If you don't scrap the Bedroom Tax Mr Cameron - a Labour government will

First topic message reminder :



Hated: Tax protested in November by supporters of the Mirror & Unite's campaign to abolish it

Today a bill to axe the Bedroom Tax will be discussed in the House of Commons. It’s been proposed by Labour MPs who want to see this hated tax abolished.

The Tories Bedroom Tax is doing enormous damage to hundreds of thousands of people across the country.

It has taken away support from 660,000 people, two thirds of whom are disabled.

Sixty thousand households with carers have been hit. I’ve met countless victims of the Bedroom Tax whose lives have been turned upside down.

Last week I met Tony Cunning who lives in Manchester. Tony suffers from kidney disease and needs dialysis three times a week.

When I met him he told me how a second room for medical equipment would enable him to have treatment at home.

But like so many other people, Anthony has been forced to pay the Bedroom Tax, making his life harder at a time when needs help and support.

Yet despite the overwhelming evidence from across the country that the Bedroom Tax is damaging people’s lives, the Tories are so out-of-touch they think their Bedroom Tax is a great success.

Tell that to the two thirds of households affected by the bedroom tax who cannot find the money to pay their rents or the one in seven are at risk of eviction.

Do the Tories really think it’s a success that low-income households who are being forced to find, on average, an extra £720 a year – or face losing their home?

Or that thousands of hard-pressed families hit by the Bedroom Tax are being forced to rely on food banks?

Is it really a success that tens of thousands of people have been wrongly charged the Bedroom Tax because of the errors made by bungling ministers?

I’ve seen the huge pressure which the Bedroom Tax has placed on families in my own constituency in Leeds. It’s the poorest in our communities who pay the Bedroom Tax.

And because there aren’t smaller properties to go to, they are forced to choose between heating, eating or paying rent.

If David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith have any decency, they would come to the House of Commons today and apologise for the damage which their Bedroom Tax has done to the country and announce they are scrapping it .

But don’t hold your breath... The Bedroom Tax is a true blue Tory policy. It taxes poor people’s bedrooms at the same time as David Cameron is cutting taxes for millionaires.

The Tories fought tooth and nail to impose their hated tax on the country, they defend it to the hilt and they won’t allow it to be abolished without a fight.

Today we have a simple message for David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith, if you don’t scrap the Bedroom Tax, then a Labour government will.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-rachel-reeves-message-3137066#ixzz2t7O7KPhz
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook


Labour pass bill to scrap Bedroom Tax by 226 votes to just ONE

      

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

They would just knock the money off the benefits that they receive.

What's wrong with that? They're not supposed to profit from a lodger are they?

It's not going to help out their financial position.

Joy Division wrote:

Maybe you should say the same for those who purchased their council house for peanuts under Margaret Thatcher' s right to buy scheme, many houses were snapped up for as little as £4000 .

And that's exactly what happened...many rented for years and got their council house for peanuts, not to mention the severe shortage of council housing stock Britain is seeing now...a huge knock on effect.

Yes, I know! I didn't approve of that at all. Have I made it sound like I'm favour of selling off council houses or something?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

They currently get about 60% off the market price, It's Tory policy to increase that to 75% if they win the next election.

There you are then. They are already treated with favouritism, and they're still moaning. Can you imagine a private tenant telling their landlord they'll buy the house at a discount because they've been paying rent?

Not everyone will ever be in a position to buy their council home.   

Maine coon lover wrote:

eddie wrote:No this is one law I like.

WHY should people be sitting in houses with more bedrooms than they need when there is a severe shortage of houses with extra bedrooms for families???

Piss off! If you are sitting  in a three bedroomed house and there are only two of you, a married couple, move out to somewhere smaller and free up your house for those who need it!!!

What you're saying is people can sit and be GREEDY even whilst you call the government greedy!! PFFFFT!

If you lived in a council house you and your partner and say two kids, you live there for 20 years , you have made it your home decorated it done the garden, you then get to say 40/50 and the kids both leave home , would you willingly just pack up all your belongings and move out to a one bedroomed flat ?

Honestly? Perhaps not. But it's better to live in a smaller place the older you get (easier to clean, heat etc), and I am not, and never have been, greedy.

The report they did last night on tv showed that the people being most affected by this are disabled people who have had flats/houses specially adapted for them.   Especially disabled couples who can't sleep in the same bedroom because of the equipment they need.   It said that 30% of people in that position, or people with disabled children who need space for equipment, are being turned down by the local authority special funding, because the local authorities don't have enough money to cover them all.   Some of these people are severely disabled and thought they had found a safe place to live their lives, now they are being told they will be evicted.

It's inhuman and foul and they should bloody well be ashamed of themselves.   Council after council are doing reports to say they simply don't have smaller homes, council or private rental, to move these people to, and they don't have the people that want to move to a bigger property.

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What's wrong with that? They're not supposed to profit from a lodger are they?

It's not going to help out their financial position.

Of course it would. They can keep the first £20 they get from a lodger without it affecting their housing benefit.

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There you are then. They are already treated with favouritism, and they're still moaning. Can you imagine a private tenant telling their landlord they'll buy the house at a discount because they've been paying rent?

Not everyone will ever be in a position to buy their council home.   

No, and those who are not now want a spare room for free if they claim housing benefit.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

Maybe you should say the same for those who purchased their council house for peanuts under Margaret Thatcher' s right to buy scheme, many houses were snapped up for as little as £4000 .

And that's exactly what happened...many rented for years and got their council house for peanuts, not to mention the severe shortage of council housing stock Britain is seeing now...a huge knock on effect.

Yes, I know! I didn't approve of that at all. Have I made it sound like I'm favour of selling off council houses or something?

Well yes, you spoke in a 'present' term , but never mentioned the ' past' of those who have been buying council housing.

Thatcher started all this shortage of council housing, never trust a Tory.

Sassy wrote:The report they did last night on tv showed that the people being most affected by this are disabled people who have had flats/houses specially adapted for them.   Especially disabled couples who can't sleep in the same bedroom because of the equipment they need.   It said that 30% of people in that position, or people with disabled children who need space for equipment, are being turned down by the local authority special funding, because the local authorities don't have enough money to cover them all.   Some of these people are severely disabled and thought they had found a safe place to live their lives, now they are being told they will be evicted.

It's inhuman and foul and they should bloody well be ashamed of themselves.   Council after council are doing reports to say they simply don't have smaller homes, council or private rental, to move these people to, and they don't have the people that want to move to a bigger property.

There are also people who have four children sleeping in the same room! Or parents who have disabled children in properties that are too small!

There is a severe lack of three-bedroomed houses in this country and too many couples living in houses that have long since had their children leave.

It isn't fair of course, to turf disabled people out of their house - if they have two bedrooms they are using due to disability then fair enough, they stay, but if not they should vacate the property. Simple.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

She sold them off at dirt cheap prices to people who wouldn't have been able to buy otherwise, so their circumstances hadn't changed.

Do you think that was fair on the people who had to pay the market price for their homes?

No I don't - that's my point. I wouldn't buy a council house unless it was very cheap - I don't see why people should profit from the sale of them.

They shouldn't, it's public housing meant for people who can't afford to buy privately.

This is getting off the point though, the point being that some people who moved into these homes with assured tenancies believing they could live in them for life, making them into a home irrespective of whether they own the bricks and mortar or not are now effectively being forced to move from their homes when their kids are grown up simply based on the fact they are reliant on housing benefit to keep a roof over their heads.

What happens to those who only ever had a two bedroom house? How many one bedroomed council places do you think there are out there for them to move into?

These people have to pay this bedroom tax too, yet it's almost impossible for them to downsize. Fair or not?

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, I know! I didn't approve of that at all. Have I made it sound like I'm favour of selling off council houses or something?

Well yes, you spoke in a 'present' term , but never mentioned the ' past' of those who have been buying council housing.

Thatcher started all this shortage of council housing, never trust a Tory.

Well if I disapprove of it in the present, why would I approve of past sales of council houses?   

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No I don't - that's my point. I wouldn't buy a council house unless it was very cheap - I don't see why people should profit from the sale of them.

They shouldn't, it's public housing meant for people who can't afford to buy privately.

This is getting off the point though, the point being that some people who moved into these homes with assured tenancies believing they could live in them for life, making them into a home irrespective of whether they own the bricks and mortar or not are now effectively being forced to move from their homes when their kids are grown up simply based on the fact they are reliant on housing benefit to keep a roof over their heads.

What happens to those who only ever had a two bedroom house?  How many one bedroomed council places do you think there are out there for them to move into?

These people have to pay this bedroom tax too, yet it's almost impossible for them to downsize.  Fair or not?

They can still stay in them. The issue is housing benefit, that's all. Were they assured that they would always get the rent paid by the tax payers? They're perfectly free to pay the rent themselves. If they can't, they get housing benefit according to their needs - like anyone else on benefits.

As I said, they could take in a lodger. Loads of people with mortgages do that because they can't afford it on their own.

Sassy wrote:The report they did last night on tv showed that the people being most affected by this are disabled people who have had flats/houses specially adapted for them.   Especially disabled couples who can't sleep in the same bedroom because of the equipment they need.   It said that 30% of people in that position, or people with disabled children who need space for equipment, are being turned down by the local authority special funding, because the local authorities don't have enough money to cover them all.   Some of these people are severely disabled and thought they had found a safe place to live their lives, now they are being told they will be evicted.

It's inhuman and foul and they should bloody well be ashamed of themselves.   Council after council are doing reports to say they simply don't have smaller homes, council or private rental, to move these people to, and they don't have the people that want to move to a bigger property.

Your absolutely correct Sassy, it's  a disgrace how the disabled and most vulnerable are being treated, again the benefit haters as well as ableist  people sneering and verbally attacking those who should have the highest priority For council housing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

They shouldn't, it's public housing meant for people who can't afford to buy privately.

This is getting off the point though, the point being that some people who moved into these homes with assured tenancies believing they could live in them for life, making them into a home irrespective of whether they own the bricks and mortar or not are now effectively being forced to move from their homes when their kids are grown up simply based on the fact they are reliant on housing benefit to keep a roof over their heads.

What happens to those who only ever had a two bedroom house?  How many one bedroomed council places do you think there are out there for them to move into?

These people have to pay this bedroom tax too, yet it's almost impossible for them to downsize.  Fair or not?

They can still stay in them. The issue is housing benefit, that's all. Were they assured that they would always get the rent paid by the tax payers? They're perfectly free to pay the rent themselves. If they can't, they get housing benefit according to their needs - like anyone else on benefits.

As I said, they could take in a lodger. Loads of people with mortgages do that because they can't afford it on their own.

The point is there is nowhere for them to go and the money they will be forking out to pay for that bedroom will be pushing them into deeper hardship.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They can still stay in them. The issue is housing benefit, that's all. Were they assured that they would always get the rent paid by the tax payers? They're perfectly free to pay the rent themselves. If they can't, they get housing benefit according to their needs - like anyone else on benefits.

As I said, they could take in a lodger. Loads of people with mortgages do that because they can't afford it on their own.

The point is there is nowhere for them to go and the money they will be forking out to pay for that bedroom will be pushing them into deeper hardship.

Well then the same applies to anyone on benefits who doesn't have a council house.

Why are council tenants more special than anyone else?

It doesn't just apply to council house tenants, it applies to those getting housing benefit, the largest proportion of them working, getting minimum wages or zero hours contracts, so the employers are being subsidised.

Sassy wrote:It doesn't just apply to council house tenants, it applies to those getting housing benefit, the largest proportion of them working, getting minimum wages or zero hours contracts, so the employers are being subsidised.

Yes - there are all these benefit caps now. That's fine, so why do council tenants think they should be exempt from that?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

The point is there is nowhere for them to go and the money they will be forking out to pay for that bedroom will be pushing them into deeper hardship.

Well then the same applies to anyone on benefits who doesn't have a council house.

Why are council tenants more special than anyone else?

Council tenants don't choose the size of house they live in as private rental people can, they are allocated it according to their need at the time, why then just because their kids have grown up and moved out should they be penalised for it?

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then the same applies to anyone on benefits who doesn't have a council house.

Why are council tenants more special than anyone else?

Council tenants don't choose the size of house they live in as private rental people can, they are allocated it according to their need at the time, why then just because their kids have grown up and moved out should they be penalised for it?

Same applies to private rentals. Someone might rent for years, the kids move out, etc.

They're not being penalised, they're simply being told they will get housing benefit for the number of rooms they actually need. How come they could afford kids if they were on benefits anyway?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:It doesn't just apply to council house tenants, it applies to those getting housing benefit, the largest proportion of them working, getting minimum wages or zero hours contracts, so the employers are being subsidised.

Yes - there are all these benefit caps now. That's fine, so why do council tenants think they should be exempt from that?

And the bedroom tax applies to them as well and it is people who cannot move to a smaller property, because there aren't any, or who are disabled etc who are complaining, and they live in council and rented property.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Council tenants don't choose the size of house they live in as private rental people can, they are allocated it according to their need at the time, why then just because their kids have grown up and moved out should they be penalised for it?

Same applies to private rentals. Someone might rent for years, the kids move out, etc.

They're not being penalised, they're simply being told they will get housing benefit for the number of rooms they actually need. How come they could afford kids if they were on benefits anyway?

You do realise that 70% of these people are working and probably were getting more money relative to costs back then and weren't claiming benefits?

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes - there are all these benefit caps now. That's fine, so why do council tenants think they should be exempt from that?

And the bedroom tax applies to them as well and it is people who cannot move to a smaller property, because there aren't any, or who are disabled etc who are complaining, and they live in council and rented property.  

Some people on here have said - why should they move from their home, so it's not just an issue of finding something smaller. The same issues apply to loads of people who have to downsize for whatever reason. I just don't get why council tenants are considered to be more important than anyone else. Others have to get lodgers, others have to move.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Same applies to private rentals. Someone might rent for years, the kids move out, etc.

They're not being penalised, they're simply being told they will get housing benefit for the number of rooms they actually need. How come they could afford kids if they were on benefits anyway?

You do realise that 70% of these people are working and probably were getting more money relative to costs back then and weren't claiming benefits?

I know the feeling - that applies to most of us, doesn't it?   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Council tenants don't choose the size of house they live in as private rental people can, they are allocated it according to their need at the time, why then just because their kids have grown up and moved out should they be penalised for it?

Same applies to private rentals. Someone might rent for years, the kids move out, etc.

They're not being penalised, they're simply being told they will get housing benefit for the number of rooms they actually need. How come they could afford kids if they were on benefits anyway?

They are being penalised, penalised for having kids that have grown up. Sure fire way of encouraging people to keep having kids for as long as they can now imo just to keep that potentially spare bedroom filled.

these people may not have been on benefits when their kids were born btw, they can't exactly send them back just because they've fallen on bad luck can they?

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Same applies to private rentals. Someone might rent for years, the kids move out, etc.

They're not being penalised, they're simply being told they will get housing benefit for the number of rooms they actually need. How come they could afford kids if they were on benefits anyway?

They are being penalised, penalised for having kids that have grown up.  Sure fire way of encouraging people to keep having kids for as long as they can now imo just to keep that potentially spare bedroom filled.

these people may not have been on benefits when their kids were born btw, they can't exactly send them back just because they've fallen on bad luck can they?

No they're not. They don't need as many bedrooms so they get less benefits like anyone else. Why should the tax payers pay for people to have spare rooms that they don't need? I'd like a house all to myself with several bedrooms for free - do you think the tax payers will hand over the money to me?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

They are being penalised, penalised for having kids that have grown up.  Sure fire way of encouraging people to keep having kids for as long as they can now imo just to keep that potentially spare bedroom filled.

these people may not have been on benefits when their kids were born btw, they can't exactly send them back just because they've fallen on bad luck can they?

No they're not. They don't need as many bedrooms so they get less benefits  like anyone else. Why should the tax payers pay for people to have spare rooms that they don't need? I'd like a house all to myself with several bedrooms for free - do you think the tax payers will hand over the money to me?

They already get less benefit because their kids have grown up, how much less would you like them to live on than the palty amount they are left with.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No they're not. They don't need as many bedrooms so they get less benefits  like anyone else. Why should the tax payers pay for people to have spare rooms that they don't need? I'd like a house all to myself with several bedrooms for free - do you think the tax payers will hand over the money to me?

They already get less benefit because their kids have grown up, how much less would you like them to live on than the palty amount they are left with.

They could get a job maybe - like others have to.

They can take in a lodger - like I suggested. Do you think that the State should pay for them all their lives?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

They already get less benefit because their kids have grown up, how much less would you like them to live on than the palty amount they are left with.

They could get a job maybe - like others have to.

They can take in a lodger - like I suggested. Do you think that the State should pay for them all their lives?

They could, if they can find one.

Personally I think that if this has to apply then it should apply to all, including pensioners, many of whom live in homes much too big for their needs. oddly enough, they are exempt.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

And the bedroom tax applies to them as well and it is people who cannot move to a smaller property, because there aren't any, or who are disabled etc who are complaining, and they live in council and rented property.  

Some people on here have said - why should they move from their home, so it's not just an issue of finding something smaller. The same issues apply to loads of people who have to downsize for whatever reason. I just don't get why council tenants are considered to be more important than anyone else. Others have to get lodgers, others have to move.

There are no smaller properties, council or private - even the conservative councils are doing reports saying so. Right, so if you were an old couple, would you want to take a lodger into your home and worry if you were going to be murdered in your bed, or if you had to go to the loo at night, whether you would be seen and heard. No dignity and privacy allowed? Sheeeeeesh!

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They could get a job maybe - like others have to.

They can take in a lodger - like I suggested. Do you think that the State should pay for them all their lives?

They could, if they can find one.

Personally I think that if this has to apply then it should apply to all, including pensioners, many of whom live in homes much too big for their needs.  oddly enough, they are exempt.

Apparently, there are people around on benefits who can't get private accommodation, so there must be loads of them looking to lodge somewhere. I presume the council doesn't mind lodgers getting benefits.   

Do you mean pensioners in council homes who are getting housing benefit?

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Some people on here have said - why should they move from their home, so it's not just an issue of finding something smaller. The same issues apply to loads of people who have to downsize for whatever reason. I just don't get why council tenants are considered to be more important than anyone else. Others have to get lodgers, others have to move.

There are no smaller properties, council or private - even the conservative councils are doing reports saying so.      Right, so if you were an old couple, would you want to take a lodger into your home and worry if you were going to be murdered in your bed, or if you had to go to the loo at night, whether you would be seen and heard.   No dignity and privacy allowed?   Sheeeeeesh!

Same applies to non-council tenants who can't afford the rent either. Where do single people manage to find smaller homes then?

Oh, why not just go the whole hog and bring back the work houses and split up couples who have been married for years etc. It's nearly there. They have already been talking about 'the deserving poor' a favourite victorian phrase.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

There are no smaller properties, council or private - even the conservative councils are doing reports saying so.      Right, so if you were an old couple, would you want to take a lodger into your home and worry if you were going to be murdered in your bed, or if you had to go to the loo at night, whether you would be seen and heard.   No dignity and privacy allowed?   Sheeeeeesh!

Same applies to non-council tenants who can't afford the rent either. Where do single people manage to find smaller homes then?

They don't, didn't you realise that. That is why we have more 30 year olds living at home than we ever have had, unable to start independent life.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

They could, if they can find one.

Personally I think that if this has to apply then it should apply to all, including pensioners, many of whom live in homes much too big for their needs.  oddly enough, they are exempt.

Apparently, there are people around on benefits who can't get private accommodation, so there must be loads of them looking to lodge somewhere. I presume the council doesn't mind lodgers getting benefits.   

Do you mean pensioners in council homes who are getting housing benefit?

Are you talking about single people or families because i very much doubt a family could find somewhere to lodge, a single person might or they might be lucky enough to find a bedsit somewhere.

Yes, I mean pensioners in council housing getting housing benefit. if they are paying their own rent there is no problem is there.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Same applies to non-council tenants who can't afford the rent either. Where do single people manage to find smaller homes then?

They don't, didn't you realise that.   That is why we have more 30 year olds living at home than we ever have had, unable to start independent life.

I think that's more the price of houses and flats actually. I think it's ludicrous - I don't know how anyone affords to buy a house, or rent on their own.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Apparently, there are people around on benefits who can't get private accommodation, so there must be loads of them looking to lodge somewhere. I presume the council doesn't mind lodgers getting benefits.   

Do you mean pensioners in council homes who are getting housing benefit?

Are you talking about single people or families because i very much doubt a family could find somewhere to lodge, a single person might or they might be lucky enough to find a bedsit somewhere.

Yes, I mean pensioners in council housing getting housing benefit.  if they are paying their own rent there is no problem is there.

I'm talking about a single person renting a room off the council tenant who has a spare room. Then the council tenant won't need to move to a smaller place.

I can't comment about the pensioners because I was not aware that they are exempt. However, if they are, then the scenario of an elderly couple being forced from their home doesn't apply.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

They don't, didn't you realise that.   That is why we have more 30 year olds living at home than we ever have had, unable to start independent life.

I think that's more the price of houses and flats actually. I think it's ludicrous - I don't know how anyone affords to buy a house, or rent on their own.

We have a complete dearth of small properties, either to buy or rent, and those that there are, are way out of the league of ordinary single people to buy, or rent.  Our housing situation is catastrophic, and people who are already in housing being made to find something that doesn't exist, and then having to go into bed and breakfast, which the councils are saying they haven't got either, is quite simply the stupidest, most ill thought out plan ever.   Well, unless they were looking for a plan to cause a housing crisis. The smaller properties there are, are needed for people starting out. There are some with too many people living in one property, but the statistics for those show they they are miniscule in comparison. If they had built smaller properties before they brought this in, it might have been possible for some of these people to move, but not the disabled ones who have had their houses adapted, that just stupidity.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that's more the price of houses and flats actually. I think it's ludicrous - I don't know how anyone affords to buy a house, or rent on their own.

We have a complete dearth of small properties, either to buy or rent, and those that there are, are way out of the league of ordinary single people to buy, or rent.  Our housing situation is catastrophic, and people who are already in housing being made to find something that doesn't exist, and then having to go into bed and breakfast, which the councils are saying they haven't got either, is quite simply the stupidest, most ill thought out plan ever.   Well, unless they were looking for a plan to cause a house crisis.

They're building huge numbers of new houses and flats all over the country, and yet they can't keep up with demand. The prices are ridiculous, and handing out housing benefit to those who are in work is just keeping those prices high IMO. I think something should be done, but I don't know what. You can't force people to lower the price of houses they're selling. I'm not sure about renting - is there some kind of fair rent organisation?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Are you talking about single people or families because i very much doubt a family could find somewhere to lodge, a single person might or they might be lucky enough to find a bedsit somewhere.

Yes, I mean pensioners in council housing getting housing benefit.  if they are paying their own rent there is no problem is there.

I'm talking about a single person renting a room off the council tenant who has a spare room. Then the council tenant won't need to move to a smaller place.

I can't comment about the pensioners because I was not aware that they are exempt. However, if they are, then the scenario of an elderly couple being forced from their home doesn't apply.

So it's fine for a single pensioner to continue to live in a 3 bedroom house paid for by the taxpayer then?

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm talking about a single person renting a room off the council tenant who has a spare room. Then the council tenant won't need to move to a smaller place.

I can't comment about the pensioners because I was not aware that they are exempt. However, if they are, then the scenario of an elderly couple being forced from their home doesn't apply.

So it's fine for a single pensioner to continue to live in a 3 bedroom house paid for by the taxpayer then?

I didn't say that. It's just that some people have talked about elderly couples in this thread, but it seems they don't need to worry about them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

So it's fine for a single pensioner to continue to live in a 3 bedroom house paid for by the taxpayer then?

I didn't say that. It's just that some people have talked about elderly couples in this thread, but it seems they don't need to worry about them.

I wonder if the pensioner on housing benefit in a private rent has to pay a proportion of their rent?

If I won the lottery, I'd buy loads of houses and rent them out at a low rent to young people who can't afford to leave home. When I was young I used to share with friends and we did OK, but even that seems difficult for many of them now.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Are you talking about single people or families because i very much doubt a family could find somewhere to lodge, a single person might or they might be lucky enough to find a bedsit somewhere.

Yes, I mean pensioners in council housing getting housing benefit.  if they are paying their own rent there is no problem is there.

I'm talking about a single person renting a room off the council tenant who has a spare room. Then the council tenant won't need to move to a smaller place.

I can't comment about the pensioners because I was not aware that they are exempt. However, if they are, then the scenario of an elderly couple being forced from their home doesn't apply.

Take in a lodger you mean?, a stranger you don't even know?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

They already get less benefit because their kids have grown up, how much less would you like them to live on than the palty amount they are left with.

They could get a job maybe - like others have to.

They can take in a lodger - like I suggested. Do you think that the State should pay for them all their lives?

...take in lodgers , get jobs ?.....don't you think the majority of folk on benefits are trying to get a job?

And on a pittance scrubbing toilets or working at McDonalds is the grim reality if broken Britain...

Can you find all unemployed people a job?

You sound like George Osborne   

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm talking about a single person renting a room off the council tenant who has a spare room. Then the council tenant won't need to move to a smaller place.

I can't comment about the pensioners because I was not aware that they are exempt. However, if they are, then the scenario of an elderly couple being forced from their home doesn't apply.

Take in a lodger you mean?, a stranger you don't even know?

Lots of people do that. What's wrong with it?

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They could get a job maybe - like others have to.

They can take in a lodger - like I suggested. Do you think that the State should pay for them all their lives?

...take in lodgers , get jobs ?.....don't you think the majority of folk on benefits are trying to get a job?

And on a pittance scrubbing toilets  or working at McDonalds is the grim reality if broken Britain...

Can you find all unemployed people a job?

You sound like George Osborne   

All that applies to non-council tenants too. That's what I mean - most people struggle these days, so I don't see why people are only concerned about council tenants. I'm tired of hearing about how hard done by they are when they actually have privileges that others don't have.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:



...take in lodgers , get jobs ?.....don't you think the majority of folk on benefits are trying to get a job?

And on a pittance scrubbing toilets  or working at McDonalds is the grim reality if broken Britain...

Can you find all unemployed people a job?

You sound like George Osborne   

All that applies to non-council tenants too. That's what I mean - most people struggle these days, so I don't see why people are only concerned about council tenants. I'm tired of hearing about how hard done by they are when they actually have privileges that others don't have.

Well most on benefits have no job through no fault of their own, so I wouldn't really say housing benefit is simply a privilege, more a necessity, should those actively seeking work on benefits not receive any HB then?

Those in employment are the lucky ones.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

All that applies to non-council tenants too. That's what I mean - most people struggle these days, so I don't see why people are only concerned about council tenants. I'm tired of hearing about how hard done by they are when they actually have privileges that others don't have.

Well most on benefits have no job through no fault of their own, so I wouldn't really say housing benefit is simply a privilege, more a necessity, should those actively seeking work  on benefits not receive any HB then?

Those in employment are the lucky ones.

I don't mean that. I mean they have subsidised rent for a start, the option to buy the house they rent at a low price, the right to stay there without being kicked out, etc. They have lots of people rooting for them, as this thread shows, but what about everyone else? Do you think that everyone else is rich or something?

In fact, if it's true that people on benefits can't rent privately, I feel much more sorry for them - they don't have the luxury of complaining about having to pay for a spare bedroom.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

They would just knock the money off the benefits that they receive.

What's wrong with that? They're not supposed to profit from a lodger are they?

I couldn't trust a stranger to lodge no matter how desperate , its dangerous they could be a rapist, thief , murderer. I fail to see the problem of a spare room and why its such a crime to have one . I feel that a lot of people working are so jealous of those receiving benefits they feel they are personally paying for their benefits and fail to realize that most who claim have paid their fair share of tax and NIC , so when they need help to survive why begrudge them .

Its a sad affair when we are forced to take in lodgers to make ends meet.

I am very blessed to own my home , but I feel so sorry for those who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads .