative of the whole.

Agree with Local boy, not sure why people who are subsidised by the state feel they should have a right to extra rooms, there are thousands who pay their own way who would love another bedroom, I know I would. This is about basic economics and making the limited money available help as many people as possible and this is the first step. The next one is to move out those who no longer need subsidised housing and wouldnt qualify for it if they applied today, they are blocking thousands of homes that familes who have a real "need" are unable to access it. Ok you cant blame someone who gets back on their feet to want to stay in cheap subsidised accommodation, but we can no longer afford for them to do so whether we want to or not.

The welfare state including social housing must be based on need and not want for it to survive. The money is no longer there so we really have no option.

Absolutely agree. There is no justifiable reason why the taxpayer should be paying for people to live in houses with spare bedrooms.

With any luck, it may also act as a psychological influence on disuading people from having additional children that they have no means of supporting.

A lot of people who will be affected by this are taxpayers. So how is that fair then. Also if it so right to be doing this why have they not done the same to pensioners .They probably under occupy most of social housing.But that would be a political land mine for them .So it's all so worth pointing out most bungalows you have to be over 60 or severely disabled to get one so they would not be able to move family's into them.Also under the housing act any room that is smaller than 60 square feet is not a bedroom but a box room . So can not be counted has a bedroom.

@nigelej: pensioners have usually paid for the house they're living in, so why should anyone request that they move to smaller property?

People who are having their housing paid for by the taxpayer should not expect everyone else to fund them having a spare room simply because they like the extra space.

As others have pointed out, people who are not on benefits can only afford the number of rooms their income allows, nobody steps in and gives them extra money to buy a bigger house simply because they like the idea of more rooms.

60sq feet is a big room. Ask the majority of people in a new build private house how many of their bedrooms are 5.5m sq!

A serious question: why do you think people who have their housing paid for by housing benefit should be allowed to also have spare rooms at no cost to them? It makes NO sense.

Tim Newroman wrote:

nigelej wrote:

house on the hill wrote:
Nigelj ther is a bigger picture here. It may cost more to move you but there will also be a saving for moving a family into yours so overall there should be a saving which is the whole point of this. Sometimes sadly we dont look at the bigger picture, just at indivdual situations which are not representative of the whole.

Agree with Local boy, not sure why people who are subsidised by the state feel they should have a right to extra rooms, there are thousands who pay their own way who would love another bedroom, I know I would. This is about basic economics and making the limited money available help as many people as possible and this is the first step. The next one is to move out those who no longer need subsidised housing and wouldnt qualify for it if they applied today, they are blocking thousands of homes that familes who have a real "need" are unable to access it. Ok you cant blame someone who gets back on their feet to want to stay in cheap subsidised accommodation, but we can no longer afford for them to do so whether we want to or not.

The welfare state including social housing must be based on need and not want for it to survive. The money is no longer there so we really have no option.

I'm certainly not missing any points .And I don't just feel for myself I know many disabled people who are not only being kicked out of there homes but are losing there benefits . We over the 6 years of living here have invested lots to make this a nice home not only indoors but the garden too. Last year my sons paid over £600 for a fish pond to be put in so I had something to enjoy.Before I fell ILL ihad my own property and my own business . And I had worked from the age of 14 .Local boy my reference to kings down road was infact my last resting place the crematurian.Also the second home for MPs is very important because these are the people who have voted for this yet are happy to take what they do. The biggest problem is this government have gone out of there way to put a divide in this country between those who work and those that do .They have most people believing we get £26000 per year that is complete rubbish and from previous letters I have said we don't even get half of that and I'm more than happy to prove .Maybe some of you should look at a council bungalow and the size of it .I think you would be shocked

I've been in plenty of different council houses, on various estates and in various towns and cities.

One of the immediately noticeable things about them is that their room sizes and, especially, gardens tend to be larger than private housing, especially new builds.

There are actually very specific reasons for this.

TimNewman
You are more than welcome to come to my bungalow and see for yourself the size .I do agree there are big houses I was brought up in one . But the bungalows are extremely small the offer is there .also Localboy says my argument about what we have done in our house is silly well the council have spent about £10000 on our bungalow so I can live a normal life .So if they moved me it would not be Cost affected And for those that say pay a little extra to stay obviously arnt aware of what we have to live on £14 per week isn't a lot if your on about £20,000 but when you half of that its a lot .IDont have sky ,mobile phones and any real luxuries . Just my lovely wife .Who gets £58.50 per week to look after me and that is 24/7 every week she does not get a holiday. It's worth remembering careers save the tax payers a fortune . And get very little thanks for it. Oh we'll they do because they have to move too.

@ Tim

Why have you been to so many council houses all over the country?

I personally have only been to council houses in Swindon and london. The ones in Swindon were much bigger, in fact my friends parents bungalow (his mum is disabled) has a lovely big bungalow with a nice garden and separate garage , bets he has no issues paying a small fee to have a spare room, although she may be an oap now so avoids all this.

@nigelej: I do agree that carers save the taxpayer a lot of money, in one sense.

That said, wouldn't your wife be there and looking after you regardless of the £60 a week? That is around £250 per month - which is a lot more disposable income than many people who work have available at the end of the month.

Housing benefit (ie, rent paid), £250 carer's allowance plus the benefits you're entitled to (which I guess must total around £300 per month?), reduction in council tax?

Not suggesting for one minute that you're well off, but I know people who work 45 hour weeks and, when their rent, council tax and utility bills are paid have around £30 a week left to buy food, clothes and everything else. Nobody helps them or pays for them to have a spare room.

I think one thing I notice is that most people who are happy with this are home buyers .Someone made the point that I don't own my home so I should have no rights .Let me say now no one owns there home until the last penny is paid on it. I was buying my own home and then out of the blue I had a major stoke followed by 4 heart attacks Then to be told my heart was diseased so badly nothing else could be done for me so I will die very young. However that's not the point the point is because we had no help I was made bankrupt and lost everything I had worked extremely hard for. I didn't know what was round the corner .And it's worth pointing out none of do so we need to careful what we wish for.

How about the people who are overcrowded and have several people sharing a bedroom - does this mean there will be reductions in tax for those who actually have the opposite problem of too many people in a bedroom?

nigelej wrote:
I think one thing I notice is that most people who are happy with this are home buyers .Someone made the point that I don't own my home so I should have no rights .Let me say now no one owns there home until the last penny is paid on it. I was buying my own home and then out of the blue I had a major stoke followed by 4 heart attacks Then to be told my heart was diseased so badly nothing else could be done for me so I will die very young. However that's not the point the point is because we had no help I was made bankrupt and lost everything I had worked extremely hard for. I didn't know what was round the corner .And it's worth pointing out none of do so we need to careful what we wish for.

Anyone who suggests you should have 'no rights' is to be ignored. Just like everyone else, you have the right to be housed and provided for.

You said yourself that the taxpayer spent £10,000 on you to make your home liveable. It'll be tricky for you to persuade people to believe you've not been given fair dues by the taxpayer.

nigelej wrote:
I think one thing I notice is that most people who are happy with this are home buyers .Someone made the point that I don't own my home so I should have no rights .Let me say now no one owns there home until the last penny is paid on it. I was buying my own home and then out of the blue I had a major stoke followed by 4 heart attacks Then to be told my heart was diseased so badly nothing else could be done for me so I will die very young. However that's not the point the point is because we had no help I was made bankrupt and lost everything I had worked extremely hard for. I didn't know what was round the corner .And it's worth pointing out none of do so we need to careful what we wish for.

@ Nigel. You have clearly made up your mind about not moving, you now have to pay for that choice by way of a spare room fee. I hope everything works out for you and your wife,in the meantime, have a nice day,enjoy the sunshine, won't be round for long

I agree, not everyone abuses the social housing situation and therefore do not deserve to be labelled in a detrimental way. Some people for various reasons find themselves unable to be house owners anymore which comes as a big shock and upset. Everyone has a right to a quality of life whether social or privately housed. I think the people who do not look after and respect their houses and surrounding areas should be targeted no matter whether they are house owners or tennants.

Tim Newroman wrote:
@nigelej: I do agree that carers save the taxpayer a lot of money, in one sense.

That said, wouldn't your wife be there and looking after you regardless of the £60 a week? That is around £250 per month - which is a lot more disposable income than many people who work have available at the end of the month.

Housing benefit (ie, rent paid), £250 carer's allowance plus the benefits you're entitled to (which I guess must total around £300 per month?), reduction in council tax?

Not suggesting for one minute that you're well off, but I know people who work 45 hour weeks and, when their rent, council tax and utility bills are paid have around £30 a week left to buy food, clothes and everything else. Nobody helps them or pays for them to have a spare room.

Tim I can assure you I am not well off infact every week is a struggle . Also people on low incomes do get help with rent and council tax and tax credits so they are working and very hard for poor salary and yet they still may have to move or pay more. What about all the rich pensioners who get the winter weather payment some are millionaires is that right. Earlier you asked me a serous question why should we be able to have a spare room.Yet the tax payer pays for it .I will answer that one from a personnel point of view.. Prior to falling poorly I worked 16 hours a day 6 days a week and people who know me will know that is true. I was earning a good living. And I paid my fair share off tax . My dad worked all his life and died at the age of 63 .So he never got to get anything back that he paid .And there a lot of people who that as happened to . I know I want reach pension age so surely I'm I allowed to see my life out in the home that I have been in with my wife without all this worry . You come across a good guy so I'm sure you can see on some people this is harsh.If you we're referring to those that have never worked and don't want to I couldn't agree more with you. Because there is no need for that .Im very proud to say my 3 boys have all ways worked and never claimed a penny.

Tim Newroman wrote:

nigelej wrote:
I think one thing I notice is that most people who are happy with this are home buyers .Someone made the point that I don't own my home so I should have no rights .Let me say now no one owns there home until the last penny is paid on it. I was buying my own home and then out of the blue I had a major stoke followed by 4 heart attacks Then to be told my heart was diseased so badly nothing else could be done for me so I will die very young. However that's not the point the point is because we had no help I was made bankrupt and lost everything I had worked extremely hard for. I didn't know what was round the corner .And it's worth pointing out none of do so we need to careful what we wish for.

Anyone who suggests you should have 'no rights' is to be ignored. Just like everyone else, you have the right to be housed and provided for.

You said yourself that the taxpayer spent £10,000 on you to make your home liveable. It'll be tricky for you to persuade people to believe you've not been given fair dues by the taxpayer.

The point I was making there was because of my health if I moved it would cost them again to make the new home liveable Also TIm that cost was that because the council had to re do 2 of the jobs because they weren't done properly in the first place not my fault. We will never all agree with things but its nice to be able to debate without people getting abusive which I often see on here. So thank you or for that. I've enjoyed the debate and wish you all a good and happy life .Oane more point TIm my wife did also work well bringing her children up she was an nurse at the hospital .

@nigelej: nobody I know who earns more than £18kpa receives a single penny in housing benefit or other benefit (unless they have children, of course). A friend of mine at the moment earns £19kpa, after expenses involved with actually holding down the job, rent, council tax and utilities, he's left with around £250 per month for everything else.

That's the same your wife gets for living in the same house as you.

I think we're sort of making the same point here - things are difficult for all sorts of people and very few people ever have it 'easy' (despite what some may think). We all have problems and we all have obstacles.

But, in the scheme of things, being told you're not allowed a spare, empty bedroom at the expense of everyone else isn't what most would consider 'harsh'.

Localboy86 wrote:
@ Tim

Why have you been to so many council houses all over the country?

I personally have only been to council houses in Swindon and london. The ones in Swindon were much bigger, in fact my friends parents bungalow (his mum is disabled) has a lovely big bungalow with a nice garden and separate garage , bets he has no issues paying a small fee to have a spare room, although she may be an oap now so avoids all this.

