Punished by the Bedroom Tax? Read this.

[Pete]

This really is heartbreaking - and a true glimse at the shocking attitudes of our government.

• This heart-wrenching letter shames David Cameron and the Coalition Government over their wicked bedroom tax.
  
  In it, widow Julia Jones, 59, pleads with the PM to consider her plight, the Sunday People reports.
  
  Julia, who will have to live on just £53 a week, faces losing the home and garden where she scattered her husband's ashes.
  
  The malicious and divisive tax will punish 660,000 ordinary men and women come April and is rapidly becoming David Cameron's poll tax.
  
  "Please think again," Julia begs the PM.
  
  Today everyone should read Julia's letter.
  
  http://bit.ly/WWxQoE

[Fly]

Let's just kick the poor when they're already down 

[Pete]

Or, as some guy on Twitter said this morning, "Hard to know what to think of men who grew up in mansions penalising the poor for living in a house with a spare bedroom."

I know what to think of them...

[Slacker]

Wonder how many spare rooms there are in Buck House and the 2nd & 3rd homes of government ministers. Maybe they could take in some homeless people.

[therealjr]

Wonder how many spare rooms there are in Buck House and the 2nd & 3rd homes of government ministers. Maybe they could take in some homeless people.

Trouble is as per usual you are rushing headllong into political point scoring rather than examining the facts and coming up with a reasoned argument.
First of all let's be clear that this is not a 'tax'. It is a reduction in benefits.
It's saying to those people in subsidised social housing whose rents are further subsidised by housing benefits that we (the tax payers) can't afford to continue to subsidise them living in a house that is too big for their needs.
Now you can get into a separate argument about MP's expenses if you want but the fact that Gideon might have a mansion with 25 extra bedrooms is irrelevent because he's paying the council tax, income tax and payments etc to justify that ownership.
Let me put it this way. I live in a house that's got 5 bedrooms. When the kids move out 4 of them will be vacant. What do you think my chances are of getting someone to agree to pay some of my mortgage?

[Old Cruser]

Slightly different JR.
You have the option to sell and downsize if you wish or stay in the family home. You are also well enough to work. Many are not who are suffering this.

Cameron can dress up the 'tax' anyway he wants but it is still a tax on extra bedrooms otherwise why didn't he just cut the benefits instead of making it a cut if people had an extra bedroom.

Be interesting to see who is going to pay for the removal of the people being affected - or are they expected to move on a wheelbarrow!

Are they expected to live without carpets and curtains, no washing machine as they can't afford to pay someone to re-connect.
There is another issue  which goes far far deeper than just pay up or move out.
It is an emotional issue and borders on emotional abuse to me, we see people in other countries turfed out of their homes and made to move to another country - our government sends money.

If they wanted people to pay extra for bedrooms it should have been started with the new tenants and a much lower percentage.
As I have said before Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will our countries money problems

As it been thought out fully - I think not.

Just as the ESA discriptors and PIP discriptors haven't which is why so many are appealing against being put into the WRAG and being put into the support group.

Rant over 

ps I blame Pete the paint - cos he started this thread 

[Slacker]

Trouble is as per usual you are rushing headllong into political point scoring rather than examining the facts and coming up with a reasoned argument.
First of all let's be clear that this is not a 'tax'. It is a reduction in benefits.
It's saying to those people in subsidised social housing whose rents are further subsidised by housing benefits that we (the tax payers) can't afford to continue to subsidise them living in a house that is too big for their needs.
Now you can get into a separate argument about MP's expenses if you want but the fact that Gideon might have a mansion with 25 extra bedrooms is irrelevent because he's paying the council tax, income tax and payments etc to justify that ownership.
Let me put it this way. I live in a house that's got 5 bedrooms. When the kids move out 4 of them will be vacant. What do you think my chances are of getting someone to agree to pay some of my mortgage?

I have never described it as a tax (though I have re-posted others saying this)

There are several weaknesses in the proposals. One is the availability of smaller houses for someone to swap with. There is also the anomaly of someone moving from a 3 bedroom council house to a 2 bedroom private rental where the rent may be higher but they would go back to getting it paid in full. I see a big increase in hearings for the Appeals Committee.

[Old Cruser]

@ Slacker like other things it hasn't been thought through - it's all about saying look how much money we have saved and sod the people.
 

[Pete]

>> like other things it hasn't been thought through

A characteristic of this current mob - they've done more U turns than a forgetful taxi driver...

[Fly]

Oy, don't compare taxi drivers to this lot 

[therealjr]

Slacker: I grant you the fact that you seem incapable of original thought but you have posted stuff on here describing it as a tax. The fact is that the word tax is being used because opponents want to liken this to the Poll tax. It's a widely held belief that the Poll Tax was what did for Mrs T, I assume the opponents are hoping this will be the same for the Coalition.

OC: You are correct I do have the choice to downsize. I assume that same choice will be given to those who stand to lose benefits.

The fact is that the Housing benefit bill in this country is £23bn.

[Old Cruser]

>> like other things it hasn't been thought through

A characteristic of this current mob - they've done more U turns than a forgetful taxi driver...

      


Go Fly Go!!!

[chesterfieldchris]

POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST

[Old Cruser]

@ JR it's not a choice --- it is forced.

My home is 4 bedroomed two bathrooms and I love it, have spent money on it - but I am quietly preparing myself to downsize mentally and emotionally as I feel ready for this to a certain extent and it is now too big for the two of us. We won't move until our cat passes on though, as feel it unfair at his age to up root him and we feel he would generate back here as it is all he has ever known.

I feel it unfair to expect people to just leave a home they have invested in by whatever means.
Goodness knows we tried hard enough to get my parents to move to a bungalow after my late father had his stroke - all to no avail as their memories were there.

Had this 'tax' percentage been on a more realistic level, although it would be tight people maybe would have afforded it.

Many people are now in an invidious position not of their choice  ( only the foolish would take on a property which was beyond their means).

The goal posts have been moved.

[Old Cruser]

Those who receive no benefits at all are generally taxed more if they live in a larger more valuable home. So where's the issue?

Excluding the "wealthy" for a minute.... If somebody on full housing benefit lives in a 1 bed flat, why should somebody else on full benefit get a 2 bed flat?  Why should somebody else get a 3 bed semi?

and who has let the properties out to them.

The goal posts have been changed.