Personal threads to attack LW posters!

[Guest]

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t2880-the-art-of-posting

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t2723-catman

No LW have made personal related attack threads.

Why are we allowing personal attack threads?

It's only the RW that are posting personal attack threads, against the individuals....Delete the RW scum threads with target certain LW members!

[eddie]

The thread wasn't attacking a "LW Poster"
It was pointing out a rude man attacking us with italics.

Don't over-egg the pudding.

[Raggamuffin]

What defines someone as being "LW" anyway?

[Guest]

What defines someone as being "LW" anyway?

...in this place Raggamuffin it just means some of us have only had our pet birds right wing clipped and some only the left wing, we are victims of vets who can't do their jobs very well.

[Guest]

What defines someone as being "LW" anyway?

...in this place Raggamuffin it just means some of us have only had our pet birds right wing clipped and some only the left wing, we are victims of vets who can't do their jobs very well.

Shady's pet parrot had it's B'ahhs clipped as well as it's right wing.

[Guest]

What defines someone as being "LW" anyway?

...in this place Raggamuffin it just means some of us have only had our pet birds right wing clipped and some only the left wing, we are victims of vets who can't do their jobs very well.

JD while I appreciate that comment was made in jest and you probably already know this can I please highlight that if it is considered necessary to clip a birds wings that it really is only necessary to do on one side. I used to have cockatiels and only ever did one side (yes I did it myself having been shown how to by the vet - it saved me money, him a boring job, and the birds the stress of being driven to the vets once a year)

[Guest]

...in this place Raggamuffin it just means some of us have only had our pet birds right wing clipped and some only the left wing, we are victims of vets who can't do their jobs very well.

JD while I appreciate that comment was made in jest and you probably already know this can I please highlight that if it is considered necessary to clip a birds wings that it really is only necessary to do on one side.  I used to have cockatiels  and only ever did one side (yes I did it myself having been shown how to by the vet - it saved me money, him a boring job, and the birds the stress of being driven to the vets once a year)

Thanks for that Sphinx, but what if you miss the wing and clip the ear or something?

..Na, I'm just goofing, i think it's good you learned from the Vet , saves money too as you say...your quids in! ::D:: 

[Andy]

I bought her that must be endured a pet budgie last week after she told me she was looking for a new cock or two!

[Guest]

JD while I appreciate that comment was made in jest and you probably already know this can I please highlight that if it is considered necessary to clip a birds wings that it really is only necessary to do on one side.  I used to have cockatiels  and only ever did one side (yes I did it myself having been shown how to by the vet - it saved me money, him a boring job, and the birds the stress of being driven to the vets once a year)

Thanks for that Sphinx, but what if you miss the wing and clip the ear or something?

..Na, I'm just goofing, i think it's good you  learned from the Vet , saves money too as you say...your quids in! ::D:: 

I only highlighted it because the birds did not like being clipped (think 2 year old having their nails cut) and I would not like to think people felt it necessary to do both sides.

I shudder that there are still a few who think it necessary to do the old fashioned cut through the bone.

[Guest]

Thanks for that Sphinx, but what if you miss the wing and clip the ear or something?

..Na, I'm just goofing, i think it's good you  learned from the Vet , saves money too as you say...your quids in! ::D:: 

I only highlighted it because the birds did not like being clipped (think 2 year old having their nails cut) and I would not like to think people felt it necessary to do both sides.

I shudder that there are still a few who think it necessary to do the old fashioned cut through the bone.

A very good point Sphinx, I know not much about birds..well not that sort!  
Just joking!

Your quite right to advise people on something you have good knowledge of, so I thank you for pointing it oot! ::D:: 

[Guest]

I only highlighted it because the birds did not like being clipped (think 2 year old having their nails cut) and I would not like to think people felt it necessary to do both sides.

I shudder that there are still a few who think it necessary to do the old fashioned cut through the bone.

A very good point Sphinx, I know not much about birds..well not that sort!  
Just joking!

Your quite right to advise people on something you have good knowledge of, so I thank you for pointing it oot! ::D:: 

No worries - it was just one of those joking arounds that I had horrible visions of some idiot misunderstanding.

My birds were rehomed to someone with a huge aviary because it did not seem right to keep them caged (I had taken them from someone else). I much prefer seeing birds flying free. I love watching wild birds on feeders and proper displays.

[Guest]

A very good point Sphinx, I know not much about birds..well not that sort!  
Just joking!

Your quite right to advise people on something you have good knowledge of, so I thank you for pointing it oot! ::D:: 

No worries - it was just one of those joking arounds that I had horrible visions of some idiot misunderstanding.

My birds were rehomed to someone with a huge aviary because it did not seem right to keep them caged (I had taken them from someone else).  I much prefer seeing birds flying free.  I love watching wild birds on feeders and proper displays.

...I totally get that Sphinx, I would be the same, letting them out the cage as much as possible or as you say, giving them to someone with a huge aviary  ::D:: 

[Guest]

No worries - it was just one of those joking arounds that I had horrible visions of some idiot misunderstanding.

My birds were rehomed to someone with a huge aviary because it did not seem right to keep them caged (I had taken them from someone else).  I much prefer seeing birds flying free.  I love watching wild birds on feeders and proper displays.

...I totally get that Sphinx, I would be the same, letting them out the cage as much as possible or as you say, giving them to someone with a huge aviary  ::D:: 

One thing I did learn is that cockatiels love water - I would take them into the bathroom, run a small amount in the bottom of the bath and they would land in it and go nuts. I also had one of the those plant sprayer that I used a couple of times a day - they would just stretch out and fluff their feathers up and not move until I stopped squirting - unless I moved where I was squirting when they squabbled to get back into the spray. You dont expect it with birds like that but they were like feathered labradors or something.

[Guest]

This is not my picture but it shows the same thing

[Guest]

...I totally get that Sphinx, I would be the same, letting them out the cage as much as possible or as you say, giving them to someone with a huge aviary  ::D:: 

One thing I did learn is that cockatiels love water - I would take them into the bathroom, run a small amount in the bottom of the bath and they would land in it and go nuts.  I also had one of the those plant sprayer that I used a couple of times a day - they would just stretch out and fluff their feathers up and not move until I stopped squirting - unless I moved where I was squirting when they squabbled to get back into the spray.  You dont expect it with birds like that but they were like feathered labradors or something.

And like many other animals they are funny to watch eh?,may mum had two cockatiels , she actually managed to her one to use a swear word sphinx!!, that's about all I remember of them really...

My wee lass has a budgie at her Gran's ...it's 13 now!!

Sounds like your birds loved their bath btw!

[Guest]

This is not my picture but it shows the same thing

Pretty cute! ::D:: 

Years back my wife's old budgie used to pull my --- packet with its beak, peck the pack a wee bit before pushing it off the table...it's name was Cheeky! ::D:: 

[Guest]

What defines someone as being "LW" anyway?

LW=Labour

RW=Tories/BNP/EDL/UKIP etc...

The Libs... :\\:[: 

[Beekeeper]

The thread wasn't attacking a "LW Poster"
It was pointing out a rude man attacking us with italics.

Don't over-egg the pudding.

  

YOU are a liar - pure and simple, eddie.

I don't know how people like you can live with yourselves..

YOU lowlife piece of dirt...    

[Beekeeper]

What defines someone as being "LW" anyway?

...in this place Raggamuffin it just means some of us have only had our pet birds right wing clipped and some only the left wing, we are victims of vets who can't do their jobs very well.

  

NONE of my pet birds ever had their wings clipped...

BIRDS were meant to fly ~ would you cut your children's feet off !?!   

[Guest]

The thread wasn't attacking a "LW Poster"
It was pointing out a rude man attacking us with italics.

Don't over-egg the pudding.

But, you championed the right for Drinky to be allowed back on here, you never seemed to have a problem with terrible abuse towards some on here, now you complain against Bee.

Why is that?

[Guest]

Eddie.

You said that i was being uptight!

Stop being so uptight Eddie, it's free speech, just ignore it!  

[Guest]

The thread wasn't attacking a "LW Poster"
It was pointing out a rude man attacking us with italics.

Don't over-egg the pudding.

OK Eddie.

So some people are allowed to be attacked, but you aren't allowed to be attacked.  :\\:[: 

[Ben Reilly]

Just to weigh in on this -- the "Catman" thread was nicko apologizing; the other one did strongly hint at who it was directed at and the person it was directed at gave just as good as he got, so I didn't see a need to step in.

I don't think either one was political, though of course we know that the posters in question are at political odds with one another.

[Raggamuffin]

What defines someone as being "LW" anyway?

LW=Labour

RW=Tories/BNP/EDL/UKIP etc...

The Libs... :\\:[: 

Superficially, yes, but it's not as simple as that is it? What does being a Labour or Tory supporter actually mean? What values do they stand for?

[Eilzel]

LW=Labour

RW=Tories/BNP/EDL/UKIP etc...

The Libs... :\\:[: 

Superficially, yes, but it's not as simple as that is it? What does being a Labour or Tory supporter actually mean? What values do they stand for?

Very superficial. For instance under Tony Blair Labour was probably just about centre-Right; while under Charles Kennedy- and in fact in general until coalition forced compromise, the Liberals were the most LW of the 3 main parties.

I think attaching LW/RW tags to UK parties is an over simplification generally. For the most part all 3 practice neoliberal politics in both social policy and economic policy. Both are also take to populist headline chasing which I think cripples long term aspirations.

When I use the terms LW and RW I tend not to refer to someone's party allegiance. A socialist, communist, liberal (small L), someone who has views such being against the death sentence, for equal rights, secularist, for tough market regulation, pro-welfare state and nationalizations and other such ideas is probably (though not definitely) LW. While conservatives (small c), religious fundamentalists, people pro-death penalty, anti-state, for total market freedom, opposed to government interference, pro-privatization and hostile to policy aiming at equality is probably (but not definitely) RW.

[jaded fox]

"I shudder that there are still a few who think it necessary to do the old fashioned cut through the bone."

The what? I have no idea what that means. I had a cockatiel for whom I used to clip her feathers. I did both sides but while she got a little grumpy she never seemed to mind over much.

[Raggamuffin]

Superficially, yes, but it's not as simple as that is it? What does being a Labour or Tory supporter actually mean? What values do they stand for?

Very superficial. For instance under Tony Blair Labour was probably just about centre-Right; while under Charles Kennedy- and in fact in general until coalition forced compromise, the Liberals were the most LW of the 3 main parties.

I think attaching LW/RW tags to UK parties is an over simplification generally. For the most part all 3 practice neoliberal politics in both social policy and economic policy. Both are also take to populist headline chasing which I think cripples long term aspirations.

When I use the terms LW and RW I tend not to refer to someone's party allegiance. A socialist, communist, liberal (small L), someone who has views such being against the death sentence, for equal rights, secularist, for tough market regulation, pro-welfare state and nationalizations and other such ideas is probably (though not definitely) LW. While conservatives (small c), religious fundamentalists, people pro-death penalty, anti-state, for total market freedom, opposed to government interference, pro-privatization and hostile to policy aiming at equality is probably (but not definitely) RW.  

I think it's an over-simplification too. Catman generally sees me as "RW" I think, but I voted for Labour twice. Admittedly, it was because I wanted the ban on hunting with dogs rather than anything else. Also, Tony Blair seemed quite sensible at the time.

I disapprove of what the Tories did to council houses - ie, selling them off, and I disapprove of privatising everything. I'm also against the death penalty.

What I don't like about "lefties" is this idea that people are not responsible for themselves, and everything must be the State's fault or responsibility. OK, so that's probably a sweeping statement, but I admire initiative, and if people get rich by taking risks, I don't see why they should be berated for being better off than those who didn't take those risks. I don't approve of being dependent on benefits either if it can possibly be avoided.

[Eilzel]

Very superficial. For instance under Tony Blair Labour was probably just about centre-Right; while under Charles Kennedy- and in fact in general until coalition forced compromise, the Liberals were the most LW of the 3 main parties.

I think attaching LW/RW tags to UK parties is an over simplification generally. For the most part all 3 practice neoliberal politics in both social policy and economic policy. Both are also take to populist headline chasing which I think cripples long term aspirations.

When I use the terms LW and RW I tend not to refer to someone's party allegiance. A socialist, communist, liberal (small L), someone who has views such being against the death sentence, for equal rights, secularist, for tough market regulation, pro-welfare state and nationalizations and other such ideas is probably (though not definitely) LW. While conservatives (small c), religious fundamentalists, people pro-death penalty, anti-state, for total market freedom, opposed to government interference, pro-privatization and hostile to policy aiming at equality is probably (but not definitely) RW.  

I think it's an over-simplification too. Catman generally sees me as "RW" I think, but I voted for Labour twice. Admittedly, it was because I wanted the ban on hunting with dogs rather than anything else. Also, Tony Blair seemed quite sensible at the time.

I disapprove of what the Tories did to council houses - ie, selling them off, and I disapprove of privatising everything. I'm also against the death penalty.

What I don't like about "lefties" is this idea that people are not responsible for themselves, and everything must be the State's fault or responsibility. OK, so that's probably a sweeping statement, but I admire initiative, and if people get rich by taking risks, I don't see why they should be berated for being better off than those who didn't take those risks. I don't approve of being dependent on benefits either if it can possibly be avoided.

It is a massive sweeping statement haha. I think there is a line between people taking responsibility and the state taking responsibility where appropriate. For instance catman loathes my belief (and I am very LW in my own view) that alcoholics, the morbidly obese and smokers for instance, should be forced to pay for NHS treatment if they have been warned a few times before; I also think if someone has been on JSA for a year or more and is found to have refused work or walked out of jobs for no good reason, then they should be refused benefits. But sometimes a persons misfortune is not down to them, if someone loses a well paid job due to a company relocating they should be given a lot of help. As I say there is a line. I honestly don't think most LWers believe the state is responsible for everything or should have to take responsibility. Though I admit there are some.

[Raggamuffin]

I think it's an over-simplification too. Catman generally sees me as "RW" I think, but I voted for Labour twice. Admittedly, it was because I wanted the ban on hunting with dogs rather than anything else. Also, Tony Blair seemed quite sensible at the time.

I disapprove of what the Tories did to council houses - ie, selling them off, and I disapprove of privatising everything. I'm also against the death penalty.

What I don't like about "lefties" is this idea that people are not responsible for themselves, and everything must be the State's fault or responsibility. OK, so that's probably a sweeping statement, but I admire initiative, and if people get rich by taking risks, I don't see why they should be berated for being better off than those who didn't take those risks. I don't approve of being dependent on benefits either if it can possibly be avoided.

It is a massive sweeping statement haha. I think there is a line between people taking responsibility and the state taking responsibility where appropriate. For instance catman loathes my belief (and I am very LW in my own view) that alcoholics, the morbidly obese and smokers for instance, should be forced to pay for NHS treatment if  they have been warned a few times before; I also think if someone has been on JSA for a year or more and is found to have refused work or walked out of jobs for no good reason, then they should be refused benefits. But sometimes a persons misfortune is not down to them, if someone loses a well paid job due to a company relocating they should be given a lot of help. As I say there is a line. I honestly don't think most LWers believe the state is responsible for everything or should have to take responsibility. Though I admit there are some.

It's just that I've noticed that those who proclaim themselves to be "left wing" on forums tend to blame the Government for everything, and want people to be "looked after" rather than take responsibility for themselves.

Take the bedroom tax for example. They think that it's a dreadful thing, but I don't see why people should have spare rooms at the expense of the tax payers.

I suspect that Catman would not be so "left wing" if he actually got this inheritance and the Labour party wanted to tax him a large amount on it.

[Eilzel]

It is a massive sweeping statement haha. I think there is a line between people taking responsibility and the state taking responsibility where appropriate. For instance catman loathes my belief (and I am very LW in my own view) that alcoholics, the morbidly obese and smokers for instance, should be forced to pay for NHS treatment if  they have been warned a few times before; I also think if someone has been on JSA for a year or more and is found to have refused work or walked out of jobs for no good reason, then they should be refused benefits. But sometimes a persons misfortune is not down to them, if someone loses a well paid job due to a company relocating they should be given a lot of help. As I say there is a line. I honestly don't think most LWers believe the state is responsible for everything or should have to take responsibility. Though I admit there are some.

It's just that I've noticed that those who proclaim themselves to be "left wing" on forums tend to blame the Government for everything, and want people to be "looked after" rather than take responsibility for themselves.

Take the bedroom tax for example. They think that it's a dreadful thing, but I don't see why people should have spare rooms at the expense of the tax payers.

I suspect that Catman would not be so "left wing" if he actually got this inheritance and the Labour party wanted to tax him a large amount on it.

You may be right on that   

On the bedroom tax; it is wrong because, to take one example- say you have an elderly couple who rent (maybe 60 years old); they had 2 kids before and now they are gone. Should they now pay extra for the rooms or be made to leave the family home due to it being too expensive? I don't think so. I wouldn't agree with letting a single person rent a 2 or 3 bedroom house right away, if they did they should pay the tax. But I don't think a family who has had a home for years is being irresponsible by the fact their kids have moved out. That in penalizing people for nothing.

[Guest]

It's just that I've noticed that those who proclaim themselves to be "left wing" on forums tend to blame the Government for everything, and want people to be "looked after" rather than take responsibility for themselves.

Take the bedroom tax for example. They think that it's a dreadful thing, but I don't see why people should have spare rooms at the expense of the tax payers.

I suspect that Catman would not be so "left wing" if he actually got this inheritance and the Labour party wanted to tax him a large amount on it.

You may be right on that   

On the bedroom tax; it is wrong because, to take one example- say you have an elderly couple who rent (maybe 60 years old); they had 2 kids before and now they are gone. Should they now pay extra for the rooms or be made to leave the family home due to it being too expensive? I don't think so. I wouldn't agree with letting a single person rent a 2 or 3 bedroom house right away, if they did they should pay the tax. But I don't think a family who has had a home for years is being irresponsible by the fact their kids have moved out. That in penalizing people for nothing.

Morning Les   xxx

Absolutely agree on that, the problem is the shortage of social housing; demand far exceeds supply.  

As for the elderly couple, I think some people forget that just because you rent a property doesn't mean that it's not your home.

[Guest]

It is a massive sweeping statement haha. I think there is a line between people taking responsibility and the state taking responsibility where appropriate. For instance catman loathes my belief (and I am very LW in my own view) that alcoholics, the morbidly obese and smokers for instance, should be forced to pay for NHS treatment if  they have been warned a few times before; I also think if someone has been on JSA for a year or more and is found to have refused work or walked out of jobs for no good reason, then they should be refused benefits. But sometimes a persons misfortune is not down to them, if someone loses a well paid job due to a company relocating they should be given a lot of help. As I say there is a line. I honestly don't think most LWers believe the state is responsible for everything or should have to take responsibility. Though I admit there are some.

It's just that I've noticed that those who proclaim themselves to be "left wing" on forums tend to blame the Government for everything, and want people to be "looked after" rather than take responsibility for themselves.

Take the bedroom tax for example. They think that it's a dreadful thing, but I don't see why people should have spare rooms at the expense of the tax payers.

I suspect that Catman would not be so "left wing" if he actually got this inheritance and the Labour party wanted to tax him a large amount on it.

All i want is some piece of mind, all i want is a small house, near to my family...a business...I'm not greedy, and i'm prepared to pay tax.

[Guest]

It's just that I've noticed that those who proclaim themselves to be "left wing" on forums tend to blame the Government for everything, and want people to be "looked after" rather than take responsibility for themselves.

Take the bedroom tax for example. They think that it's a dreadful thing, but I don't see why people should have spare rooms at the expense of the tax payers.

I suspect that Catman would not be so "left wing" if he actually got this inheritance and the Labour party wanted to tax him a large amount on it.

You may be right on that   

On the bedroom tax; it is wrong because, to take one example- say you have an elderly couple who rent (maybe 60 years old); they had 2 kids before and now they are gone. Should they now pay extra for the rooms or be made to leave the family home due to it being too expensive? I don't think so. I wouldn't agree with letting a single person rent a 2 or 3 bedroom house right away, if they did they should pay the tax. But I don't think a family who has had a home for years is being irresponsible by the fact their kids have moved out. That in penalizing people for nothing.

Take a 60 year old couple who own a house - their 2 kids have gone and they need carers, they would be forced to use the money they have in the house, downsize or sell it and move in to a care home.

People with money are in the same boat Eli.

Have money, have it taken off you.

Don't have it - put your hands out and demand it off others. That's the way it works.

[Guest]

You may be right on that   

On the bedroom tax; it is wrong because, to take one example- say you have an elderly couple who rent (maybe 60 years old); they had 2 kids before and now they are gone. Should they now pay extra for the rooms or be made to leave the family home due to it being too expensive? I don't think so. I wouldn't agree with letting a single person rent a 2 or 3 bedroom house right away, if they did they should pay the tax. But I don't think a family who has had a home for years is being irresponsible by the fact their kids have moved out. That in penalizing people for nothing.

Take a 60 year old couple who own a house - their 2 kids have gone and they need carers, they would be forced to use the money they have in the house, downsize or sell it and move in to a care home.

People with money are in the same boat Eli.

Have money, have it taken off you.

Don't have it - put your hands out and demand it off others.  That's the way it works.

 ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: 

[Eilzel]

You may be right on that   

On the bedroom tax; it is wrong because, to take one example- say you have an elderly couple who rent (maybe 60 years old); they had 2 kids before and now they are gone. Should they now pay extra for the rooms or be made to leave the family home due to it being too expensive? I don't think so. I wouldn't agree with letting a single person rent a 2 or 3 bedroom house right away, if they did they should pay the tax. But I don't think a family who has had a home for years is being irresponsible by the fact their kids have moved out. That in penalizing people for nothing.

Morning Les   xxx

Absolutely agree on that, the problem is the shortage of social housing; demand far exceeds supply.  

As for the elderly couple, I think some people forget that just because you rent a property doesn't mean that it's not your home.

Exactly FtL x

^Andy, I appreciate your point. However, I wouldn't expect the old couple to demand anything; I'd be expecting them to pay the same as they always did. What I oppose is them having to pay more just because their children no longer live with them.

And the couple who rent may also need care eventually, in which case they may have to downsize anyway since it would still be cheaper. The only objection I'm having here is in being given an extra burden for doing nothing wrong.

[Guest]

Take a 60 year old couple who own a house - their 2 kids have gone and they need carers, they would be forced to use the money they have in the house, downsize or sell it and move in to a care home.

People with money are in the same boat Eli.

Have money, have it taken off you.

Don't have it - put your hands out and demand it off others.  That's the way it works.

 ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: 

That's the attitude I expect Mr Catman - "we're so poor and because you worked you're so rich".

[Raggamuffin]

It's just that I've noticed that those who proclaim themselves to be "left wing" on forums tend to blame the Government for everything, and want people to be "looked after" rather than take responsibility for themselves.

Take the bedroom tax for example. They think that it's a dreadful thing, but I don't see why people should have spare rooms at the expense of the tax payers.

I suspect that Catman would not be so "left wing" if he actually got this inheritance and the Labour party wanted to tax him a large amount on it.

You may be right on that   

On the bedroom tax; it is wrong because, to take one example- say you have an elderly couple who rent (maybe 60 years old); they had 2 kids before and now they are gone. Should they now pay extra for the rooms or be made to leave the family home due to it being too expensive? I don't think so. I wouldn't agree with letting a single person rent a 2 or 3 bedroom house right away, if they did they should pay the tax. But I don't think a family who has had a home for years is being irresponsible by the fact their kids have moved out. That in penalizing people for nothing.

My stance is that they're not paying extra, they're just getting less housing benefit - ie, the rent hasn't gone up or anything. Why should the tax payers pay for them to have spare room? That's not what benefits are supposed to be for.

[Guest]

Morning Les   xxx

Absolutely agree on that, the problem is the shortage of social housing; demand far exceeds supply.  

As for the elderly couple, I think some people forget that just because you rent a property doesn't mean that it's not your home.

Exactly FtL x

^Andy, I appreciate your point. However, I wouldn't expect the old couple to demand anything; I'd be expecting them to pay the same as they always did. What I oppose is them having to pay more just because their children no longer live with them.

And the couple who rent may also need care eventually, in which case they may have to downsize anyway since it would still be cheaper. The only objection I'm having here is in being given an extra burden for doing nothing wrong.

There is no burden - it is paid by me.

[Raggamuffin]

It's just that I've noticed that those who proclaim themselves to be "left wing" on forums tend to blame the Government for everything, and want people to be "looked after" rather than take responsibility for themselves.

Take the bedroom tax for example. They think that it's a dreadful thing, but I don't see why people should have spare rooms at the expense of the tax payers.

I suspect that Catman would not be so "left wing" if he actually got this inheritance and the Labour party wanted to tax him a large amount on it.

All i want is some piece of mind, all i want is a small house, near to my family...a business...I'm not greedy, and i'm prepared to pay tax.

That's fine, but if you were not dependent on benefits and if the Government wanted to take a large slice of your inheritance, would you not change your stance a bit? After all, tax does affect your income somewhat.

[Guest]

You may be right on that   

On the bedroom tax; it is wrong because, to take one example- say you have an elderly couple who rent (maybe 60 years old); they had 2 kids before and now they are gone. Should they now pay extra for the rooms or be made to leave the family home due to it being too expensive? I don't think so. I wouldn't agree with letting a single person rent a 2 or 3 bedroom house right away, if they did they should pay the tax. But I don't think a family who has had a home for years is being irresponsible by the fact their kids have moved out. That in penalizing people for nothing.

My stance is that they're not paying extra, they're just getting less housing benefit - ie, the rent hasn't gone up or anything. Why should the tax payers pay for them to have spare room? That's not what benefits are supposed to be for.

Da-da!

[Guest]

You may be right on that   

On the bedroom tax; it is wrong because, to take one example- say you have an elderly couple who rent (maybe 60 years old); they had 2 kids before and now they are gone. Should they now pay extra for the rooms or be made to leave the family home due to it being too expensive? I don't think so. I wouldn't agree with letting a single person rent a 2 or 3 bedroom house right away, if they did they should pay the tax. But I don't think a family who has had a home for years is being irresponsible by the fact their kids have moved out. That in penalizing people for nothing.

Take a 60 year old couple who own a house - their 2 kids have gone and they need carers, they would be forced to use the money they have in the house, downsize or sell it and move in to a care home.

People with money are in the same boat Eli.

Have money, have it taken off you.

Don't have it - put your hands out and demand it off others.  That's the way it works.

Morning Andy  ::D:: 

I don't think it's quite as simple as that but in a sense I agree.  I fully expect that after spending years buying my home I will end up selling it to pay for my care if I need it when I'm older It's just how it is unless you are very wealthy.

[Guest]

Take a 60 year old couple who own a house - their 2 kids have gone and they need carers, they would be forced to use the money they have in the house, downsize or sell it and move in to a care home.

People with money are in the same boat Eli.

Have money, have it taken off you.

Don't have it - put your hands out and demand it off others.  That's the way it works.

Morning Andy  ::D:: 

I don't think it's quite as simple as that but in a sense I agree.  I fully expect that after spending years buying my home I will end up selling it to pay for my care if I need it when I'm older It's just how it is unless you are very wealthy.

Or don't work!

[Raggamuffin]

You may be right on that   

On the bedroom tax; it is wrong because, to take one example- say you have an elderly couple who rent (maybe 60 years old); they had 2 kids before and now they are gone. Should they now pay extra for the rooms or be made to leave the family home due to it being too expensive? I don't think so. I wouldn't agree with letting a single person rent a 2 or 3 bedroom house right away, if they did they should pay the tax. But I don't think a family who has had a home for years is being irresponsible by the fact their kids have moved out. That in penalizing people for nothing.

Take a 60 year old couple who own a house - their 2 kids have gone and they need carers, they would be forced to use the money they have in the house, downsize or sell it and move in to a care home.

People with money are in the same boat Eli.

Have money, have it taken off you.

Don't have it - put your hands out and demand it off others.  That's the way it works.

That's true, but then again, what do they need the house for? To hand down to their children? The children are capable of earning their own money.

[Raggamuffin]

Morning Les   xxx

Absolutely agree on that, the problem is the shortage of social housing; demand far exceeds supply.  

As for the elderly couple, I think some people forget that just because you rent a property doesn't mean that it's not your home.

Exactly FtL x

^Andy, I appreciate your point. However, I wouldn't expect the old couple to demand anything; I'd be expecting them to pay the same as they always did. What I oppose is them having to pay more just because their children no longer live with them.

And the couple who rent may also need care eventually, in which case they may have to downsize anyway since it would still be cheaper. The only objection I'm having here is in being given an extra burden for doing nothing wrong.

If they're on housing benefit, they didn't pay anything though did they? You seem to be under the impression that the rent goes up or something. It doesn't, it's just that they have to pay some of it themselves because they don't need that spare room. It's not an issue if they're not on housing benefit.

[Guest]

Take a 60 year old couple who own a house - their 2 kids have gone and they need carers, they would be forced to use the money they have in the house, downsize or sell it and move in to a care home.

People with money are in the same boat Eli.

Have money, have it taken off you.

Don't have it - put your hands out and demand it off others.  That's the way it works.

That's true, but then again, what do they need the house for? To hand down to their children? The children are capable of earning their own money.

What do people need benefits for? They are perfectly capable of earning their own money.

[Raggamuffin]

That's true, but then again, what do they need the house for? To hand down to their children? The children are capable of earning their own money.

What do people need benefits for?  They are perfectly capable of earning their own money.

Well yes, unless they're too ill to work or they are unemployable or something.

[Guest]

Morning Andy  ::D:: 

I don't think it's quite as simple as that but in a sense I agree.  I fully expect that after spending years buying my home I will end up selling it to pay for my care if I need it when I'm older It's just how it is unless you are very wealthy.

Or don't work!

Or I could sell the house, blow the money on foreign holidays, fast cars, fine food and wine and when it runs out I'll get you to pay for me Andy   

[Guest]

What do people need benefits for?  They are perfectly capable of earning their own money.

Well yes, unless they're too ill to work or they are unemployable or something.

  

[Raggamuffin]

Can you stop posting silly You Tubes Phil? I don't watch them, and they're not very relevant.

[Guest]

Andy will remember that!

  

[Sponsored content]