Is anyone going to the bedroom tax demos on Saturday?
Comments
-
MisterMuncher wrote:It most certainly will affect pensioners living in social housing, particularly those who've been in the same house for a long time...
Isn't it designed not to hit pensioners? I think their benefits are excluded from this proposal, which would make sense as this is the core Conservative vote.0 -
I'm another with no issues about this law in principle - it isnt a tax but is being made out by some as one!!
The housing benefit system is costing this country about £15billion a year - and i dont see why that should be supporting for example an unemployed couple after the kids have all grown up and moved away to stay in the 3 or 4 bedroom house that they had and needed when the kids were still there.
In the example from MisterMuncher two above - well why should pensioners get to stay in their big house paid for by the state just because they have been their for years? A needy of 4 family might well need a house - and i think it is wrong that anyone should expect a house for life when it isnt them - but the hard working tax payers paying for it!!0 -
Not quite: It doesn't affect those who are pensioners now. The exemption is granted to those born before 5/11/1951. So anyone who's about to become a pensioner might well be advised to check things very carefully.
For what it's worth, I agree with under-occupancy being a problem in social housing, but I don't think this is the best way to address it, and I firmly believe the problem is exacerbated by the dearth of social housing stock and the naked profiteering in the BtL sector (1 in 3 of whom paid no tax on income last year).0 -
Also, I look forward to the first Daily Mail headline when a nice British (white) pensioner gets shuffled out of the house she's lived in all her life, with her husband (probably described as a "war hero") and family who've since departed, to make way for a single mum and her doubtless feral kids.0
-
MisterMuncher wrote:For what it's worth, I agree with under-occupancy being a problem in social housing, but I don't think this is the best way to address it
A better option would be to just evict everyone who's house (or rather their housing benefit bill) is bigger than it needs to be - and give them no option to make up the shortfall themselves.
0 -
On a completely serious note, we just can't afford to pay the bills these days, everywhere where you have benefits you also get cheats. Just as you get people unwilling to work or do jobs they don't like.
It's easy to say tax the wealthy but all that does is make it easier for people to leave the country for areas with lesser tax rates. It's always going to be difficult to balance.
Society now accepts people who claim benefits needlessly which in reality means those who need it suffer. People are living longer which is not sustainable, and as this increases, the burden of paying the bill becomes ever more difficult.
I don't know the fix. Does anyone ?Living MY dream.0 -
How does the Queen feel about this? She has a few spare bedrooms. :twisted:None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0
-
VTech wrote:On a completely serious note, we just can't afford to pay the bills these days, everywhere where you have benefits you also get cheats. Just as you get people unwilling to work or do jobs they don't like.
It's easy to say tax the wealthy but all that does is make it easier for people to leave the country for areas with lesser tax rates. It's always going to be difficult to balance.
Society now accepts people who claim benefits needlessly which in reality means those who need it suffer. People are living longer which is not sustainable, and as this increases, the burden of paying the bill becomes ever more difficult.
I don't know the fix. Does anyone ?
is that copied verbatim from a daily heil editorial?
you clearly havent got a clue how life is for people on benefits or low income.
go and play on your turbo or count your wine bottles or something
*facepalms*'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
Whether Vtech or anyone else knows what it is like to be on low income, he is correct in saying that the level of benefit payments is not sustainable. There are hard choices that need to be made. It can't go on. This thread started re the reduction in housing benefit for some families under the misnomer of a bedroom tax.fast as fupp wrote:VTech wrote:On a completely serious note, we just can't afford to pay the bills these days, everywhere where you have benefits you also get cheats. Just as you get people unwilling to work or do jobs they don't like.
It's easy to say tax the wealthy but all that does is make it easier for people to leave the country for areas with lesser tax rates. It's always going to be difficult to balance.
Society now accepts people who claim benefits needlessly which in reality means those who need it suffer. People are living longer which is not sustainable, and as this increases, the burden of paying the bill becomes ever more difficult.
I don't know the fix. Does anyone ?
is that copied verbatim from a daily heil editorial?
you clearly havent got a clue how life is for people on benefits or low income.
go and play on your turbo or count your wine bottles or something
*facepalms*
If you are paying your own rent, you are governed by how much you can afford. Why is it fair that someone on benefits can have a house, larger than they require, fully funded by the state.0 -
Contrary to popular belief, myth and legend, the amount of money lost through benefit cheats is tiny in the scheme of things and is why it's always lumped together with losses such as administrative errors to make it appear greater than it is. Anyway that's a different discussion.
As has already been mooted, older people are the greatest financial burden to society in terms of welfare, health and social care and housing as a consequence. As more people live longer the greater that burden will become. We need to adopt an approach like the Liverpool Care Pathway to welfare and housing then many of societies most burdensome individuals who are no longer economically active and living in houses too big for their needs will die and free up good housing stock.
The other advantage of expediting deaths of the elderly in the home is you avoid higher social care costs and high in-patient hospital care costs. It's a win/win situation.
That's the first item on my manifesto which is one more item than the current government has on its manifesto.0 -
fast as fupp wrote:VTech wrote:On a completely serious note, we just can't afford to pay the bills these days, everywhere where you have benefits you also get cheats. Just as you get people unwilling to work or do jobs they don't like.
It's easy to say tax the wealthy but all that does is make it easier for people to leave the country for areas with lesser tax rates. It's always going to be difficult to balance.
Society now accepts people who claim benefits needlessly which in reality means those who need it suffer. People are living longer which is not sustainable, and as this increases, the burden of paying the bill becomes ever more difficult.
I don't know the fix. Does anyone ?
is that copied verbatim from a daily heil editorial?
you clearly havent got a clue how life is for people on benefits or low income.
go and play on your turbo or count your wine bottles or something
*facepalms*
The words in my post were written by my fair hand, I was born on a council estate, parents didnt have a penny spare throughout my childhood and dad walked to work (British Leyland) just so me and my brother could do school trips. I was bought up in the striking culture that destroyed Britain, dad suffered terribly with sever epilepsy until his death yet didnt claim a penny and worked 5 and 6 days a week all his adult life. Mom still works now even though she doesn't need to although she does it for the love of her work. She works with the elderly.
The bottle of wine so animatedly mentioned I actually won in a charity auction for a children's charity, this sparked my wine collecting which has not been a negative in my life in any way.
I decided as a kid that I wanted to work, I took 3 years of YTS which paid me £27.50 a week and I worked Saturdays for free because I loved it, my hacking skills helped me at a younger age which worked to my benefit and I have worked 6 and 7 day weeks for the past 22 years. I have never claimed a penny and between jobs I've been a cleaner in a factory and I've cleaned cars, delivered milk and worked in a chip shop so to suggest I haven't got a clue about people on low incomes is clearly wrong. I just chose a different path and worked hard to make sure I didn't have to claim.
I'm not suggesting that I haven't been fortunate but please don't tar me with the brush of coming from money, I've earned every penny that I have and every time my kids eat I am happy knowing that I have paid for that food.
We have many staff and one thing I have found whenever I've taken part in interview processes is that when people come in for a job and we have to ask them if they have any questions, almost always I hear the same questions.
1) how many holidays do I get.
2) how long before I am entitled to a pay rise.
3) what hours will I work.
The facts are, legally I can only make people work 38ish hours, they have to have 21 days off minimum and they want a pay rise be ogre doing a days work.
All of the above is fact, you can argue with me about any point you like but it doesn't make it right.
People are getting older, the cost to look after these people is a burden and one that we must cover as this generation was one that mainly worked but put yourself forward to your grand kids era and would you want them to pay for elderly care for a generation of people who never wanted to work and now expect a free pension ?
As I said above, I don't know the answers, I'm not an economist but this is a serious topic and not one that requires abusive comments, it's about people's lives and as such is a difficult one to answer.
Anyway, back to Q2.Living MY dream.0 -
'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0
-
Going off on a bit of a tangent here, but can we get away from the default acceptance that the old are needy?
The 70 and 80 year olds of today are the golden generation who had jobs to choose from and affordable housing. There are many articles alluding to this and my own mum and dad live comfortably in this bracket knowing they were lucky.
Housing is a huge issue. The needs of society need to be put ahead of the few, which does mean some tough decisions. All well and good demonizing the poor but what about punitive taxation on 2nd homes? After all, we're all in this together? Right?0 -
morstar wrote:Going off on a bit of a tangent here, but can we get away from the default acceptance that the old are needy?
The 70 and 80 year olds of today are the golden generation who had jobs to choose from and affordable housing. There are many articles alluding to this and my own mum and dad live comfortably in this bracket knowing they were lucky.
Housing is a huge issue. The needs of society need to be put ahead of the few, which does mean some tough decisions. All well and good demonizing the poor but what about punitive taxation on 2nd homes? After all, we're all in this together? Right?
The problem is, when state pensions came into plan, the people were promised safe retirement, this was a lie, it was known even back then that it wouldnt work. Look at smokers sold cigarettes as healthy products, the companies were fined millions but what about the government ?
You make a valid point though, 2nd homes is an issue. I rent out a couple of places and would happily pay a higher rate of taxation on that income, I also believe the 6 months grace on council tax should be scrapped, again, I would happily pay that bill.
I also believe in a fair tax bracket but not at a higher rate as such, but as a set level and one that stops people from looking for tax loopholes.
No tax under £15k
10% tax £15k - £20k
15% tax £20k - £30k
22% tax £30k - £45k
30% tax £45k - £80k
40% tax £80k+
People always say tax the rich more which is very daft as they then find loopholes to pay less, set a flat rate and people will pay. You cant expect someone who runs a company, works 7 day weeks and makes sure society is growing to pay 60/70/80% tax, it just makes it more easier to pay lower than 10% by setting up schemes.
Remember, even when you have a company that works out of the UK, as soon as them funds are banked in the UK they are liable to 40% so levelling the bracket in my opinion would reap more money into the system.Living MY dream.0 -
if the rich were taxed at 10% theyd still be on the fiddle
its called GREED!'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
fast as fupp wrote:if the rich were taxed at 10% theyd still be on the fiddle
its called GREED!
Well in that case, leave it as it is and stop moaning ?
What do you want ? You seem angry if people have more than you? I dont understand it. I know people that make millions in the UK and do not pay a single penny in UK tax, I hate it, I think its wrong and that is why I disagree with any tax avoidance schemes and pay every penny of my tax in the UK (im not one of these guys btw).
I think what your asking for is communism, I like it in theory, Cuba is one of my favourite places on earth but would you swap for that ? (btw, this is a very friendly response to you and not meant for argument, just discussion)Living MY dream.0 -
no.
i'm angry because people have LESS than me.
and people like you want those people to have even less.
do you see?
p.s. im off the match now, so bye!'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
fast as fupp wrote:no.
i'm angry because people have LESS than me.
and people like you want those people to have even less.
do you see?
p.s. im off the match now, so bye!
I think your deluded, I have been very clear in making my point and if you cant grasp that im sorry.Living MY dream.0 -
To be fair if you are happy to pay more tax then you don't have to wait for the government to take it off you, there are plently of charities that will accept a donation.
I've long since been baffled by housing policy in this country and how many people consider rising prices a good thing. High living costs make us uncompetitive economically, high ownership rates makes the labour force inflexible and it means enormous sums are tied up in what is a 'dead' asset and would be better off invested elsewhere. I live in a mortgaged property but only because the rental sector is such a mess and buying represents the best value in the current system. I once read a suggestion that pension funds should be encouraged to get involved in housing which made a lot of sense to me, they should be able to provide lower cost housing in greater numbers and with long term tenancy agreements will get a steady and relatively predictable income stream which is what they crave. One other tweak I'd make is to kick BtL with a mortgage into the grass, if you want to own property for investment fair enough but you should have to be able to buy it outright, people buying first time family houses shouldn't be competing with speculators imo.0 -
We have many staff and one thing I have found whenever I've taken part in interview processes is that when people come in for a job and we have to ask them if they have any questions, almost always I hear the same questions.
1) how many holidays do I get.
2) how long before I am entitled to a pay rise.
3) what hours will I work.
Yeah, I'm pretty definitely failing to see a problem there: People asking about their hours and benefits at a job interview. When else should they ask, exactly? After they get the job?
Also, wouldn't enquiring about a pay rise be framed as ambition in any other circumstance?
FWIW, I do have a fair bit of input in recruitment where I work, and I would dispute your claim that this is fact. Most folk I've interviewed were much more interested in the possibilities of actual progression and the workplace atmosphere at this point.
