Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Welfare Reform The Bedroom Tax


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 93 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 1 Apr 2013 14:44:21 BDT
Roma says:
Hi While it makes sense to encourage people who are in social housing accommodation which has more rooms than they require with people who require additional rooms i do not support the government s decision to reduce the housing benefit of those who have extra rooms in their house. There are many arguments against this policy decision, but a main one must be the absence of one bedroom apartments into which they can move.

Conditions are imposed on builders of housing associations. For example, some associations insist that a certain percentage of houses or flats must be used for supported accommodation. Before this reform the government should have ensured availability. In my area, housing development is massive, yet research shows that not one bedroom department has been or is being built. If suitable alternative accommodation within the area was available then there wouldn t be such a problem. If such accommodation did exist then individuals should not have had larger accommodation approved by DSS, unless their physical or mental health required it. To impose a financial penalty when there is no real choice is cruel, as is the decision to implement it within such a short time space.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 14:49:58 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 15:17:42 BDT
Roma says:
Hi Simon I don t think private landlords would be a problem if they were properly controlled by councils. It angers me greatly to see formerly decent housing estates turned into slums. More should be down by some regulatory body to ensure landlords are properly maintaining their properties and by the landlords to ensure that their tenants are properly looking after their homes and, where there are any, gardens.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 15:39:35 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 1 Apr 2013 15:45:02 BDT
I fully agree that this legislation is beyond acceptable and I am frankly appalled that the citizenry of this country are merely impotently standing by whilst what is in effect, the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in recorded history is taking place; of which, this is merely one further footnote to.

One example I wish to highlight in relation to this topic is that which was told to me by a good friend who has spent the past few years working as a self-employed electrical engineer. He was tasked with upgrading (or more to the point - "making safe") the electrical supply circuitry in a block of council flats, which were in fact owned by a private landlord, who was in turn paid directly by the council (Birmingham in this case) to provide accommodation to the occupants. This particular landlord charged the council an exorbitant rate for the provision of this accommodation, which the council gladly paid, apparently without bothering (at least to a reasonable degree) to check that the accommodation provided was even safe for occupancy, let alone qualified for such high costs.

The landlord in this case was paying the absolute bare minimum to ensure not safety for the occupants, let alone comfort, but "meeting statutory requirements" - i.e. the kettle doesn't explode when you turn the toaster on. (Basically what he could get away with, given the minimal routine checks that were carried out by the council.) Needless to say, the occupants were mostly despairing about the standards of living, which were - according to my good friend - appalling to say the very least.

The landlord was profiting from this setup; allowing him to own a few nice cars and a holiday home, whilst the occupants were living in squalor, dangerous squalor at that (given the state of the electricity supply at the very least).

Certain dimensions of such stories - were they even told in the media - go largely unnoticed by the wider public. The main part of the media provides the impression that the people who should be demonised in such a case and thought of as "scroungers off the state" would be the occupants themselves, whereas in reality, these people were largely powerless to act to improve their circumstances and meanwhile the landlord is using council money to live in luxury, at the expense of those at the absolute bottom of society, who - thanks to media-provided, and state-approved distortions - are seen as the ones who benefit the most from tax payers money.

Hence - in large part - the nonchalance about such regulations as the bedroom tax. Were society at large provided with the full picture on a regular basis, and moreover, were they given the chance to digest it fully and reflect upon its implications, without feeling the need to "get on with life and earn more money so I can retire in 40 years time and live my life", such regulations would not even make it off the table, let alone be approved by government and ignored by huge swathes of the population.

Posted on 1 Apr 2013 15:46:56 BDT
Roma says:
Well, it s no difference than hiring out yourself which is what we do when we we work for an employer.

Private landlords were partly the result of a previous government s decision to sell off council houses but not to replace them.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 15:53:03 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 16:05:29 BDT
David Groom says:
Simon DHB,

'Why is it right for an individual to "earn a living" hiring out a property?'