@Localboy86: I have friends and relatives who live outside of Swindon.

Not everyone in Swindon starts their lives at Junction 15 and ends them at Junction 16.

One of my ex-girlfriend's family lived in a council house on the worst estate in Slough. Trust me, it makes Penhill look like paradise.

The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

The spare room tax is a good start, next we need to start implementing some of the other ideas on here like cutting winter fuel allowance for the rich and MP expenses. We need to make as many cuts as possible, we can not afford to keep wasting money.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

It is not a 'tax on the poorest', at all.

It is a 'tax' on those who are having empty spare rooms provided for them at the taxpayer's expense.

Tim Newroman wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

It is not a 'tax on the poorest', at all.

It is a 'tax' on those who are having empty spare rooms provided for them at the taxpayer's expense.

Don't you think millionaires in luxury Mansions paying the same council tax as joe bloggs are not living at the taxpayer expense?

Millionaires in luxury mansions don't pay the same as 'joe bloggs'.

As you well know, council tax is levied on property based on a banding rating.

A mansion - unless it's a ruin - will almost certainly be charged at the highest rate, which is far more than the average householder will pay.

And, let's not forget, somebody who owns a 'mansion' will also be paying way more income tax, NI and VAT than other people.

For somebody who claims to have a basic grasp of economics, you appear not to realise who it is that is actually keeping this country from absolute bankruptcy.

Hint: it's not 'joe bloggs'.

Tim Newroman wrote:
Millionaires in luxury mansions don't pay the same as 'joe bloggs'.

As you well know, council tax is levied on property based on a banding rating.

A mansion - unless it's a ruin - will almost certainly be charged at the highest rate, which is far more than the average householder will pay.

And, let's not forget, somebody who owns a 'mansion' will also be paying way more income tax, NI and VAT than other people.

For somebody who claims to have a basic grasp of economics, you appear not to realise who it is that is actually keeping this country from absolute bankruptcy.

Hint: it's not 'joe bloggs'.

In principle, this would be true, unfortunately in reality these wealthy and influential millionaires pay less taxes than their gardener.....
What I oppose here, is the bashing the poor exercise whilst giving the ones with the broader shoulders massive tax incentives.
I would be happier to accept the idea of a bedroom tax, if there was on the other end of the spectrum a Mansion tax.
I know exactly who is keeping this country afloat, it is us! the millions of people in Britain spending billions of pounds every single day to buy food, clothes, insurances, cars, houses etc.....
The combined spending of the millions of Britons is vastly superior to the combined spending of the minority of super wealthy in this country.
It is us, that keep this country afloat, there is no doubt about the veracity of this fact.

Tim Newroman wrote:
@nigelej: nobody I know who earns more than £18kpa receives a single penny in housing benefit or other benefit (unless they have children, of course). A friend of mine at the moment earns £19kpa, after expenses involved with actually holding down the job, rent, council tax and utilities, he's left with around £250 per month for everything else.

That's the same your wife gets for living in the same house as you.

I think we're sort of making the same point here - things are difficult for all sorts of people and very few people ever have it 'easy' (despite what some may think). We all have problems and we all have obstacles.

But, in the scheme of things, being told you're not allowed a spare, empty bedroom at the expense of everyone else isn't what most would consider 'harsh'.

TIm once again I see where you are coming from.my 3 boys all have good jobs but can not afford a deposit for a house. So they all rent private.So I know it's not easy .But if we were all honest we should not have people earning such little.I was earning£25,000 per year 20 years ago . So why don't we pay more and the benefits will come down. It is sad because the government can sort out those that are able to work who don't very easily . They have a computer system they can look at that would give them the data required.You must remember some disabled people have a wheelchair electric scooter etc. where are they going to store them outside.I have openly offered you or any others who think its fair come and look at ours then tell us it's to big. I also would have more respect for the government if they led from the front they don't.And my wife gets £58.50 per week .However they take £26 of that away from her because we live on the minimum the laws says we have to live on so it is topped up with income support. How many people do you know would work 24/7 for that.I think you have to be in our position to understand the harsh ness of this .I will pay the extra but to do so I will have to let my life insurance go and because I had to wait until I was 50 to get it No medical required.I have paid a fair sum into that but will lose all .

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:
Millionaires in luxury mansions don't pay the same as 'joe bloggs'.

As you well know, council tax is levied on property based on a banding rating.

A mansion - unless it's a ruin - will almost certainly be charged at the highest rate, which is far more than the average householder will pay.

And, let's not forget, somebody who owns a 'mansion' will also be paying way more income tax, NI and VAT than other people.

For somebody who claims to have a basic grasp of economics, you appear not to realise who it is that is actually keeping this country from absolute bankruptcy.

Hint: it's not 'joe bloggs'.

In principle, this would be true, unfortunately in reality these wealthy and influential millionaires pay less taxes than their gardener.....
What I oppose here, is the bashing the poor exercise whilst giving the ones with the broader shoulders massive tax incentives.
I would be happier to accept the idea of a bedroom tax, if there was on the other end of the spectrum a Mansion tax.
I know exactly who is keeping this country afloat, it is us! the millions of people in Britain spending billions of pounds every single day to buy food, clothes, insurances, cars, houses etc.....
The combined spending of the millions of Britons is vastly superior to the combined spending of the minority of super wealthy in this country.
It is us, that keep this country afloat, there is no doubt about the veracity of this fact.

You are absolutely and wholly incorrect. You seem to simply be repeating the false mantra of The Mirror and Labour Party HQ.

'The poor' are NOT being bashed, they are simply being told that they can't have empty spare rooms for free anymore - and why should they have ever had them?

You are also entirely wrong about who pays the taxes in the UK.

A little reality check for you, all figures from the government's own HMRC:

The top 1% of the highest earning UK taxpayers account for 27% of the UK’s total income tax take.

The top 5% account for 45% of the UK’s total income tax take and that the top 25% account for 72% of the total.

Therefore, the majority of people - 75% of us - only contribute 28% of all the tax revenue.

You won't admit it, you never do, but your views, beliefs and statements are demonstrably and verifiably WRONG.

That can only lead people to conclude that you have a hidden agenda and are deliberately trying to mislead people. Why?

It's interesting to see how many people will jump when this government brings in a tax for private owners who have spare bed rooms.They were talking about this last week in parliament .So if someone who is buying there home are made redundant or falls sick .They can claim help with there mortgage should they have to move to cheaper accommodation or take in a lodger.Its worth remembering no one owns there home until its paid for so we all have the same rights up until then .when we downside to our small bungalow we sighed a contract I've stuck to mine and the council and government must stick to the one they gave me.Can someone please tell me what is a spare room .We have a small kitchen, A small living room . So should we have a small bedroom spare that all you would get into it would be a single bed or should I be able to have a table and chair to eat my food properly.

Localboy86 wrote:

nigelej wrote:
This bedroom tax is a joke anda bad one at that. I have found out that the council will pay more £123 a month more for me to move from my very small 2 bed bungalow to a private rent 1 bed. That is crazy.I also think all the MPs who voted for this should be big enough to tell us how much they claim per month for there seconed home.And how many bedrooms it is.Its not that long ago the adver told us one of our MPs was claiming £2000 per month for his seconed home .That would cover my rent for 6 months

I think this bedroom tax is a good idea in principle, if people feel so strongly about staying in a house (which most get at knock down prices) then they shouldn't mind having to pay a fee for a spare room. I rent privately and have a spare room but if I needed to save a few quid i would happily move to somewhere smaller.

Where do you get your figures from about knock down prises .our rent is £86 per week for an extremely small home .I don't think that's knock down

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Hmmm, still churning out your left wing propaganda I see. Now, what party was it that was so keen on propaganda? Oh, yes, the nazis.
Of course, if labour hadn't flooded this country with immigrants, there would be a lot more available housing around than there is now. When the tidal wave from Eastern Europe arrives next year, the problems will be far worse.
Not that you will ever see a problem of course, because you are totally blind to what's already happened and what is still to come.

nigelej wrote:

Localboy86 wrote:

nigelej wrote:
This bedroom tax is a joke anda bad one at that. I have found out that the council will pay more £123 a month more for me to move from my very small 2 bed bungalow to a private rent 1 bed. That is crazy.I also think all the MPs who voted for this should be big enough to tell us how much they claim per month for there seconed home.And how many bedrooms it is.Its not that long ago the adver told us one of our MPs was claiming £2000 per month for his seconed home .That would cover my rent for 6 months

I think this bedroom tax is a good idea in principle, if people feel so strongly about staying in a house (which most get at knock down prices) then they shouldn't mind having to pay a fee for a spare room. I rent privately and have a spare room but if I needed to save a few quid i would happily move to somewhere smaller.

Where do you get your figures from about knock down prises .our rent is £86 per week for an extremely small home .I don't think that's knock down

£86 a week is ridiculously cheap compared to renting privately / mortgage.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

nigelej wrote:

Localboy86 wrote:

nigelej wrote:
This bedroom tax is a joke anda bad one at that. I have found out that the council will pay more £123 a month more for me to move from my very small 2 bed bungalow to a private rent 1 bed. That is crazy.I also think all the MPs who voted for this should be big enough to tell us how much they claim per month for there seconed home.And how many bedrooms it is.Its not that long ago the adver told us one of our MPs was claiming £2000 per month for his seconed home .That would cover my rent for 6 months

I think this bedroom tax is a good idea in principle, if people feel so strongly about staying in a house (which most get at knock down prices) then they shouldn't mind having to pay a fee for a spare room. I rent privately and have a spare room but if I needed to save a few quid i would happily move to somewhere smaller.

Where do you get your figures from about knock down prises .our rent is £86 per week for an extremely small home .I don't think that's knock down

One of the reasons that rent is higher than it would otherwise be is because the taxpayer is paying it for you. That's part of the overall problem, relating to overpriced rent and sale prices for property, in this country.

Having said that, as a comparison, £86 per week would only get you around a £100,000 mortgage these days - which means you could barely buy anything in Swindon.

"nigelej says...
1:37pm Tue 5 Mar 13

It's interesting to see how many people will jump when this government brings in a tax for private owners who have spare bed rooms"""

I am sorry but this is getting stupid now (if it hadnt already). Home owners are the legal owners of the property, tenants are not. If you want subsidised housing then you will have different "rights" to those who own their houses and rightly so.

The main problem is the expectations of those in the taxpayer funded welfare state. Firstly you are lucky we have a welfare state, in most countries in the world, even the so called civilised world, you would be living in a carboard box and starving to death, but fortunately we treat people better than China or India etc.

Secondly, it isnt a bottomless pit. There is only so much money to spend on it so it has to be used in the way to help the most people. Sadly this means hardships for some but overall, more people should be better off and looked after.

Thirdly, how many people who worked all their lives on reasonbale incomes chose to spend their money on "now" rather than putting money away for retirement or buying thrir own house. The average person spends £50 a week on "luxuries", drinking, smoking, going out, mobiles, sky etc etc, so that is £100 for couple. £400 a month (which is the average dont forget so many have more than that) would provide a reasonable pension if started early enough or whoud soon build to enough for a deposit on a house, so life really is about choices and what you spend your money on.

Yes there are people who find themsleves in need through no fault of their own, but the vast majority could do more to help themsleves they just choose not to. We need to be more responsible for ourselves and stop expecting other to pick up the pieces for our bad choices.

Tim Newroman wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:
Millionaires in luxury mansions don't pay the same as 'joe bloggs'.

As you well know, council tax is levied on property based on a banding rating.

A mansion - unless it's a ruin - will almost certainly be charged at the highest rate, which is far more than the average householder will pay.

And, let's not forget, somebody who owns a 'mansion' will also be paying way more income tax, NI and VAT than other people.

For somebody who claims to have a basic grasp of economics, you appear not to realise who it is that is actually keeping this country from absolute bankruptcy.

Hint: it's not 'joe bloggs'.

In principle, this would be true, unfortunately in reality these wealthy and influential millionaires pay less taxes than their gardener.....
What I oppose here, is the bashing the poor exercise whilst giving the ones with the broader shoulders massive tax incentives.
I would be happier to accept the idea of a bedroom tax, if there was on the other end of the spectrum a Mansion tax.
I know exactly who is keeping this country afloat, it is us! the millions of people in Britain spending billions of pounds every single day to buy food, clothes, insurances, cars, houses etc.....
The combined spending of the millions of Britons is vastly superior to the combined spending of the minority of super wealthy in this country.
It is us, that keep this country afloat, there is no doubt about the veracity of this fact.

You are absolutely and wholly incorrect. You seem to simply be repeating the false mantra of The Mirror and Labour Party HQ.

'The poor' are NOT being bashed, they are simply being told that they can't have empty spare rooms for free anymore - and why should they have ever had them?

You are also entirely wrong about who pays the taxes in the UK.

A little reality check for you, all figures from the government's own HMRC:

The top 1% of the highest earning UK taxpayers account for 27% of the UK’s total income tax take.

The top 5% account for 45% of the UK’s total income tax take and that the top 25% account for 72% of the total.

Therefore, the majority of people - 75% of us - only contribute 28% of all the tax revenue.

You won't admit it, you never do, but your views, beliefs and statements are demonstrably and verifiably WRONG.

That can only lead people to conclude that you have a hidden agenda and are deliberately trying to mislead people. Why?

Maybe If you had taken the time to read, you would have been able to make the difference between taxation and spending.
In an Economy like ours (Consumer based), it is spending that makes the Economy grow.......and the vast majority of money spent in this country is spent by the millions of non millionaires.....
The problem that you and Mr Osborne fail to understand is that we need Growth (consumer spending) in order to increase tax receipts/jobs, instead of increasing taxation......that is fuelling a vicious circle of cuts, deficits and double triple quadruple dip recessions...
It may be so that the 1% highest earners accounts for 27% income tax, but I very much doubt that this 1% accounts for 27% of the money spent in the Economy........

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

I don't agree there it all started when Maggie thought it would be great to sell them all off .And not rebuild them .However you are right it is morally wrong to be doing this .Whats worrying is the amount of people who think its okay .You just have to hope they don't ever need the benefit system .For sure if they think its easy are they in for one big shock.

Localboy86 wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Localboy86 wrote:

nigelej wrote:
This bedroom tax is a joke anda bad one at that. I have found out that the council will pay more £123 a month more for me to move from my very small 2 bed bungalow to a private rent 1 bed. That is crazy.I also think all the MPs who voted for this should be big enough to tell us how much they claim per month for there seconed home.And how many bedrooms it is.Its not that long ago the adver told us one of our MPs was claiming £2000 per month for his seconed home .That would cover my rent for 6 months

I think this bedroom tax is a good idea in principle, if people feel so strongly about staying in a house (which most get at knock down prices) then they shouldn't mind having to pay a fee for a spare room. I rent privately and have a spare room but if I needed to save a few quid i would happily move to somewhere smaller.

Where do you get your figures from about knock down prises .our rent is £86 per week for an extremely small home .I don't think that's knock down

£86 a week is ridiculously cheap compared to renting privately / mortgage.

Do you live in London then because my son lives in red house one bed flat for less than mine .Further more is landlord does more up keep of ibis property than the council do ours.

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Hmmm, still churning out your left wing propaganda I see. Now, what party was it that was so keen on propaganda? Oh, yes, the nazis.
Of course, if labour hadn't flooded this country with immigrants, there would be a lot more available housing around than there is now. When the tidal wave from Eastern Europe arrives next year, the problems will be far worse.
Not that you will ever see a problem of course, because you are totally blind to what's already happened and what is still to come.

There is nothing leftwing in asking for fairness.
A bedroom tax for the poorest should be matched by a mansion tax for the wealthiest.
Immigration has nothing to do with the bedroom tax, sorry.....

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

You seem to find it easy to blame everyone else, other than your beloved labour party. You really are such a hypocrite.

house on the hill wrote:
"nigelej says...
1:37pm Tue 5 Mar 13

It's interesting to see how many people will jump when this government brings in a tax for private owners who have spare bed rooms"""

I am sorry but this is getting stupid now (if it hadnt already). Home owners are the legal owners of the property, tenants are not. If you want subsidised housing then you will have different "rights" to those who own their houses and rightly so.

The main problem is the expectations of those in the taxpayer funded welfare state. Firstly you are lucky we have a welfare state, in most countries in the world, even the so called civilised world, you would be living in a carboard box and starving to death, but fortunately we treat people better than China or India etc.

Secondly, it isnt a bottomless pit. There is only so much money to spend on it so it has to be used in the way to help the most people. Sadly this means hardships for some but overall, more people should be better off and looked after.

Thirdly, how many people who worked all their lives on reasonbale incomes chose to spend their money on "now" rather than putting money away for retirement or buying thrir own house. The average person spends £50 a week on "luxuries", drinking, smoking, going out, mobiles, sky etc etc, so that is £100 for couple. £400 a month (which is the average dont forget so many have more than that) would provide a reasonable pension if started early enough or whoud soon build to enough for a deposit on a house, so life really is about choices and what you spend your money on.

Yes there are people who find themsleves in need through no fault of their own, but the vast majority could do more to help themsleves they just choose not to. We need to be more responsible for ourselves and stop expecting other to pick up the pieces for our bad choices.

Interesting reading .I did put away for a pension. And was infact able to take it out early because I'm classed has termanally Ill . But it was taken away from me because we were on benefits so I guess I thought I had done the right thing . SO again some people might be in for a shock if that happens to them. I don't see the society that you do I do not go out drinking ,I've never smocked ,don't have fancy phones or sky tv. So the people you see doing the things you say they must be fiddling. So if I was you I would report them for fiddling.

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

You seem to find it easy to blame everyone else, other than your beloved labour party. You really are such a hypocrite.

Always grumpy .Are you happy then for the sick and disabled to be put on and pushed around.was it not the bankers who created a lot of the problem And yet I see today Mr Osbourne refuses to cap there bonuses .And I'm not labour .BUt I will never be a Tory again

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

You seem to find it easy to blame everyone else, other than your beloved labour party. You really are such a hypocrite.

There is nothing wrong with Labour.....but the problem with your statement is that I never voted Labour.

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

You seem to find it easy to blame everyone else, other than your beloved labour party. You really are such a hypocrite.

Always grumpy .Are you happy then for the sick and disabled to be put on and pushed around.was it not the bankers who created a lot of the problem And yet I see today Mr Osbourne refuses to cap there bonuses .And I'm not labour .BUt I will never be a Tory again

The genuine sick and disabled - no. The lazy, benefit scroungers, immigrants etc. - yes, absolutely.
I will blame labour everytime for creating the bloated benefit system we have now that cannot cope with real hardship.
If your happy with billions going on foreign aid, immigrants flooding in to the country, immigrants sending benefit payments to their home countries fine, that's your perogitive, but then don't lay all the blame on the banking system.
Labour virtually bankrupted the country long before the financial crisis and you will be paying for that long after the banking mess has been settled.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

You seem to find it easy to blame everyone else, other than your beloved labour party. You really are such a hypocrite.

There is nothing wrong with Labour.....but the problem with your statement is that I never voted Labour.

There's everything wrong with labour. If you didn't vote for them, why sing their praises? Are you two timing them by supporting another left wing bunch of losers - the chuch and religion being amongst that group.

Always Grumpy wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

You seem to find it easy to blame everyone else, other than your beloved labour party. You really are such a hypocrite.

Always grumpy .Are you happy then for the sick and disabled to be put on and pushed around.was it not the bankers who created a lot of the problem And yet I see today Mr Osbourne refuses to cap there bonuses .And I'm not labour .BUt I will never be a Tory again

The genuine sick and disabled - no. The lazy, benefit scroungers, immigrants etc. - yes, absolutely.
I will blame labour everytime for creating the bloated benefit system we have now that cannot cope with real hardship.
If your happy with billions going on foreign aid, immigrants flooding in to the country, immigrants sending benefit payments to their home countries fine, that's your perogitive, but then don't lay all the blame on the banking system.
Labour virtually bankrupted the country long before the financial crisis and you will be paying for that long after the banking mess has been settled.

Do you know how many billions these clowns are borrowing.And tell me how good have they done so far .IM ashamed to say I was a Tory .They are going to bring this country to its knees .And yes I'm very sick and disabled and I didn't ask to be .And I should be able to see the remainder of my time in this life out with out being told to move or struggle.And yes I've paid more than my share of tax.

@A.Baron-Cohen: wrong, we were talking about taxation and where the money comes from to 'pay' housing benefit. It comes from income tax and, unfortunately, government borrowing.

It really makes very little difference how much everyone spends at Tescos, I'm afraid. You are talking about the wider economy, which is not what was under discussion - although I can very much understand why you've tried to steer the debate away from what we were discussing, because it was highlighted that you were wrong.

Immigration has nothing to do with the bedroom tax, sorry.

This is your problem, you just don't understandt the bigger picture. OF COURSE immigration is a major factor as to why more living space is required and why better use has to be made of existing living space. In fact, it's the PRIMARY reason we face the housing shortages that we do.

You go on about fairness, well, fairness is ensuring that people have enough room to live properly... not just allowing some people to have free spare rooms because they happen to fancy it.

Quite honestly, the fact that some people claim that the Bedroom Tax is a harsh imposition on the poorest of society very neatly sums up just how badly corrupted, twisted and perverted our failed welfare state system has become.

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

You seem to find it easy to blame everyone else, other than your beloved labour party. You really are such a hypocrite.

Always grumpy .Are you happy then for the sick and disabled to be put on and pushed around.was it not the bankers who created a lot of the problem And yet I see today Mr Osbourne refuses to cap there bonuses .And I'm not labour .BUt I will never be a Tory again

The genuine sick and disabled - no. The lazy, benefit scroungers, immigrants etc. - yes, absolutely.
I will blame labour everytime for creating the bloated benefit system we have now that cannot cope with real hardship.
If your happy with billions going on foreign aid, immigrants flooding in to the country, immigrants sending benefit payments to their home countries fine, that's your perogitive, but then don't lay all the blame on the banking system.
Labour virtually bankrupted the country long before the financial crisis and you will be paying for that long after the banking mess has been settled.

Do you know how many billions these clowns are borrowing.And tell me how good have they done so far .IM ashamed to say I was a Tory .They are going to bring this country to its knees .And yes I'm very sick and disabled and I didn't ask to be .And I should be able to see the remainder of my time in this life out with out being told to move or struggle.And yes I've paid more than my share of tax.

@nigelej: you make a good point. The Tories are still borrowing and spending at record levels.

Sadly, it's the previous Labour government's mismanagement of the economy that has let people down so badly. That can't be fixed in a couple of years, there's a high chance it'll never be able to be put right.

But let's be realistic, here. Your rent is paid, your wife receives a carer's allowance and you receive various benefit payments. By your own admission, your monthly payments must total around £1100 when all's said and done (including council tax benefit). A person would need to earn £16kpa to earn that money after tax, and it'd take somebody earning £60,000pa to contribute that amount per month.

Most people who go on to long term benefits would never have paid enough tax to come close to covering their benefits payments - which is one of the reasons why the economy and welfare state are in such a mess.

Out of interest, why is it so crucial that you have a spare room? I'd say that out of close friends and family, only about 25% of them have one or more spare rooms. Most simply can't afford them.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

Er.... You were the one blaming others like the coalition.....!

nigelej wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

I don't agree there it all started when Maggie thought it would be great to sell them all off .And not rebuild them .However you are right it is morally wrong to be doing this .Whats worrying is the amount of people who think its okay .You just have to hope they don't ever need the benefit system .For sure if they think its easy are they in for one big shock.

The housing crisis didn't start with a decision to sell off housing.

That decision will not have helped the social housing issue, but that was not the start of the housing crisis.

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

You seem to find it easy to blame everyone else, other than your beloved labour party. You really are such a hypocrite.

Always grumpy .Are you happy then for the sick and disabled to be put on and pushed around.was it not the bankers who created a lot of the problem And yet I see today Mr Osbourne refuses to cap there bonuses .And I'm not labour .BUt I will never be a Tory again

The genuine sick and disabled - no. The lazy, benefit scroungers, immigrants etc. - yes, absolutely.
I will blame labour everytime for creating the bloated benefit system we have now that cannot cope with real hardship.
If your happy with billions going on foreign aid, immigrants flooding in to the country, immigrants sending benefit payments to their home countries fine, that's your perogitive, but then don't lay all the blame on the banking system.
Labour virtually bankrupted the country long before the financial crisis and you will be paying for that long after the banking mess has been settled.

Do you know how many billions these clowns are borrowing.And tell me how good have they done so far .IM ashamed to say I was a Tory .They are going to bring this country to its knees .And yes I'm very sick and disabled and I didn't ask to be .And I should be able to see the remainder of my time in this life out with out being told to move or struggle.And yes I've paid more than my share of tax.

The Tories are borrowing to fund Labour's policies that they are unable to unwind. It take a lot of time; possibly decades to reduce the borrowing and the deficit.

Can you or one of the Labour apologists explain why we were running a deficit through the boom years?

http://static.guim.c
o.uk/sys-images/Guar
dian/Pix/pictures/20
12/10/19/13506562984
00/UK-budget-deficit
-and-par-009.jpg

Look at the figures and you'll most years have run a deficit.... But look at that bit around 2008. The Tories are trying to rein it in, and I don't agree with all that they are doing, but at least they are trying to bring it under control.

Why during the UK's greatest boom in living memory did we run a deficit?

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

Er.... You were the one blaming others like the coalition.....!

yes because this is the current hire / government and obviously it is not doing a very good job!

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

Er.... You were the one blaming others like the coalition.....!

yes because this is the current hire / government and obviously it is not doing a very good job!

Not even you could possibly thing that ANY government could have taken up where Labour left off and miraculously made everything 'OK' again within 3 years.

Remember, things weren't 'OK' even in the 'good times' of the early/mid 2000s... it was all based on national and personal debt and artificially inflated house prices.

It was all smoke and mirrors. And we're all paying for it now and for decades to come.

"""nigelej says...
2:45pm Tue 5 Mar 13


house on the hill wrote:
"nigelej says...
1:37pm Tue 5 Mar 13

It's interesting to see how many people will jump when this government brings in a tax for private owners who have spare bed rooms"""

I am sorry but this is getting stupid now (if it hadnt already). Home owners are the legal owners of the property, tenants are not. If you want subsidised housing then you will have different "rights" to those who own their houses and rightly so.

The main problem is the expectations of those in the taxpayer funded welfare state. Firstly you are lucky we have a welfare state, in most countries in the world, even the so called civilised world, you would be living in a carboard box and starving to death, but fortunately we treat people better than China or India etc.

Secondly, it isnt a bottomless pit. There is only so much money to spend on it so it has to be used in the way to help the most people. Sadly this means hardships for some but overall, more people should be better off and looked after.

Thirdly, how many people who worked all their lives on reasonbale incomes chose to spend their money on "now" rather than putting money away for retirement or buying thrir own house. The average person spends £50 a week on "luxuries", drinking, smoking, going out, mobiles, sky etc etc, so that is £100 for couple. £400 a month (which is the average dont forget so many have more than that) would provide a reasonable pension if started early enough or whoud soon build to enough for a deposit on a house, so life really is about choices and what you spend your money on.

Yes there are people who find themsleves in need through no fault of their own, but the vast majority could do more to help themsleves they just choose not to. We need to be more responsible for ourselves and stop expecting other to pick up the pieces for our bad choices.
Interesting reading .I did put away for a pension. And was infact able to take it out early because I'm classed has termanally Ill . But it was taken away from me because we were on benefits so I guess I thought I had done the right thing . SO again some people might be in for a shock if that happens to them. I don't see the society that you do I do not go out drinking ,I've never smocked ,don't have fancy phones or sky tv. So the people you see doing the things you say they must be fiddling. So if I was you I would report them for fiddling.”""""

They dont fiddle Nigel, they just have loads of kids and get massive benefit and bigger and bigger houses. Yes sadly some will have the probloems you have, but I would say you are probably in a very small minority. And no I dont drink or smoke or go out or have new cars despite having worked every day since I left school. Nor have I ever claimed benefits or inherited any money, so I have to look after myself and chse tol ive the way i don.

sadly no system is perfect and some will always slip through, but I would imagine the extra to stay where you are will be worth it to you. The money has run out and no amount of blaming re or blue or yelow is going to change that. we have to accept where we are and deal with it the best we can.

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: wrong, we were talking about taxation and where the money comes from to 'pay' housing benefit. It comes from income tax and, unfortunately, government borrowing.

It really makes very little difference how much everyone spends at Tescos, I'm afraid. You are talking about the wider economy, which is not what was under discussion - although I can very much understand why you've tried to steer the debate away from what we were discussing, because it was highlighted that you were wrong.

Immigration has nothing to do with the bedroom tax, sorry.

This is your problem, you just don't understandt the bigger picture. OF COURSE immigration is a major factor as to why more living space is required and why better use has to be made of existing living space. In fact, it's the PRIMARY reason we face the housing shortages that we do.

You go on about fairness, well, fairness is ensuring that people have enough room to live properly... not just allowing some people to have free spare rooms because they happen to fancy it.

Quite honestly, the fact that some people claim that the Bedroom Tax is a harsh imposition on the poorest of society very neatly sums up just how badly corrupted, twisted and perverted our failed welfare state system has become.

From a moral view point, it is wrong to levy tax on the poorest whilst giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
Yes our Welfare budget is huge, but half of it is paid in state pensions 50%! the second big chunk is housing benefit and the third: Disability living allowance, a minute proportion paid to non-British, so please lets not involve immigrants in this for once.
Are you suggesting we should cut pensions, and cut disability payments, in order to reduce our welfare bill?
Do you actually know what it is like to live on welfare?

@A.Baron-Cohen: immigration puts massive strain on the availability of housing. You cannot get around that primary fact, no matter how hard you might try and ignore it or attempt to deflect it. It IS causing the problem that, in part, has led to the Bedroom Tax.

Which, by the way, is not 'levied on the poorest' at all. It is a charge made to people who are already receiving FREE housing and who wish to keep a spare, empty, room and deprive more needy people of that room. It's their choice.

Do you think a Speeding Fine is a 'tax on motorists'? No, because it can be avoided and never paid unless you actively choose to.

Stop repeating Left-wing mantras, they are LIES.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

Er.... You were the one blaming others like the coalition.....!

yes because this is the current hire / government and obviously it is not doing a very good job!

So you critise someone else for blaming others, when just a few posts earlier you did just that yourself.....!

Hmmmm.......

Tim Newroman wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

You seem to find it easy to blame everyone else, other than your beloved labour party. You really are such a hypocrite.

Always grumpy .Are you happy then for the sick and disabled to be put on and pushed around.was it not the bankers who created a lot of the problem And yet I see today Mr Osbourne refuses to cap there bonuses .And I'm not labour .BUt I will never be a Tory again

The genuine sick and disabled - no. The lazy, benefit scroungers, immigrants etc. - yes, absolutely.
I will blame labour everytime for creating the bloated benefit system we have now that cannot cope with real hardship.
If your happy with billions going on foreign aid, immigrants flooding in to the country, immigrants sending benefit payments to their home countries fine, that's your perogitive, but then don't lay all the blame on the banking system.
Labour virtually bankrupted the country long before the financial crisis and you will be paying for that long after the banking mess has been settled.

Do you know how many billions these clowns are borrowing.And tell me how good have they done so far .IM ashamed to say I was a Tory .They are going to bring this country to its knees .And yes I'm very sick and disabled and I didn't ask to be .And I should be able to see the remainder of my time in this life out with out being told to move or struggle.And yes I've paid more than my share of tax.

@nigelej: you make a good point. The Tories are still borrowing and spending at record levels.

Sadly, it's the previous Labour government's mismanagement of the economy that has let people down so badly. That can't be fixed in a couple of years, there's a high chance it'll never be able to be put right.

But let's be realistic, here. Your rent is paid, your wife receives a carer's allowance and you receive various benefit payments. By your own admission, your monthly payments must total around £1100 when all's said and done (including council tax benefit). A person would need to earn £16kpa to earn that money after tax, and it'd take somebody earning £60,000pa to contribute that amount per month.

Most people who go on to long term benefits would never have paid enough tax to come close to covering their benefits payments - which is one of the reasons why the economy and welfare state are in such a mess.

Out of interest, why is it so crucial that you have a spare room? I'd say that out of close friends and family, only about 25% of them have one or more spare rooms. Most simply can't afford them.

TIm
The reason I need another room is my wife has a tumour and pressure on her brain. I have multi medical problems .Infact I was only given until I was 45 to live.Thankfully in April I will be 55 and I'm proud of that. Now my wife and I are both due big operations this year.We live in a very small village and we will need some care . So where will the career stay. Also we have a grandson where should he sleep when he wants to sleep over with us .Our time with him is precious . You must also remember we have all ready down sized. From a 3 bed to this small bungalow I repeat my offer of comming to see how big it is . Has for tax I probably did pay enough for the time I will be on this earth.And if I didn't well my dad certainly did and died before he ever had ever claimed a penny .

Always Grumpy wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

You seem to find it easy to blame everyone else, other than your beloved labour party. You really are such a hypocrite.

Always grumpy .Are you happy then for the sick and disabled to be put on and pushed around.was it not the bankers who created a lot of the problem And yet I see today Mr Osbourne refuses to cap there bonuses .And I'm not labour .BUt I will never be a Tory again

The genuine sick and disabled - no. The lazy, benefit scroungers, immigrants etc. - yes, absolutely.
I will blame labour everytime for creating the bloated benefit system we have now that cannot cope with real hardship.
If your happy with billions going on foreign aid, immigrants flooding in to the country, immigrants sending benefit payments to their home countries fine, that's your perogitive, but then don't lay all the blame on the banking system.
Labour virtually bankrupted the country long before the financial crisis and you will be paying for that long after the banking mess has been settled.

I think if you go back to the last quarter off labours government the borrowing was down and growth was going up .I think most people would say they are now fed up with this government keep blaming labour it's been 3 years now. How many u turns have they done .And more how many millions have they wasted on wrong policies ie the train franchise. And I understand they have made errors over the NHs reforms .

nigelej wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

You seem to find it easy to blame everyone else, other than your beloved labour party. You really are such a hypocrite.

Always grumpy .Are you happy then for the sick and disabled to be put on and pushed around.was it not the bankers who created a lot of the problem And yet I see today Mr Osbourne refuses to cap there bonuses .And I'm not labour .BUt I will never be a Tory again

The genuine sick and disabled - no. The lazy, benefit scroungers, immigrants etc. - yes, absolutely.
I will blame labour everytime for creating the bloated benefit system we have now that cannot cope with real hardship.
If your happy with billions going on foreign aid, immigrants flooding in to the country, immigrants sending benefit payments to their home countries fine, that's your perogitive, but then don't lay all the blame on the banking system.
Labour virtually bankrupted the country long before the financial crisis and you will be paying for that long after the banking mess has been settled.

Do you know how many billions these clowns are borrowing.And tell me how good have they done so far .IM ashamed to say I was a Tory .They are going to bring this country to its knees .And yes I'm very sick and disabled and I didn't ask to be .And I should be able to see the remainder of my time in this life out with out being told to move or struggle.And yes I've paid more than my share of tax.

@nigelej: you make a good point. The Tories are still borrowing and spending at record levels.

Sadly, it's the previous Labour government's mismanagement of the economy that has let people down so badly. That can't be fixed in a couple of years, there's a high chance it'll never be able to be put right.

But let's be realistic, here. Your rent is paid, your wife receives a carer's allowance and you receive various benefit payments. By your own admission, your monthly payments must total around £1100 when all's said and done (including council tax benefit). A person would need to earn £16kpa to earn that money after tax, and it'd take somebody earning £60,000pa to contribute that amount per month.

Most people who go on to long term benefits would never have paid enough tax to come close to covering their benefits payments - which is one of the reasons why the economy and welfare state are in such a mess.

Out of interest, why is it so crucial that you have a spare room? I'd say that out of close friends and family, only about 25% of them have one or more spare rooms. Most simply can't afford them.

TIm
The reason I need another room is my wife has a tumour and pressure on her brain. I have multi medical problems .Infact I was only given until I was 45 to live.Thankfully in April I will be 55 and I'm proud of that. Now my wife and I are both due big operations this year.We live in a very small village and we will need some care . So where will the career stay. Also we have a grandson where should he sleep when he wants to sleep over with us .Our time with him is precious . You must also remember we have all ready down sized. From a 3 bed to this small bungalow I repeat my offer of comming to see how big it is . Has for tax I probably did pay enough for the time I will be on this earth.And if I didn't well my dad certainly did and died before he ever had ever claimed a penny .

Sorry to hear about your wife's medical issue, I wish both of you the best with your upcoming operations and a speedy recovery.

I do agree with you that if a full-time carer is required and specified by your doctor then the 'spare' room should not be classed as such - obviously it becomes a medically essential requirement and the new regulations should recognise that.

However, with regards to your grandson, (a) where would he sleep when the carer is using the spare room? and (b) surely the ability to have him stay over would be worth you - and maybe his parents - making up the £11 a week it'd cost to remain in your current home and maintain a spare room?

Did you see the link I posted previously?

http://static.guim.c
o.uk/sys-images/Guar
dian/Pix/pictures/20
12/10191350656298400
/UK-budget-deficit-a
nd-par-009.jpg

If the link doesn't work (try googling for "UK deficit 20 years" its the first article. The graph is at the top of the article.

It will take decades to bring the UK and most other European countries back to some degree of fiscal responsibility.

The last throw of the dice by the previous administration was Gordon Brown's scorched Earth plan to make things so bad the Tories could never turn it around in one term; thus ultimately getting Labour back in at the next election.

@LordAshOfTheBrake: I agree, that's precisely what Labour did. Brown, Darling and Byrne knew exactly what they were doing, which is exactly what you described above.

They did misjudge the Tories' ability to sort out their mess within 5 years, though.

The only upside to all of this is that Labour will indeed now win the 2015 general election and will be in an even worse state than when they left office in 2010.

They couldn't manage the economy in the 'boom' times, so it's going to be fun watching them try and manage it during a triple, or even quadruple, dip recession for an entire 5 year period. What are they ever going to do without having any money to throw around?

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: immigration puts massive strain on the availability of housing. You cannot get around that primary fact, no matter how hard you might try and ignore it or attempt to deflect it. It IS causing the problem that, in part, has led to the Bedroom Tax.

Which, by the way, is not 'levied on the poorest' at all. It is a charge made to people who are already receiving FREE housing and who wish to keep a spare, empty, room and deprive more needy people of that room. It's their choice.

Do you think a Speeding Fine is a 'tax on motorists'? No, because it can be avoided and never paid unless you actively choose to.

Stop repeating Left-wing mantras, they are LIES.

When we start moving masses of disabled people and elderly, on trucks then I guess you will be happy to claim you live in a free Country.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: immigration puts massive strain on the availability of housing. You cannot get around that primary fact, no matter how hard you might try and ignore it or attempt to deflect it. It IS causing the problem that, in part, has led to the Bedroom Tax.

Which, by the way, is not 'levied on the poorest' at all. It is a charge made to people who are already receiving FREE housing and who wish to keep a spare, empty, room and deprive more needy people of that room. It's their choice.

Do you think a Speeding Fine is a 'tax on motorists'? No, because it can be avoided and never paid unless you actively choose to.

Stop repeating Left-wing mantras, they are LIES.

When we start moving masses of disabled people and elderly, on trucks then I guess you will be happy to claim you live in a free Country.

You are really sick.

Tim Newroman wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The issue around the bedroom tax, is not whether it is fair or not, the real problem about the bedroom tax is why we have it in the first place!
And the reason for the bedroom tax, is that this coalition is unable to solve the housing crisis in this country.
Instead of building more houses, this government has decided to levy a tax on the poorest.....by any standards this is quite morally wrong especially at a time when Tories and newspapers are ganging up against the idea of a Mansion Tax on the Wealthy.
Double standards springs to mind....

Just in case you didn't know.... The housing crisis began on Labour's watch.

They didn't have solutions either, but did exasperate it with some of their policies.

Well it is very easy to blame others, but that is not why we elect Governments.
Employers do not expect new hires to blame their predecessors, they expect results, solutions!

You seem to find it easy to blame everyone else, other than your beloved labour party. You really are such a hypocrite.

Always grumpy .Are you happy then for the sick and disabled to be put on and pushed around.was it not the bankers who created a lot of the problem And yet I see today Mr Osbourne refuses to cap there bonuses .And I'm not labour .BUt I will never be a Tory again

The genuine sick and disabled - no. The lazy, benefit scroungers, immigrants etc. - yes, absolutely.
I will blame labour everytime for creating the bloated benefit system we have now that cannot cope with real hardship.
If your happy with billions going on foreign aid, immigrants flooding in to the country, immigrants sending benefit payments to their home countries fine, that's your perogitive, but then don't lay all the blame on the banking system.
Labour virtually bankrupted the country long before the financial crisis and you will be paying for that long after the banking mess has been settled.

Do you know how many billions these clowns are borrowing.And tell me how good have they done so far .IM ashamed to say I was a Tory .They are going to bring this country to its knees .And yes I'm very sick and disabled and I didn't ask to be .And I should be able to see the remainder of my time in this life out with out being told to move or struggle.And yes I've paid more than my share of tax.

@nigelej: you make a good point. The Tories are still borrowing and spending at record levels.

Sadly, it's the previous Labour government's mismanagement of the economy that has let people down so badly. That can't be fixed in a couple of years, there's a high chance it'll never be able to be put right.

But let's be realistic, here. Your rent is paid, your wife receives a carer's allowance and you receive various benefit payments. By your own admission, your monthly payments must total around £1100 when all's said and done (including council tax benefit). A person would need to earn £16kpa to earn that money after tax, and it'd take somebody earning £60,000pa to contribute that amount per month.

Most people who go on to long term benefits would never have paid enough tax to come close to covering their benefits payments - which is one of the reasons why the economy and welfare state are in such a mess.

Out of interest, why is it so crucial that you have a spare room? I'd say that out of close friends and family, only about 25% of them have one or more spare rooms. Most simply can't afford them.

TIm
The reason I need another room is my wife has a tumour and pressure on her brain. I have multi medical problems .Infact I was only given until I was 45 to live.Thankfully in April I will be 55 and I'm proud of that. Now my wife and I are both due big operations this year.We live in a very small village and we will need some care . So where will the career stay. Also we have a grandson where should he sleep when he wants to sleep over with us .Our time with him is precious . You must also remember we have all ready down sized. From a 3 bed to this small bungalow I repeat my offer of comming to see how big it is . Has for tax I probably did pay enough for the time I will be on this earth.And if I didn't well my dad certainly did and died before he ever had ever claimed a penny .

Sorry to hear about your wife's medical issue, I wish both of you the best with your upcoming operations and a speedy recovery.

I do agree with you that if a full-time carer is required and specified by your doctor then the 'spare' room should not be classed as such - obviously it becomes a medically essential requirement and the new regulations should recognise that.

However, with regards to your grandson, (a) where would he sleep when the carer is using the spare room? and (b) surely the ability to have him stay over would be worth you - and maybe his parents - making up the £11 a week it'd cost to remain in your current home and maintain a spare room?

TIm
I have paper work here that says We are on the minimum the law says we have to live on.So Gas,Electric,Petrol.
have all gone up.We now will all so be paying £14 per week rent. So that will mean we will be living below the poverty line that the Goverment and the law have fixed.That cannot be right in this day and age..I had the right to go to work taken away from me by the medical board. I appealed there verdict because my brain still works.But still lost.Now in time I may be asked to attend a medical. And like many others be told I'm fit for work.If that was to happen. who should I sue for lost of earnings. Obviously that want happen because I have gone down hill even more .?

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: immigration puts massive strain on the availability of housing. You cannot get around that primary fact, no matter how hard you might try and ignore it or attempt to deflect it. It IS causing the problem that, in part, has led to the Bedroom Tax.

Which, by the way, is not 'levied on the poorest' at all. It is a charge made to people who are already receiving FREE housing and who wish to keep a spare, empty, room and deprive more needy people of that room. It's their choice.

Do you think a Speeding Fine is a 'tax on motorists'? No, because it can be avoided and never paid unless you actively choose to.

Stop repeating Left-wing mantras, they are LIES.

When we start moving masses of disabled people and elderly, on trucks then I guess you will be happy to claim you live in a free Country.

GODWIN'S LAW - please leave the thread

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: immigration puts massive strain on the availability of housing. You cannot get around that primary fact, no matter how hard you might try and ignore it or attempt to deflect it. It IS causing the problem that, in part, has led to the Bedroom Tax.

Which, by the way, is not 'levied on the poorest' at all. It is a charge made to people who are already receiving FREE housing and who wish to keep a spare, empty, room and deprive more needy people of that room. It's their choice.

Do you think a Speeding Fine is a 'tax on motorists'? No, because it can be avoided and never paid unless you actively choose to.

Stop repeating Left-wing mantras, they are LIES.

When we start moving masses of disabled people and elderly, on trucks then I guess you will be happy to claim you live in a free Country.

You are really sick.

Maybe you should re-read some the comments on here....
Some of you think that it is perfectly acceptable to levy taxes on the poors, disabled and elderly, and that it is for the good of the country that these most vulnerable people should have their homes confiscated.....I am sorry that the local right wings champions think that these people have less rights than you and me to have a life and a decent home.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: immigration puts massive strain on the availability of housing. You cannot get around that primary fact, no matter how hard you might try and ignore it or attempt to deflect it. It IS causing the problem that, in part, has led to the Bedroom Tax.

Which, by the way, is not 'levied on the poorest' at all. It is a charge made to people who are already receiving FREE housing and who wish to keep a spare, empty, room and deprive more needy people of that room. It's their choice.

Do you think a Speeding Fine is a 'tax on motorists'? No, because it can be avoided and never paid unless you actively choose to.

Stop repeating Left-wing mantras, they are LIES.

When we start moving masses of disabled people and elderly, on trucks then I guess you will be happy to claim you live in a free Country.

You are really sick.

