Chesterfield Online Forum
General Category => Politics => Topic started by: Pete on February 06, 2014, 08:41:01 PM
-
In a stunning victory for the campaign against the policy, Finance Secretary John Swinney announced he would provide the full funds needed to undo the Con-Dem cut.
Swinney said: “None of the funding is a solution to the bedroom tax. This is about mitigation, about picking up the pieces from Westminster’s iniquitous policy.
The campaign was led by the Scottish Daily Record.
http://bit.ly/1bumexG (http://bit.ly/1bumexG)
-
Good news for Scotlands bedroom tax victims.
It never has been 'fair'
What is the difference in a pensioner with two bedrooms who only uses one bedroom and the other as a store room, and a disabled person with two bedrooms who needs the second bedroom for overnight care when needed
-
Good news for Scotlands bedroom tax victims.
It never has been 'fair'
What is the difference in a pensioner with two bedrooms who only uses one bedroom and the other as a store room, and a disabled person with two bedrooms who needs the second bedroom for overnight care when needed
To be honest I didnt think there was a difference, my understanding is the only difference is whether you own the house or rent it off a council.
Ive got 3 spare bedrooms here not being used and one only used occasionally when stepson comes home from uni. But no one is charging me a bedroom tax because if I'm stupid enough to pay the bills on a house thats too big for me thats my problem (not for much longer hopefully).
The issue here is that someone else is picking the bill up.
Its a similar situation to normal with blanket legislation. Its a good idea in theory (people only living in whatever size of accomodation meets their needs) but there will always be unfair cases because the rules are badly written.
-
Quote JR -------Rules are badly written - exactly JR which makes them unfair.
The bedroom Tax only applies to people renting who are on benefits, hence my comment about pensioners V disabled, it should be right across the board and it's not.
-
Badly written doesn't mean they are unfair, just that they are unfair to certain people. Let's take the Daily Mail standpoint. If a family of benefit scrounges (say dad mum and 2 kids) are living in a 4 bedroom house and thus have a bedroom they don't need why should they receive the housing benefits based on that house (because that's actually the case opponents call it a tax as though it's something that has to be paid the reality is that it's a reduction in what is being received). That innocent people with genuine needs are being caught up in this is a reason to re-examine and re-write not scrap.
-
Yes I would agree with that JR in so much as it is unfair to certain people. It is the reason why charities and disability organisations have been up in arms about it.