It's called freedom to do as one wishes within the law. Some people buy property for investment and income, others buy shares, others buy cars or coins. It's freedom of choice, divorced from interference by somebody faceless in government telling you what you can do or not do. And I'll take this over the USSR format any day.

Posted on 1 Apr 2013 16:06:06 BDT
Roma says:
Simon Food and heating are also needs. Do you think farmers or heating engineers should not make a profit?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 16:28:02 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 16:29:14 BDT
David Grime...you make a useless point...thank you...I know I am on the right track when I read Grimey...

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 16:47:52 BDT
David Groom says:
Simon DHB,

'David Grime...you make a useless point...thank you...I know I am on the right track when I read Grimey... '

Ah, so you're a wannabe dictator. You want to strut about telling everybody else what do do and how to live and how to earn their living. Pity you don't live in a country where your talents could be exploited. Instead, you must be incredibly frustrated at seeing all us normal people getting along with the UK system just fine, while your own voice is just a baby crying pointlessly in the wilderness.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 16:49:31 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Apr 2013 16:53:05 BDT
The Funty says,

<<...look to the USSR...>> Okey dokey Funty:

If UK housing was 1/10 as bad as soviet housing was there would be riots. Soviet flats were shoddy and small. Even the 5 storey concrete blocks ('Khrushcevki') that went up starting in the Khrushchev years, were called Krushcheby by residents because it rhymed with 'trushchoby' (slum). You couldn't live where you fancied, because you needed a 'residency permit',(in fact you could't fart without a permit). In the '50's you were allowed 50 square foot a person, the standard was raised to 90 sq feet. If you had 50/90 sq ft you were not eligible for a move. People are inventive the world over, and citizens got some flexibility into the system by swapping between themselves with a cash backhander were appropriate. Even so during Leonid's days, there were waiting lists for flats, and there was no choice. Many still lived in barracks and dormitories, others had a room in a flat, which they sub-let from the official tenant. If you had savings you could apply for a 'co-operative apartment', using them to buy a place. Many middle class people had the means to try for one of these, they used the private market to solve their housing NEED (as the Funty calls it).

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 16:54:53 BDT
...a really intelligent comment from the Funty.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 16:58:29 BDT
Yep. However the Funty says his dictatorship will be different...it will be run by super-intelligent-caring-sharing-altruistic experts who will act in the best interests of the flock at all times. But they all say that don't they.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 16:59:21 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 16:59:55 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 17:14:12 BDT
Roma says:
Four legs good, two legs bad?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 17:38:54 BDT
What?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 18:08:05 BDT
David Groom says:
Gordon Bennett,

'Yep. However the Funty says his dictatorship will be different...it will be run by super-intelligent-caring-sharing-altruistic experts who will act in the best interests of the flock at all times. But they all say that don't they.'

Only an idiot could believe that!!

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 18:15:33 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 18:56:10 BDT
David Groom says:
Simon DHB,

'How little David Grime understands about the science of idiocy...to Grimey an idiot is a buffoon...a village idiot bumpkin....no sir...an idiot is "one who is themself"...a whole human...real... '

Well, I recognise an idiot when I see one, and you qualify on all counts, based on what you post on here.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 18:58:18 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 1 Apr 2013 19:46:15 BDT
Lexi says:
It isn't a bedroom tax it is another benefit cut. The purse strings are getting tighter and tighter. It won't take long for the fat cats in power to dream up another scheme then drop it on the unfortunates. I thing a modern day Robin Hood is called for.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2013 21:31:03 BDT
The Funty says,

<<What?>>
Read the book. Like all dictatorships the rules laid down during the revolution tell the people it's going to be egalitarian. Animals say, 'four legs good, two legs bad'. Gradually the pigs establish a dictatorship, take on the human life style and walking on two feet change the commandment to, 'four legs good, two legs better'...they all do it dearie, which is why your fantasy of a caring-sharing-protective-nurturing-benevolent communist dictatorship would turn out to be hell upon earth.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  20
Total posts:  93
Initial post:  1 Apr 2013
Latest post:  12 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions