It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bedroom Tax Suicide Victim in Vain: Granny was exempt from housing loss

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 

It's not a tax though, it's a cut in preferential benefits which were paid to council house tenants.
Such tenants now fall under the same rules as tenants in the private sector, and they still remain much better off with council rents often being half the cost of a privately rented home.

If we are going to cry about the poor suffering tenants of state owned homes then lets all campaign for benefits to fund extra rooms for private sector tenants. It is curious that no-one appears to be advocating such an extra room benefit for those people as well. Perhaps people don't care about the people who are not wrapped up in the cotton wool of social housing?




posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Lets look at it another way.

In 1979 I had a young wife a young baby and we stayed in rented house, a guy i worked for used to get £33 more than me in his wage packet for doing the exact same job.

I said how come, Tax relief because Im buying my house.

I did more research because I thought I need to get on this, well I got turned down, a guy I knew (cousin in fact) had been turned down as well and he was a Fireman and his wife a Nurse,

You were at the mercy of a bank manager, then the relief was stopped, then anyone could get a loan ( funny how normal people could not buy a house when it was been paid for by people renting their properties )

Now we are at a situation where those same people that I bought their house for by my taxes are moaning about helping me with my rent.
I dont remember any tax relief deduction for them having an extra room.

Now the govenment are at it again helping people buy a house with tax payers money, I will tell you now that this money will go to certain people.

I bet 2 people in a working class house in a down trodden council scheme won't get this hand out, they are helping people that want to live in 1/2 million house with handouts, yet charging low paid workers and unemployed £5 for having an extra bedroom.

This is a transfer of wealth from these at the very bottom to bail out middle classes buy a house.

If you cant see the link then you are blind.

This is not the first time the tories have tried to get the poor out of London.

The last time the Tories Evicted working class people from their house and sold the London properties to yuppies for a £1 thats right ONE POUND.
The minister involved got fined £3 million pounds for giving away hundreds of millions of pounds to Torie voters.

Do some research, she was head of The Tesco Family.

So Im not hearing any # about cut the benefit for householders on benefit, why should we pay for them to have an extra room etc..

And any people here in their 50s or 60s from the UK, I bought your house ME and people like me and all these with eldery parent who will inherit their parents property, remember it was the poor to poor to be passed for a loan to buy their own house. who had to live in council property that subsidised your up bringing in a nice house while we lived in a council house.

do some research and you will find the truth.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Before the Tories brought in the Right to buy scheme, "And we all know the real reason why they did it" we didn't really have many private lets. now it's about all you can get.
Next time you walk by a block of twenty or more private rented flats have a wee count at how many are lying empty.

This "TAX" on the poor is nothing more than a Social cleansing and vote winning excersise. and it's about to blow up in their faces. it's costing the UK more now to house the unemployed than it ever did. Fact.

Move from your 2 bedroom £60 a week social rented house to a 1 bedroom £120 a week private let and that's fine....you do the maths. but then again, we all know the goalposts are about to be changed again.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

pavmas
And any people here in their 50s or 60s from the UK, I bought your house ME and people like me and all these with eldery parent who will inherit their parents property, remember it was the poor to poor to be passed for a loan to buy their own house. who had to live in council property that subsidised your up bringing in a nice house while we lived in a council house.

do some research and you will find the truth.

Perhaps explain exactly how someone living in a council house (built with tax money) paying subsidised below market value rent has funded the mortgages of working people?
Your tax credit/discount is a bit irrelevant since that stopped years ago, and especially when you factor in the below market value rent which council tenants pay.
I could research it a bit more I suppose, but if you are going to make such wild claims I think the onus is on you to demostrate it with a few verifiable figures and less emotion.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 

I agree that it could end up costing the housing benefit bill a lot more if council tenants move into privately rented homes without a surplus bedroom, so on that point alone it seems a pointless equalisation of benefit rules for private and council tenants.
But it is not a tax though, and the campaign should be to allow private tenants to also have as many extra rooms as they like if this benefit is to be provided to social housing tenants.
Right now the rules are equal for both types of tenant, if you advocate extra rooms benefit for council tenants then morally you must support the same benefit for private tenants.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Eh, correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't the reason behind public/council housing to give the low paid worker cheap and affordable housing. ?

Now i dont know about where you live, but where i live people here are working their fingers to the bone 50- 60 a week and would still struggle to fund a private let.

Minimum wage £6.30...i was making that 25 years ago at 21 years of age for christ's sake, and the rent, Gas and Leccy and food bills were half the price.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

grainofsand
Perhaps explain exactly how someone living in a council house (built with tax money) paying subsidised below market value rent has funded the mortgages of working people?


