Chesterfield Online Forum
General Category => Chesterfield Discussion => Topic started by: Pete on February 10, 2013, 10:55:36 AM
-
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 (http://bit.ly/WWxQoE)
-
Let's just kick the poor when they're already down :(
-
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 :))
-
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.
-
@ 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.
>:(
-
>> 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...
-
Oy, don't compare taxi drivers to this lot :))
-
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.
-
>> 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!!!
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
@ 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.
-
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.
-
Have any of you read the story I posted - or is it just a springboard for you to spout off your inevitable, predictable, same old same old?
It's like having a discussion with a tape recorder.
-
Shurrup Pete we are putting things to rights here :P ---
well we would if we could agree :))
-
If somebody on full housing benefit lives in a 1 bed flat, why should somebody else on full benefit get a 2 bed flat?
Because the council didn't have any 1 bed flats left.
You shouldn't be penalised for a change in circumstances.
If your single, and your child leaves home, you shouldn't get less benefit cos you have an empty room.
I actually thought you got a reduction of council tax for single occupancy.
This whole thing is just trash to me.
BTW, we have to pay full everything, so I shouldn't really care but I do.
Go Fly Go!!!
Don't set me off OC ;)
I'm trying to think of something beneficial the Tory's have ever done for me.
Yes I did Pete !!
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Sorry, that's bollocks. IMHO ;)
Wealthy people will still have the price of a loaf of bread.
Poor people wont.
1% of a £100 is £1
1% of a £1 is as you know, is sweet fa
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
In the next bed is a bloke who hasn't worked a day in his life, seeing no change to his families situation while he gets the same care that is costing the other bloke his entire worldly goods.
I see your point and appreciate it. But I ain't the guy who decides this.
That's why we vote for a government isn't it ?
You are now arguing some of the Tory Gov's decisions.
I didn't vote them in.
-
That never has been 'fair' CC. Sometimes I wonder if it is better to just piss it up the walls and have a ball cos you still get looked after, even if it is in a smelly care home.
I thought they had stopped turfing people out though now? Or do they still do it?
Must admit I have lost touch with that over the years.
Mind you the poorer people would be very pleased of even a 24k savings account. Lets not forget not all benefit claimants like the lady Pete started this thread with are idle scroungers - her life has been taken out of her hands and that happens.
If a person on benefits say, is left money, they have the benefits stopped - fair enough that, but come on 6grand as savings is all they can keep, to replenish houshold ware and tear and what about their funeral? Who will pay for that as that money they have had left them won't last that long.
It's laughable if it wasn't so serious.
I really feel for the genuine people in this country like that lady and there are many of them.
Lifes a bitch and then you die.
There for the Grace of God - as the saying goes.
-
:'(
-
I read the article.
It's always going to be possible for the press to dig up someone like this, be it the Gurniad or the Mirror finding a lady like this or the Mail finding the extreme case where someone is on £100k a year benefits.
£23bn on Housing benefits is 3 times more than the government contributes to policing.
Incidently can we be clear what we are discussing here when we say someone will be losing money and what the actual situation is.
This is a person already on benefits in some form of social housing.
Their rent is let's say £50 per week payable to a local authority.
The government are saying if you are in a property that has a spare room we are only going to contribute £40.
So now the tenant has to find £10 out of their other benefits to make up the difference.
The tenant according to those who oppose the tax won't be able to pay this.
So they will run up rent arrears.
This means the local authority has less money.
So now your taxes are going up and your council tax is going up as well.
Eventually the arrears will get to the point where the council has to take a decision to evict.
Now the tenant is homeless.
And guess who has to pick the bill up for re-housing the homeless.
You can make this as emotive as you like but at the end of the day it comes down to more political point scoring by both sides.
-
So does she get re-housed and who foots the bill ?
Or are we all left to wonder what happened to the lady ?
Is she left living under a motorway bridge somewhere ?
-
sorry Fly, is that aimed at me for my last or Pete for his OP?
-
No one personally. Just the thread in general.
-
The system has been set up so the council rather than the government looks like the bad guy
-
The system has been set up so the council rather than the government looks like the bad guy
And Why?
Because for years political parties campaign at local election times not on local issues but those of the government or of other tiers. The Lib Dems in Chesterfield campaigned for years on the basis of what the Labour Government were doing. You yourselves campaigned on County Council issues like Highways and winter maintenance.
When you add that to the public's lack of perception of who does what (regularly demonstrated on this forum and in another place) is it any wonder that the blame culture has taken over from actually formulating well thought out policies that will have a positive impact on the lives of people?
-
That is correct Slacker.
This lady like many others including people like CC has mentioned are victims, although the latter victims will have some savings to play with it does not alter the fact that they may have worked hard for what they have got - just as the poorer people have such as Julie although I am not sure which benefit she would be on for only £58.00 a week as I am not up on these. I would have hoped there would have been top -ups on this money.
She and her husband already live in a small bungalow and I do know what she means by 11/2 bedrooms because my daughter has one. The second bedroom will take a single bed and maybe just a small wardrobe or tall boy but that is all. She lives in housing that is for 55 and overs - so she had every right to think she was safe.
He worked even when ill and she cared for him - they used all their savings and asked for nothing - now it's gone and she is ill.
We all know there are people who work the system and these need to be got out of that rut and into work but there are many that want to work and can't get it - it's not their fault.
Should our government really be penalising people like this is I suppose is maybe what Pete's OP was about.
I say no!
Some say yes!
Thing is when the savings have gone even it's 23 grand should the government help out - or are we chucked out to grass. :(
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
And Why?
Because for years political parties campaign at local election times not on local issues but those of the government or of other tiers. The Lib Dems in Chesterfield campaigned for years on the basis of what the Labour Government were doing. You yourselves campaigned on County Council issues like Highways and winter maintenance.
When you add that to the public's lack of perception of who does what (regularly demonstrated on this forum and in another place) is it any wonder that the blame culture has taken over from actually formulating well thought out policies that will have a positive impact on the lives of people?
Because the (2nd tier) councils are the collecting authorities for both council tax and rent.
As for highways issues, presume you mean winter maintenance, there is now much better co-operation and co-ordination between borough and county