Maybe you should re-read some the comments on here....
Some of you think that it is perfectly acceptable to levy taxes on the poors, disabled and elderly, and that it is for the good of the country that these most vulnerable people should have their homes confiscated.....I am sorry that the local right wings champions think that these people have less rights than you and me to have a life and a decent home.

Like I said, you really are a sick character.
Your extreme left wing ideology just doesn't seem to be working for you on this site, as most posters seem to disagree with your completely out of touch views.
Like Localboy86 said "leave the thread".

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: immigration puts massive strain on the availability of housing. You cannot get around that primary fact, no matter how hard you might try and ignore it or attempt to deflect it. It IS causing the problem that, in part, has led to the Bedroom Tax.

Which, by the way, is not 'levied on the poorest' at all. It is a charge made to people who are already receiving FREE housing and who wish to keep a spare, empty, room and deprive more needy people of that room. It's their choice.

Do you think a Speeding Fine is a 'tax on motorists'? No, because it can be avoided and never paid unless you actively choose to.

Stop repeating Left-wing mantras, they are LIES.

When we start moving masses of disabled people and elderly, on trucks then I guess you will be happy to claim you live in a free Country.

You are really sick.

Maybe you should re-read some the comments on here....
Some of you think that it is perfectly acceptable to levy taxes on the poors, disabled and elderly, and that it is for the good of the country that these most vulnerable people should have their homes confiscated.....I am sorry that the local right wings champions think that these people have less rights than you and me to have a life and a decent home.

Like I said, you really are a sick character.
Your extreme left wing ideology just doesn't seem to be working for you on this site, as most posters seem to disagree with your completely out of touch views.
Like Localboy86 said "leave the thread".

I am not a labour voter! I believe in fairness and justice, I simply will not standby when I see vulnerable people being bullied.
Any decent person would do the same.

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: immigration puts massive strain on the availability of housing. You cannot get around that primary fact, no matter how hard you might try and ignore it or attempt to deflect it. It IS causing the problem that, in part, has led to the Bedroom Tax.

Which, by the way, is not 'levied on the poorest' at all. It is a charge made to people who are already receiving FREE housing and who wish to keep a spare, empty, room and deprive more needy people of that room. It's their choice.

Do you think a Speeding Fine is a 'tax on motorists'? No, because it can be avoided and never paid unless you actively choose to.

Stop repeating Left-wing mantras, they are LIES.

When we start moving masses of disabled people and elderly, on trucks then I guess you will be happy to claim you live in a free Country.

You are really sick.

Maybe you should re-read some the comments on here....
Some of you think that it is perfectly acceptable to levy taxes on the poors, disabled and elderly, and that it is for the good of the country that these most vulnerable people should have their homes confiscated.....I am sorry that the local right wings champions think that these people have less rights than you and me to have a life and a decent home.

Like I said, you really are a sick character.
Your extreme left wing ideology just doesn't seem to be working for you on this site, as most posters seem to disagree with your completely out of touch views.
Like Localboy86 said "leave the thread".

I don't know what goes on .On this site but surely we are all able to view our thoughts with out being asked to leave the the site . We all live different life's and we only know our own circumstances . It is on that basis we fight our own corner. Because we are the ones in the firing line. No one has asked me to leave but some off you appear to want others to go. Maybe you know more than me for that to be the case.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: immigration puts massive strain on the availability of housing. You cannot get around that primary fact, no matter how hard you might try and ignore it or attempt to deflect it. It IS causing the problem that, in part, has led to the Bedroom Tax.

Which, by the way, is not 'levied on the poorest' at all. It is a charge made to people who are already receiving FREE housing and who wish to keep a spare, empty, room and deprive more needy people of that room. It's their choice.

Do you think a Speeding Fine is a 'tax on motorists'? No, because it can be avoided and never paid unless you actively choose to.

Stop repeating Left-wing mantras, they are LIES.

When we start moving masses of disabled people and elderly, on trucks then I guess you will be happy to claim you live in a free Country.

You are really sick.

Maybe you should re-read some the comments on here....
Some of you think that it is perfectly acceptable to levy taxes on the poors, disabled and elderly, and that it is for the good of the country that these most vulnerable people should have their homes confiscated.....I am sorry that the local right wings champions think that these people have less rights than you and me to have a life and a decent home.

Like I said, you really are a sick character.
Your extreme left wing ideology just doesn't seem to be working for you on this site, as most posters seem to disagree with your completely out of touch views.
Like Localboy86 said "leave the thread".

I am not a labour voter! I believe in fairness and justice, I simply will not standby when I see vulnerable people being bullied.
Any decent person would do the same.

Just stop trying to spread your vile left wing propaganda.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: immigration puts massive strain on the availability of housing. You cannot get around that primary fact, no matter how hard you might try and ignore it or attempt to deflect it. It IS causing the problem that, in part, has led to the Bedroom Tax.

Which, by the way, is not 'levied on the poorest' at all. It is a charge made to people who are already receiving FREE housing and who wish to keep a spare, empty, room and deprive more needy people of that room. It's their choice.

Do you think a Speeding Fine is a 'tax on motorists'? No, because it can be avoided and never paid unless you actively choose to.

Stop repeating Left-wing mantras, they are LIES.

When we start moving masses of disabled people and elderly, on trucks then I guess you will be happy to claim you live in a free Country.

What an absolutely appalling thing to say. The only upside being that it very publically tells everyone all they need to know about you and your mindset.

Nigelej, just go and check previous posts of the vile Baren-Cohen and see what he's written on a number of threads.
He's threatened people, libelled people and likens everyone who disagrees with his twisted left wing views as members of the nazi party.
He has no shame and is quite beneath contempt. There are reasons why he's been banned in the past and changed his log-in name. I suspect he'll be banned again soon or end up in court for libel.

Always Grumpy wrote:
Nigelej, just go and check previous posts of the vile Baren-Cohen and see what he's written on a number of threads.
He's threatened people, libelled people and likens everyone who disagrees with his twisted left wing views as members of the nazi party.
He has no shame and is quite beneath contempt. There are reasons why he's been banned in the past and changed his log-in name. I suspect he'll be banned again soon or end up in court for libel.

@ Nigel. The reason I asked him to leave was due to him losing the argument as per Godwin's law. Google it, I think it is a brilliant idea but put at it's most basic, you automatically lose an argument online when comparing people / views to that of the third reich. Whilst here I want to make it clear that in my option (not that it's worth much) you and people with circumstances similar to yours (Ill health etc) which have a valid reason for needing a spare room (even if occasional) for medical reasons etc should not be penalised by this "tax". I hope that common sense is applied. However, I still support the idea in general. I would also go further and encourage any one including OAPs to move to a more suitable sized council property if they have spare rooms, regardless of how long they have lived there. If you need to start charging people for the privilege of having spare rooms then so be it

The poor bearing the brunt whilst the rich get away with it. If taxation of the rich was sorted out there would be no issue. Typical Tories.roll on the elections

@Davey Gravey

Define where you draw the line of rich?

Davey Gravey wrote:
The poor bearing the brunt whilst the rich get away with it. If taxation of the rich was sorted out there would be no issue. Typical Tories.roll on the elections

The 'rich' already pay the vast majority of the tax that gets handed to the 'poor'.

In many ways, this country's system is even more slanted than Communists would advocate.

The top earning 25% pay 72% of all income tax.

You cannot simply go on expecting the 'rich' to hand over their money to support everyone else. Look at what's happening in France - where they've tried that - it just doesn't work.

Tim Newroman wrote:

Davey Gravey wrote:
The poor bearing the brunt whilst the rich get away with it. If taxation of the rich was sorted out there would be no issue. Typical Tories.roll on the elections

The 'rich' already pay the vast majority of the tax that gets handed to the 'poor'.

In many ways, this country's system is even more slanted than Communists would advocate.

The top earning 25% pay 72% of all income tax.

You cannot simply go on expecting the 'rich' to hand over their money to support everyone else. Look at what's happening in France - where they've tried that - it just doesn't work.

UK has had so many more quarters of recession than Socialist France despite the facts that France has a higher taxation regime and capped bankers bonuses.....
I count 10 quarters of recession in the UK since 2008, total 8% GDP loss whilst France, I count only 5 quarters, total 4.5% GDP loss.....
I guess we should tax the rich more and stop listening to the scare stories.....

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Davey Gravey wrote:
The poor bearing the brunt whilst the rich get away with it. If taxation of the rich was sorted out there would be no issue. Typical Tories.roll on the elections

The 'rich' already pay the vast majority of the tax that gets handed to the 'poor'.

In many ways, this country's system is even more slanted than Communists would advocate.

The top earning 25% pay 72% of all income tax.

You cannot simply go on expecting the 'rich' to hand over their money to support everyone else. Look at what's happening in France - where they've tried that - it just doesn't work.

UK has had so many more quarters of recession than Socialist France despite the facts that France has a higher taxation regime and capped bankers bonuses.....
I count 10 quarters of recession in the UK since 2008, total 8% GDP loss whilst France, I count only 5 quarters, total 4.5% GDP loss.....
I guess we should tax the rich more and stop listening to the scare stories.....

Move to France then - you'll be in Socialist heaven..

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Davey Gravey wrote:
The poor bearing the brunt whilst the rich get away with it. If taxation of the rich was sorted out there would be no issue. Typical Tories.roll on the elections

The 'rich' already pay the vast majority of the tax that gets handed to the 'poor'.

In many ways, this country's system is even more slanted than Communists would advocate.

The top earning 25% pay 72% of all income tax.

You cannot simply go on expecting the 'rich' to hand over their money to support everyone else. Look at what's happening in France - where they've tried that - it just doesn't work.

UK has had so many more quarters of recession than Socialist France despite the facts that France has a higher taxation regime and capped bankers bonuses.....
I count 10 quarters of recession in the UK since 2008, total 8% GDP loss whilst France, I count only 5 quarters, total 4.5% GDP loss.....
I guess we should tax the rich more and stop listening to the scare stories.....

Move to France then - you'll be in Socialist heaven..

Well that is a little drastic, we could maybe try to emulate France for the good of everyone?!?
I am not disputing the fact that the top 25% earners account for 72% of Income tax receipts, however Income tax represents only a fraction of the Government total receipts = 25% of the total collected.
National insurance contributions paid by almost everyone = 20%
VAT = 20% of tax receipts
So the Truth is that most of the taxes collected in this country are collected from non-millionaires: pensioners, workers, public servants

"There is a state but it is a totally bankrupt state.”

Michel Sapin - Employment Minister, France. Monday, 28th January 2013

Since Socialist Francois Hollande came to power, he has imposed his 'anti-rich' policies onto France provoking the country's rich entrepreneurs to leave the country.

There is nothing to stop Mr Baron-Cohen moving to France, nothing whatsoever.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Davey Gravey wrote:
The poor bearing the brunt whilst the rich get away with it. If taxation of the rich was sorted out there would be no issue. Typical Tories.roll on the elections

The 'rich' already pay the vast majority of the tax that gets handed to the 'poor'.

In many ways, this country's system is even more slanted than Communists would advocate.

The top earning 25% pay 72% of all income tax.

You cannot simply go on expecting the 'rich' to hand over their money to support everyone else. Look at what's happening in France - where they've tried that - it just doesn't work.

UK has had so many more quarters of recession than Socialist France despite the facts that France has a higher taxation regime and capped bankers bonuses.....
I count 10 quarters of recession in the UK since 2008, total 8% GDP loss whilst France, I count only 5 quarters, total 4.5% GDP loss.....
I guess we should tax the rich more and stop listening to the scare stories.....

Move to France then - you'll be in Socialist heaven..

Well that is a little drastic, we could maybe try to emulate France for the good of everyone?!?
I am not disputing the fact that the top 25% earners account for 72% of Income tax receipts, however Income tax represents only a fraction of the Government total receipts = 25% of the total collected.
National insurance contributions paid by almost everyone = 20%
VAT = 20% of tax receipts
So the Truth is that most of the taxes collected in this country are collected from non-millionaires: pensioners, workers, public servants

National insurance contributions paid by almost everyone = 20%
VAT = 20% of tax receipts

Again, you completely fail to realise that the contribution of a person who earns £20,000pa is utterly irrelevant compared to a person who earns £100,000pa.

You cannot escape the fact that the rich keep this country afloat. You might not like it, but it doesn't change the fact.

Labour were clever in shifting the blame for their mistakes onto the bankers and 'the rich', but it's self-deluding nonsense. It just gives the majority a nebulous bogeyman to pin all the blame on and diverts people away from the real problem... which is that the UK has a completely unsustainable welfare budget. And it's becoming exponentially less affordable as time goes on.

It's all about jealousy any way, it's all you have more then me so give me some of yours. Getting back on topic for a minute not that it usually gets in the way of a slanging match on here, but the reality is whoever lost all the money, it is gone so we don't have enough to provide what we would like to and cuts have to be made. The welfare state has long been an unsustainable expense that needs solving and this is just the first step. We can al find people better off that us as well as people better off, but we need to stop the insane jealousy that exists from the have nots to the haves but that is life. Maybe you should write to David Beckham And say that as he has 150 million he can afford to give some to you. Tax isn't a perfect way but you can t keep going back to the rich well as eventually it will dry up as they all move abroad. We have to make cuts and the bedroom tax doesn't seem that unreasonable, next get the scroungers out and no benefits for immigrants who haven't paid anything in to the country,,you can't take out if you don't put in.

Tim Newroman wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Davey Gravey wrote:
The poor bearing the brunt whilst the rich get away with it. If taxation of the rich was sorted out there would be no issue. Typical Tories.roll on the elections

The 'rich' already pay the vast majority of the tax that gets handed to the 'poor'.

In many ways, this country's system is even more slanted than Communists would advocate.

The top earning 25% pay 72% of all income tax.

You cannot simply go on expecting the 'rich' to hand over their money to support everyone else. Look at what's happening in France - where they've tried that - it just doesn't work.

UK has had so many more quarters of recession than Socialist France despite the facts that France has a higher taxation regime and capped bankers bonuses.....
I count 10 quarters of recession in the UK since 2008, total 8% GDP loss whilst France, I count only 5 quarters, total 4.5% GDP loss.....
I guess we should tax the rich more and stop listening to the scare stories.....

Move to France then - you'll be in Socialist heaven..

Well that is a little drastic, we could maybe try to emulate France for the good of everyone?!?
I am not disputing the fact that the top 25% earners account for 72% of Income tax receipts, however Income tax represents only a fraction of the Government total receipts = 25% of the total collected.
National insurance contributions paid by almost everyone = 20%
VAT = 20% of tax receipts
So the Truth is that most of the taxes collected in this country are collected from non-millionaires: pensioners, workers, public servants

National insurance contributions paid by almost everyone = 20%
VAT = 20% of tax receipts

Again, you completely fail to realise that the contribution of a person who earns £20,000pa is utterly irrelevant compared to a person who earns £100,000pa.

You cannot escape the fact that the rich keep this country afloat. You might not like it, but it doesn't change the fact.

Labour were clever in shifting the blame for their mistakes onto the bankers and 'the rich', but it's self-deluding nonsense. It just gives the majority a nebulous bogeyman to pin all the blame on and diverts people away from the real problem... which is that the UK has a completely unsustainable welfare budget. And it's becoming exponentially less affordable as time goes on.

74% of the State taxes are paid by non millionaires.....so I really fail to understand your logic that "the rich keep this country afloat"
As for Welfare, we may not be able to afford it anymore but considering that 50% of the welfare bill is paid to pensioners (and 20% to disabled people),
And the pension bill will rise even more as the British population ages and we live longer.....
May I suggest spending less on obsolete Nuclear warheads and military adventures and foreign Aid before cutting essential help to the poor, elderly and disabled people.

house on the hill wrote:
It's all about jealousy any way, it's all you have more then me so give me some of yours. Getting back on topic for a minute not that it usually gets in the way of a slanging match on here, but the reality is whoever lost all the money, it is gone so we don't have enough to provide what we would like to and cuts have to be made. The welfare state has long been an unsustainable expense that needs solving and this is just the first step. We can al find people better off that us as well as people better off, but we need to stop the insane jealousy that exists from the have nots to the haves but that is life. Maybe you should write to David Beckham And say that as he has 150 million he can afford to give some to you. Tax isn't a perfect way but you can t keep going back to the rich well as eventually it will dry up as they all move abroad. We have to make cuts and the bedroom tax doesn't seem that unreasonable, next get the scroungers out and no benefits for immigrants who haven't paid anything in to the country,,you can't take out if you don't put in.

Very interesting view point, the problem is not jealousy, it is about justice and fairness.
75% of all taxes collected in this country are paid by ordinary people, and it is the ordinary people that keep this country afloat by spending billions everyday in shops.
I do not have a problem with people being rich, I have a problem when I see this government taxing the elderly and disabled people whilst sending Mr Osborne to Brussels to defend the indefensible bonuses of multimillionaire bankers.
This is about Justice.

@A.Baron-Cohen: HMRC's own figures show that the top 5% account for almost half of the UK’s entire income tax take.

To be in that 5%, you need to be on a salary of £61,500pa, or a take-home wage of £3,537 - which I think most people would consider very well off.

People earning £150,000pa (or more) contribute 27% of the total. That is just 1% of the working population.

You socialist lies aren't fooling anyone, the people with money are more than paying their way and more than enough is being redistributed via our failed welfare state system.

Remember, everyone on benefits received a rise of 5.2% in their income last year - how many working taxpayers can say that?

Oh, and good work wishing to limit bankers bonuses - all that means is LESS tax to hand out to poorer people and the bankers will still get the money via alternative channels. What a way to shoot yourself nicely in the foot!

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: HMRC's own figures show that the top 5% account for almost half of the UK’s entire income tax take.

To be in that 5%, you need to be on a salary of £61,500pa, or a take-home wage of £3,537 - which I think most people would consider very well off.

People earning £150,000pa (or more) contribute 27% of the total. That is just 1% of the working population.

You socialist lies aren't fooling anyone, the people with money are more than paying their way and more than enough is being redistributed via our failed welfare state system.

Remember, everyone on benefits received a rise of 5.2% in their income last year - how many working taxpayers can say that?

Oh, and good work wishing to limit bankers bonuses - all that means is LESS tax to hand out to poorer people and the bankers will still get the money via alternative channels. What a way to shoot yourself nicely in the foot!

@Tim

Not strictly true on bankers bonuses as it seems to be more likely that salaries will rise to compensate.


@ABC

I asked Davey, but didn't get a reply. So I'll ask you. Where do you draw the line on calling someone rich.

Thanks for those that gave me an insight to my last post. Well I'm here I should point out I believe Mr Cameron made a big big mistake at pmqs today.He clearly stated that anyone who needs 24 hour care will not be affected by bedroom tax .So anyone who gets The £58.50 careers allowance gets it because the person who they care for needs 24 hour care . I know what he meant but that is what he said and on Tv .

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: HMRC's own figures show that the top 5% account for almost half of the UK’s entire income tax take.

To be in that 5%, you need to be on a salary of £61,500pa, or a take-home wage of £3,537 - which I think most people would consider very well off.

People earning £150,000pa (or more) contribute 27% of the total. That is just 1% of the working population.

You socialist lies aren't fooling anyone, the people with money are more than paying their way and more than enough is being redistributed via our failed welfare state system.

Remember, everyone on benefits received a rise of 5.2% in their income last year - how many working taxpayers can say that?

Oh, and good work wishing to limit bankers bonuses - all that means is LESS tax to hand out to poorer people and the bankers will still get the money via alternative channels. What a way to shoot yourself nicely in the foot!

I am not disputing the figures, however you missed my point. Income tax represents only 25% of the total government tax collection, this means that 75% of the total taxes collected by the government, is collected/paid by ordinary people via VAT, national insurance contributions, council tax, duties. It is the ordinary people that keep shops opened, people in jobs and HMRC coffers full. The Swindon Economy is kept going not by millionaires but by the ordinary men and women of this town and that is true for every other hamlet, village, town and city in the country.

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen: HMRC's own figures show that the top 5% account for almost half of the UK’s entire income tax take.

To be in that 5%, you need to be on a salary of £61,500pa, or a take-home wage of £3,537 - which I think most people would consider very well off.

People earning £150,000pa (or more) contribute 27% of the total. That is just 1% of the working population.

You socialist lies aren't fooling anyone, the people with money are more than paying their way and more than enough is being redistributed via our failed welfare state system.

Remember, everyone on benefits received a rise of 5.2% in their income last year - how many working taxpayers can say that?

Oh, and good work wishing to limit bankers bonuses - all that means is LESS tax to hand out to poorer people and the bankers will still get the money via alternative channels. What a way to shoot yourself nicely in the foot!

@Tim

Not strictly true on bankers bonuses as it seems to be more likely that salaries will rise to compensate.


@ABC

I asked Davey, but didn't get a reply. So I'll ask you. Where do you draw the line on calling someone rich.

It is very much up to interpretation, I would say it depends on the income and on the accumulated wealth, some would probably include a social dimension like education, background.
A few months ago, before the abolition of the 50p rate, it would have been easier to answer your question.

@ABC,

But you keep refer to rich people, so you must be able to draw a line and decide who is in or out.

Why does the 50p tax band matter (additional tax break); especially since it wasn't abolished it was reduced to 45p.

Some would argue that anyone in the 40% tax bracket was rich; for others it may be someone with assets worth over £1m. The point is simply using the term rich people doesn't mean a great deal.

A few months ago, before the abolition of the 50p rate, it would have been easier to answer your question.

This makes no sense at all. The threshold for the 50p rate was £150,000.

That hasn't changed.

You seem to be suggesting that those on £150,001pa are 'rich', whereas those on £149,999 are not.

As LordAshOfTheBrake points out, to some people, anyone earning £41,450 or more (ie, those into the 40% bracket) is considered 'rich'.

I suspect, like most greedy and envious Socialists, you prefer to simply refer to an undefined 'rich' as being anyone with more than you have.

a tax is what someone pays to the government, a benefit is something one receives..a benefit reduction just means one receives less...whilst on the subject can you explain why Housing Benefit claimants in private rented sector can't have a spare room but it's ok for council tenants?

Tim Newroman wrote:

A few months ago, before the abolition of the 50p rate, it would have been easier to answer your question.

This makes no sense at all. The threshold for the 50p rate was £150,000.

That hasn't changed.

You seem to be suggesting that those on £150,001pa are 'rich', whereas those on £149,999 are not.

As LordAshOfTheBrake points out, to some people, anyone earning £41,450 or more (ie, those into the 40% bracket) is considered 'rich'.

I suspect, like most greedy and envious Socialists, you prefer to simply refer to an undefined 'rich' as being anyone with more than you have.

The fact that you want to debate around the definition of being rich, is frankly pathetic and grotesque.
It is a lot easier to define poverty: struggling to feed your family and heat your home
I very much doubt that the people affected by the bedroom tax are greedy and envious, they are simply trying to survive.....
If you are looking for greedy and envious people (probably not Socialists though.....) I should point you towards the ones screaming against a Mansion Tax and flying Osborne to Brussels to defend Bankers Bonuses.

Richard pike wrote:
a tax is what someone pays to the government, a benefit is something one receives..a benefit reduction just means one receives less...whilst on the subject can you explain why Housing Benefit claimants in private rented sector can't have a spare room but it's ok for council tenants?

Maybe that's because most council tenants were all ready in there accommodation .And why should they move. I keep saying and I will repeat .home owners do not own the house until its paid for fact. And owners who owe the bank building society if you happen to fall on hard times you can claim help just like council tenants .And if this is so right then why are all tenants not under the same rule .That is because its a clear attack on those on benefits .And for all those that think its okay .there is a good saying in football be care full what you wish for.You never know when you may need help.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

A few months ago, before the abolition of the 50p rate, it would have been easier to answer your question.

This makes no sense at all. The threshold for the 50p rate was £150,000.

That hasn't changed.

You seem to be suggesting that those on £150,001pa are 'rich', whereas those on £149,999 are not.

As LordAshOfTheBrake points out, to some people, anyone earning £41,450 or more (ie, those into the 40% bracket) is considered 'rich'.

I suspect, like most greedy and envious Socialists, you prefer to simply refer to an undefined 'rich' as being anyone with more than you have.

The fact that you want to debate around the definition of being rich, is frankly pathetic and grotesque.
It is a lot easier to define poverty: struggling to feed your family and heat your home
I very much doubt that the people affected by the bedroom tax are greedy and envious, they are simply trying to survive.....
If you are looking for greedy and envious people (probably not Socialists though.....) I should point you towards the ones screaming against a Mansion Tax and flying Osborne to Brussels to defend Bankers Bonuses.

Some people define poverty as not being able to take a foreign holiday so agreeing a definition on poverty isn't as easy as you think either.

nigelej wrote:

Richard pike wrote:
a tax is what someone pays to the government, a benefit is something one receives..a benefit reduction just means one receives less...whilst on the subject can you explain why Housing Benefit claimants in private rented sector can't have a spare room but it's ok for council tenants?

Maybe that's because most council tenants were all ready in there accommodation .And why should they move. I keep saying and I will repeat .home owners do not own the house until its paid for fact. And owners who owe the bank building society if you happen to fall on hard times you can claim help just like council tenants .And if this is so right then why are all tenants not under the same rule .That is because its a clear attack on those on benefits .And for all those that think its okay .there is a good saying in football be care full what you wish for.You never know when you may need help.

If someone has a mortgage then they are the owners of the property. The debt associated may be secured on the physical property but that doesn't change the ownership. Home owners even with a mortgage DO own their own home.

Personally I think home owners shouldn't receive government aid to stay in their own home either. The only reason that exists is because governments are scared of a major housing crash causing negative equity for a significant number of people as a result of the housing boom.

At the end of the day fiscal responsibility is down to the individual. When you take out debt it is your responsibility to ensure you have ways of covering bad times as well as good.

The fact that you want to debate around the definition of being rich, is frankly pathetic and grotesque.

Why? You're the one who hates the 'rich', and yet you don't want to say what you think 'rich' actually means... very strange.

As you well know, or at least, should know, 'poverty' is defined as an income for a single person of £17,100 or less. For a couple with no children, it's £25,500 or less.

That is the official definition. It's also why so many people are a little bit cynical about 'poverty'.

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

nigelej wrote:

Richard pike wrote:
a tax is what someone pays to the government, a benefit is something one receives..a benefit reduction just means one receives less...whilst on the subject can you explain why Housing Benefit claimants in private rented sector can't have a spare room but it's ok for council tenants?

Maybe that's because most council tenants were all ready in there accommodation .And why should they move. I keep saying and I will repeat .home owners do not own the house until its paid for fact. And owners who owe the bank building society if you happen to fall on hard times you can claim help just like council tenants .And if this is so right then why are all tenants not under the same rule .That is because its a clear attack on those on benefits .And for all those that think its okay .there is a good saying in football be care full what you wish for.You never know when you may need help.

If someone has a mortgage then they are the owners of the property. The debt associated may be secured on the physical property but that doesn't change the ownership. Home owners even with a mortgage DO own their own home.

Personally I think home owners shouldn't receive government aid to stay in their own home either. The only reason that exists is because governments are scared of a major housing crash causing negative equity for a significant number of people as a result of the housing boom.

At the end of the day fiscal responsibility is down to the individual. When you take out debt it is your responsibility to ensure you have ways of covering bad times as well as good.

Lets hope you stay in good health and you never need help.

Or it could be that I've planned and have cover for not having good health.

At the end of the day what is it that you expect from the social security system?

At the end of the day the social security system has to be funded without borrowing.

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Or it could be that I've planned and have cover for not having good health.

At the end of the day what is it that you expect from the social security system?

At the end of the day the social security system has to be funded without borrowing.

You may well be in for a shock like I was . I had a pension and savings my own business and a lovely home .Then out of the blue I had a massive stroke at the age of 42 never been ILL before . It took me a year to recover only to have another one then 4 heart attacks .then to be told I was terminally ILL and would not be alive at 45 I'm 54 now and that's due to determination and family love .Unfortunatly during my stoke my business that I worked bloody hard for went bust so I lost my savings and my house .Then when I got my pension out the Dhs took it of me . So some good that was .i have said before and I will say again. If you are not in our position you don't know the damage this is going to do not just to me but to others .Over my life time we have sent billions out to Africa and other places for aid tell me how much improvement have you seen so where has all that money gone. I would also ask this Goverment to guarantee that not one home they get from this be given to Bulgarian or Romanian . Because there are lots of people on the list before them .BUt maybe and I do say maybe you would be all right with that.

You seem to think that I am against you and I'm not.

I would agree with you on the immigration issue where immigrants can turn up at the borders and expect the welfare state to start paying them. It is absolutely wrong. But lets be clear about this.... The previous administration had over 10 years to get that sorted out. Germany did it...! There is an article on the BBC news website today about it.

You wrongly assume I don't know people in a similar situation; well your wrong. I do. I also know a number of people who also haven't prepared for theirs lives taking a turn for the worst they will be in dire straights should that happen. Because I know people in those situations; that is why I have taken out various insurances etc to help my family and so on.

Fair play to you I'm not suggesting you are not sympathetic .You infact make a lot of since .I did try when I was very youn to take out life insurance etc but was all ways refused. Obviously I know why .However I did take out life insurance when I was 50 .A no medical required one .Even that for £16.000 I have to pay £50 per month for that and to date I have paid £2800 so far now if I have to pay this rent I will have to stop the insurance payment and will lose what I have paid in .the main reason I did that was so my wife could bury me with dignity .I tell you honestly I am so ashamed of this country that both my grandparents . Fought for.

I tell you honestly I am so ashamed of this country that both my grandparents . Fought for.

Fully understandable, and I very much agree with you.

It's amazing how just 13 years of Labour in office managed to esstentially destroy anything that was still worthwhile about this country.

What's even more horrendous is that they things they've done cannot now be undone.

This country is well on it's way to becoming a Second World nation, and it's only going to get worse.

TIm a am not in favour of labour or conservative or any party .And I take your point. But the conservatives did get rid of a lot off our manufacturing .They closed down the mines etc leaving thousands unemployed.There is not a lot between them. However mr Cameron told lies or does not know his own policies .He said children with disabilities was excempt from the bedroom tax . Then he said anyone who needs 24 hour is excempt simply not true. So begs the question his he a lier or does he not know his on policies .

@nigelej: another left-wing lie that everyone seems to believe.

UK coal mines were closed at a more rapid rate by Labour governments than Tory governments, it's a matter of documented fact.

Labour closed an average of 29 mines per year and the Conservatives closed 20 mines per year.

TIm obviously you are anti labour and that is fair enough. We are all entitled to our opinion Personally I don't think ther is a lot to choose between them any of them. But one thing I've noticed on here not you but others do like to ask questions however no one answers any back if you look through the post you will see I have tried to answer anything I've been asked So in hope some one may. Answer here I go again does Cameron lie or does he not know his policies . Yes or no. And again everyone who have been commenting on here thinking we are lucky I have made an open invertation for any one to come and see the size of my bungalow .oddley enough just got back from my mums who lives in a one bed bungalow in swindon and its a lot bigger than our two bed.One thing I must say TIm is I have thoroughly enjoyed debating this with you.Its given me a boost and for that I truly thank you for .

TIm obviously you are anti labour and that is fair enough. We are all entitled to our opinion Personally I don't think ther is a lot to choose between them any of them. But one thing I've noticed on here not you but others do like to ask questions however no one answers any back if you look through the post you will see I have tried to answer anything I've been asked So in hope some one may. Answer here I go again does Cameron lie or does he not know his policies . Yes or no. And again everyone who have been commenting on here thinking we are lucky I have made an open invertation for any one to come and see the size of my bungalow .oddley enough just got back from my mums who lives in a one bed bungalow in swindon and its a lot bigger than our two bed.One thing I must say TIm is I have thoroughly enjoyed debating this with you.Its given me a boost and for that I truly thank you for .

nigelej wrote:
Fair play to you I'm not suggesting you are not sympathetic .You infact make a lot of since .I did try when I was very youn to take out life insurance etc but was all ways refused. Obviously I know why .However I did take out life insurance when I was 50 .A no medical required one .Even that for £16.000 I have to pay £50 per month for that and to date I have paid £2800 so far now if I have to pay this rent I will have to stop the insurance payment and will lose what I have paid in .the main reason I did that was so my wife could bury me with dignity .I tell you honestly I am so ashamed of this country that both my grandparents . Fought for.

My grandparents didn't fight in the war (one was too old and a farmer, the other a farmer), but I fully agree with your sentiment. Many people of that generation would be (and indeed are) appalled at what this country has become.

@nigelej: it's difficult to know the answer to your question regarding Cameron's claims. Firstly, I didn't hear or read his comments, but will take your account of what he said as the reality. Secondly, I don't honestly know whether his claims are the truth or not.

While it's not unusual for politicians to lie, I would be surprised if a prime minister blatantly lied about a policy related to disabled people - the opposition would have a field day, not to mention disabled charities being able to sue the government into oblivion.

Maybe, just maybe, the legislation isn't fully written in stone as yet and those disabled people who do require 24-hour, on-site carers WILL be allowed to keep their spare rooms at no additional cost?

If that were the case, and I suspect it probably will be, it would seem your ire may have been a little misplaced. As I mentioned before, it's all too easy to simply look at the here and now and blame the current government for things... but the reality is that the current economic problems all stem from Brown's mismanagement of the economy during the Blair/Brown years of the previous Labour government. Even Labour themselves admit that now, so I don't really know why a hardcore element of their support still tries to pretend otherwise.

Or, rather, I do - they're embarrassed.

@Tim

The support that Cameron referred to was the discretionary payments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-politics-21
721320

At MPs questions he very clearly said what I quoted children and people who need 24 hour care were excempt. However reality is after his economic speech on Thursday and the Roebuck he got from the obr I've no confidence in him at all .

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
@Tim

The support that Cameron referred to was the discretionary payments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-politics-21

721320

Thanks for the link, which clarifies what Cameron said, but doesn't really clarify the situation itself.

I guess the idea is that those people deemed and assessed as most in need will effectively be exempt from the new charges.

@nigelej - you seem to have a good case for receiving a discretionary payment, surely it's worth applying. Nothing to lose in trying for it.

I have put in for it Tim .But got a letter back saying I was to early and they want be doing them for some time. Yet the payments will start in 2 weeks. And the letter also says we are not guarented to get it .Interisting today hearing the lib dems shouting about how well they have done by bringing so many out of tax. Well must of those they have done that too will also have to find this bedroom tax and 20 percent of council tax can't see them being to well off

@nigelej: I don't suppose anyone is guaranteed to get it, that's why it's called a discretionary allowance. Obviously it's taxpayers' money, so it's good to know it's not simply being dished out without due care and attention.

Anyway, good luck with your application, I hope you're successful, you certainly appear to be in the kind of situation it's designed for.