Also:All of the above is fact, you can argue with me about any point you like but it doesn't make it right.
Isn't this a longwinded way to make "NANANANANANA Not LISTENING" seem reasonable and adult?0 -
MisterMuncher wrote:We have many staff and one thing I have found whenever I've taken part in interview processes is that when people come in for a job and we have to ask them if they have any questions, almost always I hear the same questions.
1) how many holidays do I get.
2) how long before I am entitled to a pay rise.
3) what hours will I work.
Yeah, I'm pretty definitely failing to see a problem there: People asking about their hours and benefits at a job interview. When else should they ask, exactly? After they get the job?
Also, wouldn't enquiring about a pay rise be framed as ambition in any other circumstance?
FWIW, I do have a fair bit of input in recruitment where I work, and I would dispute your claim that this is fact. Most folk I've interviewed were much more interested in the possibilities of actual progression and the workplace atmosphere at this point.
Also:All of the above is fact, you can argue with me about any point you like but it doesn't make it right.
Isn't this a longwinded way to make "NANANANANANA Not LISTENING" seem reasonable and adult?
My comment was based on the people I have been on interview with and was based entirely on that. I believe that at an interview you should not ask about holidays and pay rises. You will always get a minimum of 21 days on top of bank holidays, you will also not be eligible for a pay rise until you have proven yourself. You must remember, it is a legality to give full disclosure to an applicant so they will be aware of holidays before entering the room, they will also be aware that you should not ask for anything extra before you are entitled to it.
Maybe my ideals are bought about from a different era when you worked for almost nothing just to get a foot in the door with the hope that one day you will make it.
The era before me actually PAID to work through apprenticeships so im not saying anything abnormal here.
I fear you may be getting me wrong, I promote work, I would feel much better if everyone was in work, I just think people in general want to much before or expect too much before they are firmly placed.Living MY dream.0 -
So, in essence, this is what you believe, not fact as you asserted.
If you state there's a minimum of 21 days holiday over and above stat days (which isn't universally true in all industries, but I digress) that implies there may be more at the employer's discretion. What's wrong with asking for that information? Likewise with the pay rise question: They aren't asking for the holidays or the pay rise, they're asking for information about same. They aren't asking for anything extra.
As for your "different era" waffle, don't presume to patronise me. You have no idea the hours I work, or how hard I work.0 -
MisterMuncher wrote:So, in essence, this is what you believe, not fact as you asserted.
If you state there's a minimum of 21 days holiday over and above stat days (which isn't universally true in all industries, but I digress) that implies there may be more at the employer's discretion. What's wrong with asking for that information? Likewise with the pay rise question: They aren't asking for the holidays or the pay rise, they're asking for information about same. They aren't asking for anything extra.
As for your "different era" waffle, don't presume to patronise me. You have no idea the hours I work, or how hard I work.
The patronising thing is that you believe I was being patronising.
I had took it onboard that you were a working man so my comment was never aimed at you. My comments come from what I have seen and so of course they are FACT, they are my FACTS, the FACTS that I have seen.
I believe younger people think work is a given and if hard they move onto the next easy thing, of course that is not aimed at everyone, its only what I have seen and what other people in industry have commented on.
I take it from what you say that you work hard and for many hours so why is it that you find yourself arguing with a man who is saying that what you are doing is the right thing and what others do is wrong ? I cant fathom that part out.
I said to my own son a few months ago that if needed I would stack shelfs in a supermarket, he responded that he would never do that and I think its an "ERA" thing, people want more than they are entitled too.
No one is entitled to an easy high paid job, some people are lucky and end up in one but we should see work as a privilege, a way to better ourselves and prosper.
This leads nicely to other points in this thread where people believe they are entitled to something just because they have had it in the past, this is wrong and hurts society. We are entitled to nothing but what we earn and self provide, the rest is definitely not a right but a privilege or gift from society.
Trust me, I would love everyone to be doing well but it could never be that way, there will always be people stacking the shelfs as others pick from the shelfs.
There are 3 types of people on this forum.
1) those who agree with what I have written.
2) those that dont agree with what I have written.
3) those that argue with me for the sake of it.Living MY dream.0 -
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
Anecdotal evidence is rightly considered silly for drawing any broader conclusion. If your assertion about young people simply being out for the next easiest thing, we'd have no young people working in hard jobs, studying in difficult subjects &c. There quite patently are, so your assertion is full of holes, as you admit yourself in the next sentence: So much for others agreeing or disagreeing with you, you appear unable to agree with yourself. The notion that the next generation are lazier and less able than one's own is as old as dirt. The ancient greeks were asserting the same thing, and the world has apparently been downhill ever since.I take it from what you say that you work hard and for many hours so why is it that you find yourself arguing with a man who is saying that what you are doing is the right thing and what others do is wrong ?
Because asking about benefits and conditions of a job at an interview, that usually being the first time one gets a chance to do so directly, is in no way indicative of laziness, greed or a lack of will to work. That's the assertion I have difficulty with. I also have the privilege to work with a good number of younger folk, many straight out of school or in FE courses, who could shame my contemporaries and a great many of the older generations for work ethic, ability and drive.
In short:
The notion that laziness or fecklessness is generational or getting worse is hokum: It has been ever thus.
People enquiring about their conditions is in no way indicative of work ethic, and with the fast and loose attitude of many employers, entirely wise.0 -
Just because you state something as fact doesn't make it so. You've provided no evidence to back your claims so at best they are an individual's subjective opinion of events, particularly as there isn't even the suggestion that they tallied with the opinions other panel members.VTech wrote:My comments come from what I have seen and so of course they are FACT, they are my FACTS, the FACTS that I have seen.
It's concerning that one panel member would approach recruitment looking to discriminate on nothing more than their preconceived generalisations. There also appears to be a self-fulfilling prophecy going on with that way of thinking.
There are all sorts of wonderful people on these boards but I'll give you a fourth; those who see you as nothing more than socially awkward with a wont to control the discussion, hence the frequent "I'm right regardless of what you think" epithets.VTech wrote:There are 3 types of people on this forum.
1) those who agree with what I have written.
2) those that dont agree with what I have written.
3) those that argue with me for the sake of it.
Relax, it's only a forum but if you try and pass generalisation and opinion off as fact you will get pulled up on it.0 -
-
VTech wrote:fast as fupp wrote:no.
i'm angry because people have LESS than me.
and people like you want those people to have even less.
do you see?
p.s. im off the match now, so bye!
I think your deluded, I have been very clear in making my point and if you cant grasp that im sorry.
i'm convinced you're some sort of satirical construct alike alan partridge.
there cant be someone really like you walking this planet?'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
Ach no, fabulously rich engineers who are functionally illiterate abound round my way.0
-
verylonglegs wrote:To be fair if you are happy to pay more tax then you don't have to wait for the government to take it off you, there are plently of charities that will accept a donation.
I've long since been baffled by housing policy in this country and how many people consider rising prices a good thing. High living costs make us uncompetitive economically, high ownership rates makes the labour force inflexible and it means enormous sums are tied up in what is a 'dead' asset and would be better off invested elsewhere. I live in a mortgaged property but only because the rental sector is such a mess and buying represents the best value in the current system. I once read a suggestion that pension funds should be encouraged to get involved in housing which made a lot of sense to me, they should be able to provide lower cost housing in greater numbers and with long term tenancy agreements will get a steady and relatively predictable income stream which is what they crave. One other tweak I'd make is to kick BtL with a mortgage into the grass, if you want to own property for investment fair enough but you should have to be able to buy it outright, people buying first time family houses shouldn't be competing with speculators imo.
What is it with the UK's obsession with property?
The UK property market topped out years ago. It's now a dangerous investment. Interest rates are at their lowest and can only go up and will go up. Negative equity?
I can't see house prices increasing if peoples income can not afford them. An increase in house prices would result in even less buyers (unless I get a massive public sector pay rise, which as we know will not happen in todays economic climate). So it would be another boom and bust cycle."The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
Its not a tax.
A tax is what gets taken off that which you earn.
Not being given so much because you want more than you need, isn't a tax. Its not about laziness but is practical terms, its about telling folks in the free food queue that they can only take one plate per person and not bring a few spares to fill up, leaving those later in the queue, unfed.
I agree however that the disabled and military families should be exempt. If you want more space in 'your' house, then get a job and pay for it yourself, or get out and let someone who can use all the rooms have it.0
