posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:19 AM
Originally posted by stumason
Originally posted by pikestaff
What I find strange is the rumor I was told by a Brit friend of mine about social housing tenants will shortly have to pay $35.00 tax a month on empty
I am losing the plot with this one...
IT'S NOT A TAX!!!!!!!!!! IT IS REDUCTION IN HOUSING BENEFIT FOR THOSE IN RECEIPT OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO PAY THEIR RENT WHO HAVE AN EXTRA BEDROOM!
WHY SHOULD THE TAXPAYER FUND PEOPLE TO HAVE HOUSES BIGGER THAN THEY NEED WHEN THOSE WHO DO PAY FOR THEIR HOUSING HAVE TROUBLE AFFORDING
edit on 25/3/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)
Very late to the discussion so apologies if this has been discussed, but this is the first time I disagree with you stu. Well, not exactly disagree,
but I have a but.
People are having this applied unfairly IMO. I know several cases where the family having the reduction applied have been asking for a smaller house
for years and others where the notification of this reduction caused them to ask for a smaller house, freeing up theirs for a larger family and the
council response was that WE DON'T HAVE ANY. Surely this reduction is not applicable if the council cannot offer an alternative o a house they were
put in many years earlier when nobody, least of all the council or government, cared about the number of bedrooms?
However, the letter they (Rotherham Council) sent out did make me smile when, under a section about making up the shortfall, it said "if you are
working, work more hours, if you are not working get a job" Duh!
Sadly I think the topic of the OP is just being put out to curry favour, and perhaps head off a shift towards UKIP, with another election on the
horizon only to be forgotten about afterwards when it collapses at the first 'human rights' challenge