Rents from council housing have been used to prop treasury coffers for decades. The HRA (Housing Revenue Account) had every ministerial snout rooting in the sweetie jar for an ever bigger share.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

grainofsand
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 

I agree that it could end up costing the housing benefit bill a lot more if council tenants move into privately rented homes without a surplus bedroom,


If?....IF??...where else are they supposed to move too...there are very little 1 bedroom council houses out there, and it sure doesn't look as though they plan on building any in the near future.

We are on a rocky road under this government.... Trailer parks.....watch this space.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 
I do not disagree with any of that, but you haven't declared your opinion on bringing back 'extra bedroom benefits' for people in privately rented homes?
Yes, the equalisation of these housing benefit rules may well end up costing more in the national housing benefit budget, but if you are campaigning for council tenants to have state funded extra bedrooms then you must also be campaigning for the poor suffering privately rented tenants as well.

If you are advocating equality for private and council tenants then I would support it, but campaigning solely for social tenants to have extra and preferential benefits than private tenants would seem to be unjust and morally questionable.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

grainofsand
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 
if you advocate extra rooms benefit for council tenants then morally you must support the same benefit for private tenants.


I dont have a problem with that....when i see what the PTB get up to and away with, thern i would rather fund a million ordinary men than one of those parasites any day of the week.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

grainofsand
Right now the rules are equal for both types of tenant, if you advocate extra rooms benefit for council tenants then morally you must support the same benefit for private tenants.


Not really. Local Housing Allowance (LHA) is payable on private sector rents. Under LHA rules, a maximum amount claimable is set and if you can find a property where the rent is the same or less than the LHA amount for your circumstances (same housing needs rules that applies to anyone), then your LHA is paid in full with no deductions for spare bedrooms. Housing Benefit is payable for those in the social rented sector and as with LRA, up to the full amount is payable as per circumstances but with deductions for spare bedrooms.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 


Then we agree.
If this campaign to bring back 'extra bedroom benefits' to tenants is to be equitable then it has to provide the same benefit to privately rented tenants. Just flying the flag for those who do not have the security of social housing. Curious though how nobody seemed to give a toss about private tenants for however long it is that they have not been paid housing benefit for spare bedrooms.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

teapot

grainofsand
Right now the rules are equal for both types of tenant, if you advocate extra rooms benefit for council tenants then morally you must support the same benefit for private tenants.


Not really. Local Housing Allowance (LHA) is payable on private sector rents. Under LHA rules, a maximum amount claimable is set and if you can find a property where the rent is the same or less than the LHA amount for your circumstances (same housing needs rules that applies to anyone), then your LHA is paid in full with no deductions for spare bedrooms. Housing Benefit is payable for those in the social rented sector and as with LRA, up to the full amount is payable as per circumstances but with deductions for spare bedrooms.

Not really. LHA bands are set on a scale based on the number of bedrooms. 1 person living in a 2 bedroomed home will get the LHA rate for 1 bedroom - the reduction in benefit is still based on how many bedrooms are needed by the claimant.
The reduction in benefit based on unused bedrooms is very much in place in the private sector, and for many many years.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

grainofsand
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 


Then we agree.
If this campaign to bring back 'extra bedroom benefits' to tenants is to be equitable then it has to provide the same benefit to privately rented tenants. Just flying the flag for those who do not have the security of social housing. Curious though how nobody seemed to give a toss about private tenants for however long it is that they have not been paid housing benefit for spare bedrooms.


Why would anyone not agree....this whole debacle is an injustice on humanity.
UK PLC has plenty money...TPTB just choose to keep it for their rich friends.
WAR!!! Yip, UK PLC can fund that and we wont even bat an eyelid.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Soloprotocol

grainofsand
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 


Then we agree.
If this campaign to bring back 'extra bedroom benefits' to tenants is to be equitable then it has to provide the same benefit to privately rented tenants. Just flying the flag for those who do not have the security of social housing. Curious though how nobody seemed to give a toss about private tenants for however long it is that they have not been paid housing benefit for spare bedrooms.


Why would anyone not agree....this whole debacle is an injustice on humanity.
UK PLC has plenty money...TPTB just choose to keep it for their rich friends.
WAR!!! Yip, UK PLC can fund that and we wont even bat an eyelid.


I share similar sentiments about the funding of wars but that is a different fiscal issue for debate.
Regarding the OP though, should a single guy who privately rents a 5 bedroomed house get the LHA rate for 5 bedrooms if he loses his job, or is it just council tenants you feel deserve spare rooms funded by the state?
I'm not asking you how many people are actually likely to be in that position, I'm asking do you think that is the correct change to make for housing benefit legislation, while remembering that morally rules should apply equally for social/council and private tenants.
Remember, if you are providing this 'extra bedroom benefit' to council tenants then morally it must be an equal status for private tenants.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


As a bricklayer for many years the differnce in materials is next to nothing from a two bedrrom to a three bedroom,

No one should be penalised because they have an extra bedroom, if anything they should be given an extra £5 as it cost more to heat and decorate.

I think the ideal is to get people out of London who are on benefit, the Tories did this before where they moved council tennents from properties and sold them to Torie voters for £1

This was well reported, so capping the housing benefit and the bedroom tax could all be for this reason only.

I think everyone should live in a house.

The problem is they insist in keeping 94% or England countryside and building plots now are as expensive as a house used to be.

It used to be that a bricklayer would have to work 50 years to pay for a house in London that he could build within a month.

The same house in the 90s would take a bricklayer 500 years of working to buy the same house.

Now I think its about 800 years.

The poor and Im talking people in employment are being priced out of even the worst property, people working cant even afford basic housing.

Governments freeze wages but leave costs up to the open market or free market as they call it.

In the 1970s you used to have a thing called the prices and incomes board, where if wages only rose by 2% then costs could only rise by 2%, so if I only got 2% then my electricity could only go up by 2%.
Maggie T did away with this.

We now have wage rises of 2% and benefit rises of 1% whilst we have rents rising, power rising year on year by 9% food rising 20% whilst wages are staying put.

This has been going on for a number of years now and the gap between the have and have nots is at the widest we have ever saw in this country.

Most wealthy people think this gap is a disgrace and many do help by giving other ways, but its not the kind of country we want rich or poor, the British have always been regarded as fair.

But we are living in an unfair situation now, constantly governments give to the rich and punish the poor and I never understood this.

If it gets any worse you will start to see people moving into gated communities creating a division .

I don't resent the rich, good luck to them,

I used to say Britain may have its faults but nobody starve in Britain, now I reading in Leeds 92,000 were treated for malutritriton, teacher complaining about kids falling asleep due to hunge, teachers now make kids tea and toast before lessons start.

The very first act that this Con/Lib team did when they got into power was to cancel free school dinner, the second was to bring in a law that there could be no vote of confidence in the Gov and we are stuck with them till 2015 whatever they do.

I dont think its acceptable in a rich country such as the UK for children to go to bed hungry, I dont think its acceptable any where but especially Britain where the people are taxed so much.

Things have to change and MPs cant see it as a sign of weakness to help the poor and only thinking if we are tougher on the poor thats what people want and we will get voted back in.

Im alright Im not poor and my family are all working and Im the only one ill so we are lucky.

But I was taking to a guy last week who has sent over 20 job applications in the last month and had just sent 6 that day. he was sounding down.
This was on the ps3, now people will say why should he have a ps3 being unemployed, well he bought it when he was working and was not on it much then because he worked 6 days a week, should he just sell it now at a loss because he was paid off

My son has a ps3 in his room, and in full time employment, now just say he was made unemployed (unlikeley to happen) you would have people saying benefit is 2 high when he can afford a big TV and ps3.

When the fact is no unemployed person can afford them, they bought them when they were working, But does not stop the press lying.

I just hate injustice, a woman on here said my daughter does not want your pity, that was not pity it was anger about what we are doing to our young and I include my grandaughter in with that.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
look on the bright side one more 2 bedroom house is on the market and there is one less pension to pay and it will make a good home for a eastern european moving to you'r country soon who will pay taxes and grow some more slaves for the system



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

pavmas
reply to post by grainofsand
 


I just hate injustice

As do I.
I presume from that you would agree that 'extra bedroom benefits' should be available for privately rented tenants as well as social/council tenants? To do otherwise would obviously be unjust, but it does present further questions such as a single guy getting LHA for a 5 bedroomed house if they lose their job.
I'm all for looking out for us common people (I'm a scruffy hardworking plasterer myself) but I cannot support offering preferential benefit rules for social tenants which excludes private tenants from the same opportunity of having extra bedrooms.
If you can justify that inequality based solely on who the landlord is I would be most interested.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


It used to be that if you had a mortgauge you got tax relief

If you were working and yor rented your house and a guy was working beside you doing the exact same job.

Your wage packet would be £123 Net, is would be £156 net because he got tax relief. he did not have to jump through hoops.

Income tax was a lot back then, it you could get a loan to buy your property you were quids in.

So Im in rented property he in his own house, he is getting tax benefit.

Go back to 1973 when I was a milk boy, all the milk tokens I picked up were from private owned houses in the snobbiest schemes you could imagine,

Some of them looked at me as those I was dirt (the way I talked I suppose) as they handed me my milk tokens, We lived in a council house but we paid our milk in cash.


The middle classes and the rich have got more out of this country than the poor ever did.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Ok lets agree that anyone getting any benefit from the state should pay for extra rooms, thats MPs with extra rooms in second homes, the Royals, Judges on circuit I could go on and on,

But no its the poorest people that have to pay this,

Do people buying their house and unemployed get penalised for having extra bedroom.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join