Bereaved Cwmbran man faces bedroom tax move

Cwmbran tenant Kevin Reeve is being forced out of his three befroomed house owing to the bedroom tax. He cared for his wheel chaired father until the end of last year before he passed away. Pictured is Kevin outside his home in Cwmbran. (4922919)

Cwmbran tenant Kevin Reeve is being forced out of his three befroomed house owing to the bedroom tax. He cared for his wheel chaired father until the end of last year before he passed away. Pictured is Kevin outside his home in Cwmbran. (4922948)

Cwmbran tenant Kevin Reeve is being forced out of his three befroomed house owing to the bedroom tax. He cared for his wheel chaired father until the end of last year before he passed away. Pictured is Kevin outside his home in Cwmbran. (4922964)

Cwmbran tenant Kevin Reeve is being forced out of his three befroomed house owing to the bedroom tax. He cared for his wheel chaired father until the end of last year before he passed away. Pictured is Kevin's father who passed away aged 87. (492284

Cwmbran tenant Kevin Reeve is being forced out of his three befroomed house owing to the bedroom tax. He cared for his wheel chaired father until the end of last year before he passed away. Pictured at the top centre is Kevin with his father, brother in

First published in News
Last updated

A TENANT who looked after his wheelchair-bound father until his death last year says he is being forced to leave his family home of 50 years because of the bedroom tax.

Kevin Reeve, 52, says he has become one of the latest victims of the ‘under occupancy’ tax.

Mr Reeve says he can no longer afford to pay for bills at his three-bedroom house in Cwmbran.

His family has lived in the Bron Afon Community Housing property for five decades.

His 67-year-old mum Doreen died of cancer in 1997 and his 86-year-old father Victor, who suffered from arthritis, died last year.

Government handouts including his carer’s allowance and the disability allowance Victor received stopped when he died.

Mr Reeve says he is now struggling to live on £71 a week but faces having to pay the monthly under occupancy charge of between £35 and £45 twice, as two of the bedrooms in his home are empty. He says he has to move rather than get into rent arrears.

Mr Reeve, of Bryn Eglwys, Croesyceiliog, said: “My dad only died at Christmas – we were exempt then.

“It’s impossible. I’m paying the electrics and gas, all out of £71. I spend £7 or £8 a week on food.

“I think it’s disgusting. The bedroom tax is driving people out of their homes.

“If push comes to shove, I will have to move out of the area but I don’t want to. I like the area and the community.”

Mr Reeve goes to a rent office several times a month to check if there are smaller flats he could move into.

But he has not found a suitable place so far and has been told it could be some time before a vacancy becomes available.

He said: “I keep my head above water just about. I just keep on struggling, this is all I can do.

“I will have to downsize before I can go anywhere. There are lots of things at home I will have to give to my family if they want them or get rid of.”

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman told the Argus: “The removal of the spare room subsidy is necessary to return fairness to housing benefit.

The spokesman added: “Even after the policy change we still pay the majority of most claimants’ rent, but it’s not affordable to pay housing benefit for people to have spare rooms.

“We have given councils in Wales £7 million this year to support vulnerable people who need extra help through the reforms, and have just announced that this will be increased to £7.8 million next year.”

Comments (110)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:21am Tue 1 Apr 14

kez1968 says...

Let's throw something radical out there! Maybe he could try and get a job?
Let's throw something radical out there! Maybe he could try and get a job? kez1968
  • Score: 46

11:11am Tue 1 Apr 14

Sally121 says...

Lets put this right, as it may be for the occupier if 'he' as opposed to 'benefits' pays the costs he can stay there, but you cannot 'the system' to pay for accomodation that is too big for his needs.
Lets put this right, as it may be for the occupier if 'he' as opposed to 'benefits' pays the costs he can stay there, but you cannot 'the system' to pay for accomodation that is too big for his needs. Sally121
  • Score: 23

11:12am Tue 1 Apr 14

Sally121 says...

.......
Unpleasant as it may be for the occupier
....... Unpleasant as it may be for the occupier Sally121
  • Score: 6

12:02pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Floppy backed says...

Hard as it is to say these are rented properties that belong to the council/HA which are heavily subsidised by the TAX PAYER. It is not a 'right' to stay in a home because you have lived there all your life just like a private home many people have to down grade, no one gets their mortgage subsidised.

These housing associations are also subsidised by the business' who do work for them. To be able to work for people like Bron Afon you have to be able to give a % back in 'helping the community' so on top of all the taxes and overheads its not just tax payers who help the privilege of living in these very pleasant abodes its business too!
Hard as it is to say these are rented properties that belong to the council/HA which are heavily subsidised by the TAX PAYER. It is not a 'right' to stay in a home because you have lived there all your life just like a private home many people have to down grade, no one gets their mortgage subsidised. These housing associations are also subsidised by the business' who do work for them. To be able to work for people like Bron Afon you have to be able to give a % back in 'helping the community' so on top of all the taxes and overheads its not just tax payers who help the privilege of living in these very pleasant abodes its business too! Floppy backed
  • Score: 36

12:39pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Jacqui in Cwmbran says...

Surely tenant and Council should be working together to find this man a suitable property. If it is the case that a one-bed home is not available at this time, then I believe the Council should 'bend the rules' somewhat so that he can remain in his home for the time being, on the strict understanding that as soon as a suitable property becomes available, this tenant relocates immediately! It is not his right to remain in the family home simply because he's lived there all his life. We all have to make choices about size of home, type of vehicle we drive, where we shop, all based on what we can afford. Mr Reeve is no different, he needs to live within his means - and, yes, that means a smaller home! But, as I said, if it is the case the Council is dragging its collective feet in helping him
relocate, then they should bear the cost until such time as they do find him, a home!
Surely tenant and Council should be working together to find this man a suitable property. If it is the case that a one-bed home is not available at this time, then I believe the Council should 'bend the rules' somewhat so that he can remain in his home for the time being, on the strict understanding that as soon as a suitable property becomes available, this tenant relocates immediately! It is not his right to remain in the family home simply because he's lived there all his life. We all have to make choices about size of home, type of vehicle we drive, where we shop, all based on what we can afford. Mr Reeve is no different, he needs to live within his means - and, yes, that means a smaller home! But, as I said, if it is the case the Council is dragging its collective feet in helping him relocate, then they should bear the cost until such time as they do find him, a home! Jacqui in Cwmbran
  • Score: 38

12:45pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

Poor bloke. It's all very revealing about the type of society that we are becoming when people who do the decent human thing and look after their relatives (thereby saving the NHS billions) get punished and turfed out of their homes, yet the paristic banksters whom - through their selfish, unscrupulous behaviour - created the problems we now all suffer under in the first place have the powers that be running around in circles to accommodate them.
Poor bloke. It's all very revealing about the type of society that we are becoming when people who do the decent human thing and look after their relatives (thereby saving the NHS billions) get punished and turfed out of their homes, yet the paristic banksters whom - through their selfish, unscrupulous behaviour - created the problems we now all suffer under in the first place have the powers that be running around in circles to accommodate them. Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: -16

1:27pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Katie Re-Registered wrote:
Poor bloke. It's all very revealing about the type of society that we are becoming when people who do the decent human thing and look after their relatives (thereby saving the NHS billions) get punished and turfed out of their homes, yet the paristic banksters whom - through their selfish, unscrupulous behaviour - created the problems we now all suffer under in the first place have the powers that be running around in circles to accommodate them.
It was always predictable that someone would mention 'bankers'. Any second now another poster will truck out nazis, as though either of those worn out cliches are relevant here. Why should a healthy person of working age be shielded from the same realities that the rest of us face? If I can't fund my mortgage, no-one else is going to stump up because I can't afford my house. I have to move. And this, Katie, is regardless of how long I've lived for or who I've cared for here.
[quote][p][bold]Katie Re-Registered[/bold] wrote: Poor bloke. It's all very revealing about the type of society that we are becoming when people who do the decent human thing and look after their relatives (thereby saving the NHS billions) get punished and turfed out of their homes, yet the paristic banksters whom - through their selfish, unscrupulous behaviour - created the problems we now all suffer under in the first place have the powers that be running around in circles to accommodate them.[/p][/quote]It was always predictable that someone would mention 'bankers'. Any second now another poster will truck out nazis, as though either of those worn out cliches are relevant here. Why should a healthy person of working age be shielded from the same realities that the rest of us face? If I can't fund my mortgage, no-one else is going to stump up because I can't afford my house. I have to move. And this, Katie, is regardless of how long I've lived for or who I've cared for here. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 33

2:02pm Tue 1 Apr 14

endthelies says...

If there was any benefit to the taxpayer by having the bedroom tax in place, then maybe I could understand but the fact is, the bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE. rents for smaller properties are higher than ever because of the demand, and therefore, the ability for landlords to make more money by increasing the rent was very predictable. Ergo, the amount of housing benefit payments on behalf of the tenant INCREASES. There are not enough smaller houses for people to move to. If you own your home then fab. However, if you can't afford your mortgage payments (as many cannot) you would look to social housing when the bailiff knocks on the door. The bedroom tax is on the way out I'm sure and the day it goes will be the most sensible thing this lousy government have done for the less fortunate.
If there was any benefit to the taxpayer by having the bedroom tax in place, then maybe I could understand but the fact is, the bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE. rents for smaller properties are higher than ever because of the demand, and therefore, the ability for landlords to make more money by increasing the rent was very predictable. Ergo, the amount of housing benefit payments on behalf of the tenant INCREASES. There are not enough smaller houses for people to move to. If you own your home then fab. However, if you can't afford your mortgage payments (as many cannot) you would look to social housing when the bailiff knocks on the door. The bedroom tax is on the way out I'm sure and the day it goes will be the most sensible thing this lousy government have done for the less fortunate. endthelies
  • Score: -12

2:16pm Tue 1 Apr 14

endthelies says...

And LMA I am aware of how you think I only tell 'my truth' not 'the truth' sop heres some evidence. Of course I can provide lots more if you want me too. Just ask.
http://speye.wordpre
ss.com/2013/08/25/hb
-bill-will-be-7bn-mo
re-and-the-bedroom-t
ax-will-cost-150m-mo
re-per-year/
And LMA I am aware of how you think I only tell 'my truth' not 'the truth' sop heres some evidence. Of course I can provide lots more if you want me too. Just ask. http://speye.wordpre ss.com/2013/08/25/hb -bill-will-be-7bn-mo re-and-the-bedroom-t ax-will-cost-150m-mo re-per-year/ endthelies
  • Score: -11

2:17pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Welshmarti says...

Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments. Welshmarti
  • Score: 22

2:52pm Tue 1 Apr 14

kez1968 says...

Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
[quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!! kez1968
  • Score: 22

3:35pm Tue 1 Apr 14

BUDDAH WELSH says...

Jacqui in Cwmbran wrote:
Surely tenant and Council should be working together to find this man a suitable property. If it is the case that a one-bed home is not available at this time, then I believe the Council should 'bend the rules' somewhat so that he can remain in his home for the time being, on the strict understanding that as soon as a suitable property becomes available, this tenant relocates immediately! It is not his right to remain in the family home simply because he's lived there all his life. We all have to make choices about size of home, type of vehicle we drive, where we shop, all based on what we can afford. Mr Reeve is no different, he needs to live within his means - and, yes, that means a smaller home! But, as I said, if it is the case the Council is dragging its collective feet in helping him
relocate, then they should bear the cost until such time as they do find him, a home!
I wonder how much it cost to do the disabled facilities in this house, I would say that the HA should leave him in the house till they find a suitable property.
Then find a disabled person/s to move into this adapted house. I know the feelings of some people on this site but remember this gentleman looked after both his parents saving the taxpayer millions.
[quote][p][bold]Jacqui in Cwmbran[/bold] wrote: Surely tenant and Council should be working together to find this man a suitable property. If it is the case that a one-bed home is not available at this time, then I believe the Council should 'bend the rules' somewhat so that he can remain in his home for the time being, on the strict understanding that as soon as a suitable property becomes available, this tenant relocates immediately! It is not his right to remain in the family home simply because he's lived there all his life. We all have to make choices about size of home, type of vehicle we drive, where we shop, all based on what we can afford. Mr Reeve is no different, he needs to live within his means - and, yes, that means a smaller home! But, as I said, if it is the case the Council is dragging its collective feet in helping him relocate, then they should bear the cost until such time as they do find him, a home![/p][/quote]I wonder how much it cost to do the disabled facilities in this house, I would say that the HA should leave him in the house till they find a suitable property. Then find a disabled person/s to move into this adapted house. I know the feelings of some people on this site but remember this gentleman looked after both his parents saving the taxpayer millions. BUDDAH WELSH
  • Score: -5

3:46pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Bobevans says...

The first thing is that he would not be just getting £71 a week. The tenancy in any case would have been in his parents name. It appears he is not being forced out. He does not want to pay for the spare rooms. There are plenty of families that need 3 bedroom homes
Many people seem to have forgotten what the concept of social homes are. They are allocated on need. Does he need a 3 Bedroom home?

Radical as it might be perhaps he should be seeking work
The first thing is that he would not be just getting £71 a week. The tenancy in any case would have been in his parents name. It appears he is not being forced out. He does not want to pay for the spare rooms. There are plenty of families that need 3 bedroom homes Many people seem to have forgotten what the concept of social homes are. They are allocated on need. Does he need a 3 Bedroom home? Radical as it might be perhaps he should be seeking work Bobevans
  • Score: 38

4:28pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Llanmartinangel says...

endthelies wrote:
And LMA I am aware of how you think I only tell 'my truth' not 'the truth' sop heres some evidence. Of course I can provide lots more if you want me too. Just ask.
http://speye.wordpre

ss.com/2013/08/25/hb

-bill-will-be-7bn-mo

re-and-the-bedroom-t

ax-will-cost-150m-mo

re-per-year/
Somewhat amusing that you 'speak the truth' yet you keep calling it a tax. He doesn't pay tax. The taxpayer gives him money.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: And LMA I am aware of how you think I only tell 'my truth' not 'the truth' sop heres some evidence. Of course I can provide lots more if you want me too. Just ask. http://speye.wordpre ss.com/2013/08/25/hb -bill-will-be-7bn-mo re-and-the-bedroom-t ax-will-cost-150m-mo re-per-year/[/p][/quote]Somewhat amusing that you 'speak the truth' yet you keep calling it a tax. He doesn't pay tax. The taxpayer gives him money. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 26

4:44pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Welshmarti says...

kez1968 wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
He was register disabled after him father passed away, wont go into lengths on here, but this was all report to the south wales argus, but they only print enough, so readers can have a debate, helps sell papers. Most people obviously fall for it to
[quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!![/p][/quote]He was register disabled after him father passed away, wont go into lengths on here, but this was all report to the south wales argus, but they only print enough, so readers can have a debate, helps sell papers. Most people obviously fall for it to Welshmarti
  • Score: -7

5:50pm Tue 1 Apr 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

Can only go on facts, fact is disabled or not if you live alone you don't need a 3 bed house. If you have to have someone live in to care for you then you need a 2 bed house simple maths really. There are plenty of families that live in cramped flats that would probably give an arm and a leg to get a house. It's got to be tough to have to move from a property that there are so memories in, but the house is a social housing property not private, so should give it up if there are others in need for the space anyway.

This bedroom tax is always going to be heavily debated, right or wrong the fundimantals of what they are trying to achieve through it is a good idea, but in practice it doesn't work. Will only work if there are the right number of houses for the number of people who require the varying number of rooms,. As one person has cmmented it's pushing the price of the single bedroom properties up, this should be addressed and made illegal for private landlords to increase price just for taking advantage of the system. As it's the tax payers that are havng to pay these increases.
Can only go on facts, fact is disabled or not if you live alone you don't need a 3 bed house. If you have to have someone live in to care for you then you need a 2 bed house simple maths really. There are plenty of families that live in cramped flats that would probably give an arm and a leg to get a house. It's got to be tough to have to move from a property that there are so memories in, but the house is a social housing property not private, so should give it up if there are others in need for the space anyway. This bedroom tax is always going to be heavily debated, right or wrong the fundimantals of what they are trying to achieve through it is a good idea, but in practice it doesn't work. Will only work if there are the right number of houses for the number of people who require the varying number of rooms,. As one person has cmmented it's pushing the price of the single bedroom properties up, this should be addressed and made illegal for private landlords to increase price just for taking advantage of the system. As it's the tax payers that are havng to pay these increases. grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 20

6:35pm Tue 1 Apr 14

babyface96 says...

When are the people of United kingdom gonna stop **** at each other and stand together to face the real issues of this country any one person could have to claim housing benefit at anytime in their life ,even people who work have to claim it sometimes cause the minimum wage is so low what is this country coming to when people who payed in to this system have to wait in hospital corridors and are told to pee in a bowl in full View of other people cause they are to ill to move, told to sleep in a chair cause there are no beds ,children are going without food and basic needs, what is great about great Britain nothing until people stand together and help each other out this country will fall deeper in debt no NHS system ect ect
When are the people of United kingdom gonna stop **** at each other and stand together to face the real issues of this country any one person could have to claim housing benefit at anytime in their life ,even people who work have to claim it sometimes cause the minimum wage is so low what is this country coming to when people who payed in to this system have to wait in hospital corridors and are told to pee in a bowl in full View of other people cause they are to ill to move, told to sleep in a chair cause there are no beds ,children are going without food and basic needs, what is great about great Britain nothing until people stand together and help each other out this country will fall deeper in debt no NHS system ect ect babyface96
  • Score: 3

7:01pm Tue 1 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Bobevans wrote:
The first thing is that he would not be just getting £71 a week. The tenancy in any case would have been in his parents name. It appears he is not being forced out. He does not want to pay for the spare rooms. There are plenty of families that need 3 bedroom homes
Many people seem to have forgotten what the concept of social homes are. They are allocated on need. Does he need a 3 Bedroom home?

Radical as it might be perhaps he should be seeking work
Sorry Bob We've had this argument over and over but you don't seem to accept the fact that there are three bedroomed houses lying empty because the demand NOW is for smaller properties, and they are very few and far between because the demand is so high due to the bedroom tax. People WANT to downsize in order to not have to pay this awful 'single room subsidy', but they can't because there are no properties for them to move to. Disabled folk, who have had a three bedroomed property adapted for their needs, either have to pay the subsidy or move. They can't afford the subsidy and if they lucky enough to find a smaller property, that then has to be adapted AGAIN. surely this makes no sense, or am I talking in a foreign language here?
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: The first thing is that he would not be just getting £71 a week. The tenancy in any case would have been in his parents name. It appears he is not being forced out. He does not want to pay for the spare rooms. There are plenty of families that need 3 bedroom homes Many people seem to have forgotten what the concept of social homes are. They are allocated on need. Does he need a 3 Bedroom home? Radical as it might be perhaps he should be seeking work[/p][/quote]Sorry Bob We've had this argument over and over but you don't seem to accept the fact that there are three bedroomed houses lying empty because the demand NOW is for smaller properties, and they are very few and far between because the demand is so high due to the bedroom tax. People WANT to downsize in order to not have to pay this awful 'single room subsidy', but they can't because there are no properties for them to move to. Disabled folk, who have had a three bedroomed property adapted for their needs, either have to pay the subsidy or move. They can't afford the subsidy and if they lucky enough to find a smaller property, that then has to be adapted AGAIN. surely this makes no sense, or am I talking in a foreign language here? endthelies
  • Score: 7

7:03pm Tue 1 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Also, why wouldn't he be getting £71 a week. That is more than the single men claiming jobseekers gets, which is roughly £54 per week. Hardly a kings ransom is it?
Also, why wouldn't he be getting £71 a week. That is more than the single men claiming jobseekers gets, which is roughly £54 per week. Hardly a kings ransom is it? endthelies
  • Score: -3

7:04pm Tue 1 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
endthelies wrote:
And LMA I am aware of how you think I only tell 'my truth' not 'the truth' sop heres some evidence. Of course I can provide lots more if you want me too. Just ask.
http://speye.wordpre


ss.com/2013/08/25/hb


-bill-will-be-7bn-mo


re-and-the-bedroom-t


ax-will-cost-150m-mo


re-per-year/
Somewhat amusing that you 'speak the truth' yet you keep calling it a tax. He doesn't pay tax. The taxpayer gives him money.
I look forward to ignoring your next comment that avoids the points that Ive made.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: And LMA I am aware of how you think I only tell 'my truth' not 'the truth' sop heres some evidence. Of course I can provide lots more if you want me too. Just ask. http://speye.wordpre ss.com/2013/08/25/hb -bill-will-be-7bn-mo re-and-the-bedroom-t ax-will-cost-150m-mo re-per-year/[/p][/quote]Somewhat amusing that you 'speak the truth' yet you keep calling it a tax. He doesn't pay tax. The taxpayer gives him money.[/p][/quote]I look forward to ignoring your next comment that avoids the points that Ive made. endthelies
  • Score: 7

9:31pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Lizwerry says...

Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Registered disabled? He's been caring for his father, that presumably means lifting him into and out bed, the bath, the wheelchair etc etc.
But yes of course he's "disabled."
Probably disabled from going out ot get a job like the rest of us have to
[quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Registered disabled? He's been caring for his father, that presumably means lifting him into and out bed, the bath, the wheelchair etc etc. But yes of course he's "disabled." Probably disabled from going out ot get a job like the rest of us have to Lizwerry
  • Score: 7

9:55pm Tue 1 Apr 14

jimmysmith says...

kez1968 wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .
[quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!![/p][/quote]kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight . jimmysmith
  • Score: 2

10:00pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Bobevans says...

Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
How can he suddenly become disabled ?
[quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]How can he suddenly become disabled ? Bobevans
  • Score: -2

10:03pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Bobevans says...

Welshmarti wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
He was register disabled after him father passed away, wont go into lengths on here, but this was all report to the south wales argus, but they only print enough, so readers can have a debate, helps sell papers. Most people obviously fall for it to
How convenient . Being registered disable in any case does not mean he is incapable of working although I suspect he has no intention of ever seeking work.
[quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!![/p][/quote]He was register disabled after him father passed away, wont go into lengths on here, but this was all report to the south wales argus, but they only print enough, so readers can have a debate, helps sell papers. Most people obviously fall for it to[/p][/quote]How convenient . Being registered disable in any case does not mean he is incapable of working although I suspect he has no intention of ever seeking work. Bobevans
  • Score: 9

10:06pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Bobevans says...

endthelies wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
The first thing is that he would not be just getting £71 a week. The tenancy in any case would have been in his parents name. It appears he is not being forced out. He does not want to pay for the spare rooms. There are plenty of families that need 3 bedroom homes
Many people seem to have forgotten what the concept of social homes are. They are allocated on need. Does he need a 3 Bedroom home?

Radical as it might be perhaps he should be seeking work
Sorry Bob We've had this argument over and over but you don't seem to accept the fact that there are three bedroomed houses lying empty because the demand NOW is for smaller properties, and they are very few and far between because the demand is so high due to the bedroom tax. People WANT to downsize in order to not have to pay this awful 'single room subsidy', but they can't because there are no properties for them to move to. Disabled folk, who have had a three bedroomed property adapted for their needs, either have to pay the subsidy or move. They can't afford the subsidy and if they lucky enough to find a smaller property, that then has to be adapted AGAIN. surely this makes no sense, or am I talking in a foreign language here?
There are no 3 Bed home lying empty because no one wants them that's total bunk. There are thousands of families needing larger homes

You talk nonsense so if someone in a social home and is single its fine for the taxpayers to subsidise them to stay in a 6 bed home
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: The first thing is that he would not be just getting £71 a week. The tenancy in any case would have been in his parents name. It appears he is not being forced out. He does not want to pay for the spare rooms. There are plenty of families that need 3 bedroom homes Many people seem to have forgotten what the concept of social homes are. They are allocated on need. Does he need a 3 Bedroom home? Radical as it might be perhaps he should be seeking work[/p][/quote]Sorry Bob We've had this argument over and over but you don't seem to accept the fact that there are three bedroomed houses lying empty because the demand NOW is for smaller properties, and they are very few and far between because the demand is so high due to the bedroom tax. People WANT to downsize in order to not have to pay this awful 'single room subsidy', but they can't because there are no properties for them to move to. Disabled folk, who have had a three bedroomed property adapted for their needs, either have to pay the subsidy or move. They can't afford the subsidy and if they lucky enough to find a smaller property, that then has to be adapted AGAIN. surely this makes no sense, or am I talking in a foreign language here?[/p][/quote]There are no 3 Bed home lying empty because no one wants them that's total bunk. There are thousands of families needing larger homes You talk nonsense so if someone in a social home and is single its fine for the taxpayers to subsidise them to stay in a 6 bed home Bobevans
  • Score: 7

10:10pm Tue 1 Apr 14

scraptheWAG says...

most people who claim to be incapcity claim there are too depressed to work its a well known trick you get £110 - 150 per week and dont have to sign on also many do jobs for cash on the side

This gent was claiming carers allowance so he could go out and get a job as a career in a old peoples home - but like many he has figured he is better off on benefits
most people who claim to be incapcity claim there are too depressed to work its a well known trick you get £110 - 150 per week and dont have to sign on also many do jobs for cash on the side This gent was claiming carers allowance so he could go out and get a job as a career in a old peoples home - but like many he has figured he is better off on benefits scraptheWAG
  • Score: 7

10:14pm Tue 1 Apr 14

scraptheWAG says...

jimmysmith wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .
if he is really disabled how is he going to manage a large house like that on his own dig the garden mow the lawn etc ????
[quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!![/p][/quote]kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .[/p][/quote]if he is really disabled how is he going to manage a large house like that on his own dig the garden mow the lawn etc ???? scraptheWAG
  • Score: 1

10:14pm Tue 1 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Bobevans wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
How can he suddenly become disabled ?
I became disabled in under a year. In that time, I have lost most of my mobility in my back and right arm. Believe me, you can 'suddenly' become disabled. Also, has anyone ever thought that all the lifting, carrying and stress that comes with caring for a terminally ill relative can do to a person.?
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]How can he suddenly become disabled ?[/p][/quote]I became disabled in under a year. In that time, I have lost most of my mobility in my back and right arm. Believe me, you can 'suddenly' become disabled. Also, has anyone ever thought that all the lifting, carrying and stress that comes with caring for a terminally ill relative can do to a person.? endthelies
  • Score: 7

10:21pm Tue 1 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Bobevans wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
The first thing is that he would not be just getting £71 a week. The tenancy in any case would have been in his parents name. It appears he is not being forced out. He does not want to pay for the spare rooms. There are plenty of families that need 3 bedroom homes
Many people seem to have forgotten what the concept of social homes are. They are allocated on need. Does he need a 3 Bedroom home?

Radical as it might be perhaps he should be seeking work
Sorry Bob We've had this argument over and over but you don't seem to accept the fact that there are three bedroomed houses lying empty because the demand NOW is for smaller properties, and they are very few and far between because the demand is so high due to the bedroom tax. People WANT to downsize in order to not have to pay this awful 'single room subsidy', but they can't because there are no properties for them to move to. Disabled folk, who have had a three bedroomed property adapted for their needs, either have to pay the subsidy or move. They can't afford the subsidy and if they lucky enough to find a smaller property, that then has to be adapted AGAIN. surely this makes no sense, or am I talking in a foreign language here?
There are no 3 Bed home lying empty because no one wants them that's total bunk. There are thousands of families needing larger homes

You talk nonsense so if someone in a social home and is single its fine for the taxpayers to subsidise them to stay in a 6 bed home
Total bunk eh. Ok here comes some evidence. Also, what housing estate dop you live on because I live on one and I see the empty houses and am losing my old neighbours because of the bedroom tax, and then those houses lie unoccupied. If you're going to call my comments bunk, then back up your own comments with some evidence please. If I have to justify myself, then so should you.
http://www.liverpool
echo.co.uk/news/live
rpool-news/merseysid
e-homes-lie-empty-be
droom-6762009
http://speye.wordpre
ss.com/2014/03/28/es
ther-mcvey-must-have
-a-bedroom-tax-fur-c
oat/http://www.indep
endent.co.uk/news/uk
/politics/big-lie-be
hind-the-bedroom-tax
-families-trapped-wi
th-nowhere-to-move-f
ace-penalty-for-havi
ng-spare-room-874559
7.htmlhttp://www.the
journal.co.uk/news/n
orth-east-news/bedro
om-tax-leaves-proper
ties-standing-628375
0
Believe me BOB I know what I'm talking about. unfortunately, I don't think you do.
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: The first thing is that he would not be just getting £71 a week. The tenancy in any case would have been in his parents name. It appears he is not being forced out. He does not want to pay for the spare rooms. There are plenty of families that need 3 bedroom homes Many people seem to have forgotten what the concept of social homes are. They are allocated on need. Does he need a 3 Bedroom home? Radical as it might be perhaps he should be seeking work[/p][/quote]Sorry Bob We've had this argument over and over but you don't seem to accept the fact that there are three bedroomed houses lying empty because the demand NOW is for smaller properties, and they are very few and far between because the demand is so high due to the bedroom tax. People WANT to downsize in order to not have to pay this awful 'single room subsidy', but they can't because there are no properties for them to move to. Disabled folk, who have had a three bedroomed property adapted for their needs, either have to pay the subsidy or move. They can't afford the subsidy and if they lucky enough to find a smaller property, that then has to be adapted AGAIN. surely this makes no sense, or am I talking in a foreign language here?[/p][/quote]There are no 3 Bed home lying empty because no one wants them that's total bunk. There are thousands of families needing larger homes You talk nonsense so if someone in a social home and is single its fine for the taxpayers to subsidise them to stay in a 6 bed home[/p][/quote]Total bunk eh. Ok here comes some evidence. Also, what housing estate dop you live on because I live on one and I see the empty houses and am losing my old neighbours because of the bedroom tax, and then those houses lie unoccupied. If you're going to call my comments bunk, then back up your own comments with some evidence please. If I have to justify myself, then so should you. http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/merseysid e-homes-lie-empty-be droom-6762009 http://speye.wordpre ss.com/2014/03/28/es ther-mcvey-must-have -a-bedroom-tax-fur-c oat/http://www.indep endent.co.uk/news/uk /politics/big-lie-be hind-the-bedroom-tax -families-trapped-wi th-nowhere-to-move-f ace-penalty-for-havi ng-spare-room-874559 7.htmlhttp://www.the journal.co.uk/news/n orth-east-news/bedro om-tax-leaves-proper ties-standing-628375 0 Believe me BOB I know what I'm talking about. unfortunately, I don't think you do. endthelies
  • Score: 7

10:26pm Tue 1 Apr 14

endthelies says...

I tell you what BOB. would you believe pictures of houses lying empty. Boarded up. unoccupied. Because I promise, I can do that too if you want. Just say the word and I'll send my daughter out with the camera. Will you publish them for me Argus.
I tell you what BOB. would you believe pictures of houses lying empty. Boarded up. unoccupied. Because I promise, I can do that too if you want. Just say the word and I'll send my daughter out with the camera. Will you publish them for me Argus. endthelies
  • Score: 6

12:12am Wed 2 Apr 14

jimmysmith says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
jimmysmith wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .
if he is really disabled how is he going to manage a large house like that on his own dig the garden mow the lawn etc ????
is it really that big eh ? i dont see it as big ,do you ? and as for garden what is it a lawn or a veg plot you tell me ?. and whilst youve asked hows he going to manage the garden etc .if hes moved into a high rise flat for example ,hows he going to manage the stairs etc or clean his windows ? Getting back to your questions though about managing his house and gardens apart from minding your own business didnt you stop to think hes probably got family close by who help him and visit him on a regular basis by the way who does your house work and gardening ?
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!![/p][/quote]kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .[/p][/quote]if he is really disabled how is he going to manage a large house like that on his own dig the garden mow the lawn etc ????[/p][/quote]is it really that big eh ? i dont see it as big ,do you ? and as for garden what is it a lawn or a veg plot you tell me ?. and whilst youve asked hows he going to manage the garden etc .if hes moved into a high rise flat for example ,hows he going to manage the stairs etc or clean his windows ? Getting back to your questions though about managing his house and gardens apart from minding your own business didnt you stop to think hes probably got family close by who help him and visit him on a regular basis by the way who does your house work and gardening ? jimmysmith
  • Score: 4

7:03am Wed 2 Apr 14

indy2012 says...

Be careful ....... It was not to long ago that a person who was threatened by the authorities that he had to leave his family home in The Crescent after his parents died,set fire to it and killed himself.
Sounds all a bit drastic I know, but it happened.
Be careful ....... It was not to long ago that a person who was threatened by the authorities that he had to leave his family home in The Crescent after his parents died,set fire to it and killed himself. Sounds all a bit drastic I know, but it happened. indy2012
  • Score: 1

8:06am Wed 2 Apr 14

Bobevans says...

endthelies wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
The first thing is that he would not be just getting £71 a week. The tenancy in any case would have been in his parents name. It appears he is not being forced out. He does not want to pay for the spare rooms. There are plenty of families that need 3 bedroom homes
Many people seem to have forgotten what the concept of social homes are. They are allocated on need. Does he need a 3 Bedroom home?

Radical as it might be perhaps he should be seeking work
Sorry Bob We've had this argument over and over but you don't seem to accept the fact that there are three bedroomed houses lying empty because the demand NOW is for smaller properties, and they are very few and far between because the demand is so high due to the bedroom tax. People WANT to downsize in order to not have to pay this awful 'single room subsidy', but they can't because there are no properties for them to move to. Disabled folk, who have had a three bedroomed property adapted for their needs, either have to pay the subsidy or move. They can't afford the subsidy and if they lucky enough to find a smaller property, that then has to be adapted AGAIN. surely this makes no sense, or am I talking in a foreign language here?
There are no 3 Bed home lying empty because no one wants them that's total bunk. There are thousands of families needing larger homes

You talk nonsense so if someone in a social home and is single its fine for the taxpayers to subsidise them to stay in a 6 bed home
Total bunk eh. Ok here comes some evidence. Also, what housing estate dop you live on because I live on one and I see the empty houses and am losing my old neighbours because of the bedroom tax, and then those houses lie unoccupied. If you're going to call my comments bunk, then back up your own comments with some evidence please. If I have to justify myself, then so should you.
http://www.liverpool

echo.co.uk/news/live

rpool-news/merseysid

e-homes-lie-empty-be

droom-6762009
http://speye.wordpre

ss.com/2014/03/28/es

ther-mcvey-must-have

-a-bedroom-tax-fur-c

oat/http://www.indep

endent.co.uk/news/uk

/politics/big-lie-be

hind-the-bedroom-tax

-families-trapped-wi

th-nowhere-to-move-f

ace-penalty-for-havi

ng-spare-room-874559

7.htmlhttp://www.the

journal.co.uk/news/n

orth-east-news/bedro

om-tax-leaves-proper

ties-standing-628375

0
Believe me BOB I know what I'm talking about. unfortunately, I don't think you do.
Total and complete bunk. Do you know how many people are on the housing lists waiting for 2 & 3 bedroom homes?
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: The first thing is that he would not be just getting £71 a week. The tenancy in any case would have been in his parents name. It appears he is not being forced out. He does not want to pay for the spare rooms. There are plenty of families that need 3 bedroom homes Many people seem to have forgotten what the concept of social homes are. They are allocated on need. Does he need a 3 Bedroom home? Radical as it might be perhaps he should be seeking work[/p][/quote]Sorry Bob We've had this argument over and over but you don't seem to accept the fact that there are three bedroomed houses lying empty because the demand NOW is for smaller properties, and they are very few and far between because the demand is so high due to the bedroom tax. People WANT to downsize in order to not have to pay this awful 'single room subsidy', but they can't because there are no properties for them to move to. Disabled folk, who have had a three bedroomed property adapted for their needs, either have to pay the subsidy or move. They can't afford the subsidy and if they lucky enough to find a smaller property, that then has to be adapted AGAIN. surely this makes no sense, or am I talking in a foreign language here?[/p][/quote]There are no 3 Bed home lying empty because no one wants them that's total bunk. There are thousands of families needing larger homes You talk nonsense so if someone in a social home and is single its fine for the taxpayers to subsidise them to stay in a 6 bed home[/p][/quote]Total bunk eh. Ok here comes some evidence. Also, what housing estate dop you live on because I live on one and I see the empty houses and am losing my old neighbours because of the bedroom tax, and then those houses lie unoccupied. If you're going to call my comments bunk, then back up your own comments with some evidence please. If I have to justify myself, then so should you. http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/merseysid e-homes-lie-empty-be droom-6762009 http://speye.wordpre ss.com/2014/03/28/es ther-mcvey-must-have -a-bedroom-tax-fur-c oat/http://www.indep endent.co.uk/news/uk /politics/big-lie-be hind-the-bedroom-tax -families-trapped-wi th-nowhere-to-move-f ace-penalty-for-havi ng-spare-room-874559 7.htmlhttp://www.the journal.co.uk/news/n orth-east-news/bedro om-tax-leaves-proper ties-standing-628375 0 Believe me BOB I know what I'm talking about. unfortunately, I don't think you do.[/p][/quote]Total and complete bunk. Do you know how many people are on the housing lists waiting for 2 & 3 bedroom homes? Bobevans
  • Score: 2

8:29am Wed 2 Apr 14

amberman says...

Some harsh criticism here i think , some people are very niave and opinionated 1
Some harsh criticism here i think , some people are very niave and opinionated 1 amberman
  • Score: 4

9:22am Wed 2 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Bobevans wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
The first thing is that he would not be just getting £71 a week. The tenancy in any case would have been in his parents name. It appears he is not being forced out. He does not want to pay for the spare rooms. There are plenty of families that need 3 bedroom homes
Many people seem to have forgotten what the concept of social homes are. They are allocated on need. Does he need a 3 Bedroom home?

Radical as it might be perhaps he should be seeking work
Sorry Bob We've had this argument over and over but you don't seem to accept the fact that there are three bedroomed houses lying empty because the demand NOW is for smaller properties, and they are very few and far between because the demand is so high due to the bedroom tax. People WANT to downsize in order to not have to pay this awful 'single room subsidy', but they can't because there are no properties for them to move to. Disabled folk, who have had a three bedroomed property adapted for their needs, either have to pay the subsidy or move. They can't afford the subsidy and if they lucky enough to find a smaller property, that then has to be adapted AGAIN. surely this makes no sense, or am I talking in a foreign language here?
There are no 3 Bed home lying empty because no one wants them that's total bunk. There are thousands of families needing larger homes

You talk nonsense so if someone in a social home and is single its fine for the taxpayers to subsidise them to stay in a 6 bed home
Total bunk eh. Ok here comes some evidence. Also, what housing estate dop you live on because I live on one and I see the empty houses and am losing my old neighbours because of the bedroom tax, and then those houses lie unoccupied. If you're going to call my comments bunk, then back up your own comments with some evidence please. If I have to justify myself, then so should you.
http://www.liverpool


echo.co.uk/news/live


rpool-news/merseysid


e-homes-lie-empty-be


droom-6762009
http://speye.wordpre


ss.com/2014/03/28/es


ther-mcvey-must-have


-a-bedroom-tax-fur-c


oat/http://www.indep


endent.co.uk/news/uk


/politics/big-lie-be


hind-the-bedroom-tax


-families-trapped-wi


th-nowhere-to-move-f


ace-penalty-for-havi


ng-spare-room-874559


7.htmlhttp://www.the


journal.co.uk/news/n


orth-east-news/bedro


om-tax-leaves-proper


ties-standing-628375


0
Believe me BOB I know what I'm talking about. unfortunately, I don't think you do.
Total and complete bunk. Do you know how many people are on the housing lists waiting for 2 & 3 bedroom homes?
Wheres your proof bob I gave you mine. Saying my comments are bunk is not enough I'm afraid. To have a debate, you have to give the other side of the argument and it seems you cannot.
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: The first thing is that he would not be just getting £71 a week. The tenancy in any case would have been in his parents name. It appears he is not being forced out. He does not want to pay for the spare rooms. There are plenty of families that need 3 bedroom homes Many people seem to have forgotten what the concept of social homes are. They are allocated on need. Does he need a 3 Bedroom home? Radical as it might be perhaps he should be seeking work[/p][/quote]Sorry Bob We've had this argument over and over but you don't seem to accept the fact that there are three bedroomed houses lying empty because the demand NOW is for smaller properties, and they are very few and far between because the demand is so high due to the bedroom tax. People WANT to downsize in order to not have to pay this awful 'single room subsidy', but they can't because there are no properties for them to move to. Disabled folk, who have had a three bedroomed property adapted for their needs, either have to pay the subsidy or move. They can't afford the subsidy and if they lucky enough to find a smaller property, that then has to be adapted AGAIN. surely this makes no sense, or am I talking in a foreign language here?[/p][/quote]There are no 3 Bed home lying empty because no one wants them that's total bunk. There are thousands of families needing larger homes You talk nonsense so if someone in a social home and is single its fine for the taxpayers to subsidise them to stay in a 6 bed home[/p][/quote]Total bunk eh. Ok here comes some evidence. Also, what housing estate dop you live on because I live on one and I see the empty houses and am losing my old neighbours because of the bedroom tax, and then those houses lie unoccupied. If you're going to call my comments bunk, then back up your own comments with some evidence please. If I have to justify myself, then so should you. http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/merseysid e-homes-lie-empty-be droom-6762009 http://speye.wordpre ss.com/2014/03/28/es ther-mcvey-must-have -a-bedroom-tax-fur-c oat/http://www.indep endent.co.uk/news/uk /politics/big-lie-be hind-the-bedroom-tax -families-trapped-wi th-nowhere-to-move-f ace-penalty-for-havi ng-spare-room-874559 7.htmlhttp://www.the journal.co.uk/news/n orth-east-news/bedro om-tax-leaves-proper ties-standing-628375 0 Believe me BOB I know what I'm talking about. unfortunately, I don't think you do.[/p][/quote]Total and complete bunk. Do you know how many people are on the housing lists waiting for 2 & 3 bedroom homes?[/p][/quote]Wheres your proof bob I gave you mine. Saying my comments are bunk is not enough I'm afraid. To have a debate, you have to give the other side of the argument and it seems you cannot. endthelies
  • Score: 2

10:43am Wed 2 Apr 14

Good Job No Kids says...

endthelies

The problem with your evidence is that it seems to be focused on the North East? Liverpool echo etc

We are in South Wales which makes your evidence somewhat irrelevant to the story in question does is not?
endthelies The problem with your evidence is that it seems to be focused on the North East? Liverpool echo etc We are in South Wales which makes your evidence somewhat irrelevant to the story in question does is not? Good Job No Kids
  • Score: 5

10:50am Wed 2 Apr 14

Good Job No Kids says...

endthelies

Whilst your "proof" may provide some support to your argument why are you providing "proof" that focuses on North East England?

In case you have forgotten, this is the South Wales Argus which renders your "proof" somewhat irrelevant to the article being discussed.

Having had a lodger who worked for the council in housing, Bob is actually correct for once in that there are a lot of families who need bigger houses and their need is considerably more than this guys.

Being only 52 his dubious disability claim has now lumbered the taxpayer with his expenses for the foreseeable until his death. It might be valid but the timing appears to stink a bit.

He could be contributing for 17 years yet rather than just being on the take.
endthelies Whilst your "proof" may provide some support to your argument why are you providing "proof" that focuses on North East England? In case you have forgotten, this is the South Wales Argus which renders your "proof" somewhat irrelevant to the article being discussed. Having had a lodger who worked for the council in housing, Bob is actually correct for once in that there are a lot of families who need bigger houses and their need is considerably more than this guys. Being only 52 his dubious disability claim has now lumbered the taxpayer with his expenses for the foreseeable until his death. It might be valid but the timing appears to stink a bit. He could be contributing for 17 years yet rather than just being on the take. Good Job No Kids
  • Score: 6

11:36am Wed 2 Apr 14

Llanmartinangel says...

indy2012 wrote:
Be careful ....... It was not to long ago that a person who was threatened by the authorities that he had to leave his family home in The Crescent after his parents died,set fire to it and killed himself.
Sounds all a bit drastic I know, but it happened.
Quite a few people threw themselves out of windows in the great depression and I'm told that doing the hokey kokey off the Clifton Bridge is not that uncommon. If we formulated tax and benefit policy on the basis of random suicidal behaviour we'd be even further up sheet creek than we are already.
[quote][p][bold]indy2012[/bold] wrote: Be careful ....... It was not to long ago that a person who was threatened by the authorities that he had to leave his family home in The Crescent after his parents died,set fire to it and killed himself. Sounds all a bit drastic I know, but it happened.[/p][/quote]Quite a few people threw themselves out of windows in the great depression and I'm told that doing the hokey kokey off the Clifton Bridge is not that uncommon. If we formulated tax and benefit policy on the basis of random suicidal behaviour we'd be even further up sheet creek than we are already. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 1

11:39am Wed 2 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Good Job No Kids wrote:
endthelies

The problem with your evidence is that it seems to be focused on the North East? Liverpool echo etc

We are in South Wales which makes your evidence somewhat irrelevant to the story in question does is not?
Do you want some evidence from wales then. Ok. Here it is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-23122369
http://www.24dash.co
m/news/housing/2013-
11-25-bedroom-tax-to
-blame-for-1-million
-in-rent-arrears-and
-700-empty-propertie
s-in-wales
I'm sorry but Bob is not right and neither have you. Neither of you have come up with any article showing me that what Ive stated is untrue.
[quote][p][bold]Good Job No Kids[/bold] wrote: endthelies The problem with your evidence is that it seems to be focused on the North East? Liverpool echo etc We are in South Wales which makes your evidence somewhat irrelevant to the story in question does is not?[/p][/quote]Do you want some evidence from wales then. Ok. Here it is. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-23122369 http://www.24dash.co m/news/housing/2013- 11-25-bedroom-tax-to -blame-for-1-million -in-rent-arrears-and -700-empty-propertie s-in-wales I'm sorry but Bob is not right and neither have you. Neither of you have come up with any article showing me that what Ive stated is untrue. endthelies
  • Score: -4

12:35pm Wed 2 Apr 14

-trigg- says...

This man is not being forced out of his home as a result of any tax.

Due to a change in circumstances, the amount of Housing Benefit contribution towards his rent to which he is entitled has been reduced. The article says that this is a 3 bedroom house. It is only fair that he should be asked to pay a reasonable contribution towards the rent when this is clearly far beyond his requirements.

A novel idea I know, but rather than rely on housing benefit Mr Reeve could always try getting a job and actually pay rent for the property.

Alternately he can relocate to a more appropriate property, freeing up a family home for new social tenants who need these un-used bedrooms. As a bonus, a smaller home would cost less to heat, saving him money on these bills too.
This man is not being forced out of his home as a result of any tax. Due to a change in circumstances, the amount of Housing Benefit contribution towards his rent to which he is entitled has been reduced. The article says that this is a 3 bedroom house. It is only fair that he should be asked to pay a reasonable contribution towards the rent when this is clearly far beyond his requirements. A novel idea I know, but rather than rely on housing benefit Mr Reeve could always try getting a job and actually pay rent for the property. Alternately he can relocate to a more appropriate property, freeing up a family home for new social tenants who need these un-used bedrooms. As a bonus, a smaller home would cost less to heat, saving him money on these bills too. -trigg-
  • Score: 11

12:45pm Wed 2 Apr 14

county mad says...

jimmysmith wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .
idiotic comment blind to the facts there are families in bed and breakfast crammed into one or two rooms ,which this scheme was intended to tackle , its not the big bad tories crushing the poor its an attempt to rebalance social housing and for the record Labour brought this measure in for the private rented sector the coalition have extended itr to the public sector
[quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!![/p][/quote]kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .[/p][/quote]idiotic comment blind to the facts there are families in bed and breakfast crammed into one or two rooms ,which this scheme was intended to tackle , its not the big bad tories crushing the poor its an attempt to rebalance social housing and for the record Labour brought this measure in for the private rented sector the coalition have extended itr to the public sector county mad
  • Score: 8

1:44pm Wed 2 Apr 14

endthelies says...

-trigg- wrote:
This man is not being forced out of his home as a result of any tax.

Due to a change in circumstances, the amount of Housing Benefit contribution towards his rent to which he is entitled has been reduced. The article says that this is a 3 bedroom house. It is only fair that he should be asked to pay a reasonable contribution towards the rent when this is clearly far beyond his requirements.

A novel idea I know, but rather than rely on housing benefit Mr Reeve could always try getting a job and actually pay rent for the property.

Alternately he can relocate to a more appropriate property, freeing up a family home for new social tenants who need these un-used bedrooms. As a bonus, a smaller home would cost less to heat, saving him money on these bills too.
There are very few(if any) smaller properties available so what's he to do fall into rent arrears or be homeless. I've said that there are countless 3 bedroomed properties empty because the demand for these properties is not as large as the demand for smaller properties. The people who are crammed into bed and breakfasts are largely from the London area, where there is a shortage of larger properties. But that is about the only place in Britain that is suffering larger social housing shortages. Has the bedroom tax solved this issue. absolutely not, because there are not enough smaller residences for people to move into. To get people to move out, you need places for them to move to. Its not rocket science. I also note that there has been no response to my request that Bob back up his claims that there are actually NO empty three bedroomed social housing properties in Wales(even though I see them on a daily basis).
[quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: This man is not being forced out of his home as a result of any tax. Due to a change in circumstances, the amount of Housing Benefit contribution towards his rent to which he is entitled has been reduced. The article says that this is a 3 bedroom house. It is only fair that he should be asked to pay a reasonable contribution towards the rent when this is clearly far beyond his requirements. A novel idea I know, but rather than rely on housing benefit Mr Reeve could always try getting a job and actually pay rent for the property. Alternately he can relocate to a more appropriate property, freeing up a family home for new social tenants who need these un-used bedrooms. As a bonus, a smaller home would cost less to heat, saving him money on these bills too.[/p][/quote]There are very few(if any) smaller properties available so what's he to do fall into rent arrears or be homeless. I've said that there are countless 3 bedroomed properties empty because the demand for these properties is not as large as the demand for smaller properties. The people who are crammed into bed and breakfasts are largely from the London area, where there is a shortage of larger properties. But that is about the only place in Britain that is suffering larger social housing shortages. Has the bedroom tax solved this issue. absolutely not, because there are not enough smaller residences for people to move into. To get people to move out, you need places for them to move to. Its not rocket science. I also note that there has been no response to my request that Bob back up his claims that there are actually NO empty three bedroomed social housing properties in Wales(even though I see them on a daily basis). endthelies
  • Score: -2

3:08pm Wed 2 Apr 14

jimmysmith says...

county mad wrote:
jimmysmith wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .
idiotic comment blind to the facts there are families in bed and breakfast crammed into one or two rooms ,which this scheme was intended to tackle , its not the big bad tories crushing the poor its an attempt to rebalance social housing and for the record Labour brought this measure in for the private rented sector the coalition have extended itr to the public sector
dont talk rubbish and blaming the now historical labour government .your beloved david scum cameron and his party of rich boys brought this obscene bedroom tax in and wheres the facts and figures please of families ( crammed lol ) as you term it into bed and breakfast .The reason i ask is because my family own two bed and breakfast business in the gwent catchment area and they dont have any families crammed as you put it nor do any others either .you need to stop allowing yourself to be brainwashed by tory propaganda and do a little research yourself on the streets and not rely on the bbc and the rags you might see then who is actually being allocated these three and four bedroom houses when they become empty .there was a three bedder recently available in abergavenny after the tenant was moved out because of bedroom tax .A Romanian family fresh into the country were given it .ukip all the way folks next election
[quote][p][bold]county mad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!![/p][/quote]kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .[/p][/quote]idiotic comment blind to the facts there are families in bed and breakfast crammed into one or two rooms ,which this scheme was intended to tackle , its not the big bad tories crushing the poor its an attempt to rebalance social housing and for the record Labour brought this measure in for the private rented sector the coalition have extended itr to the public sector[/p][/quote]dont talk rubbish and blaming the now historical labour government .your beloved david scum cameron and his party of rich boys brought this obscene bedroom tax in and wheres the facts and figures please of families ( crammed lol ) as you term it into bed and breakfast .The reason i ask is because my family own two bed and breakfast business in the gwent catchment area and they dont have any families crammed as you put it nor do any others either .you need to stop allowing yourself to be brainwashed by tory propaganda and do a little research yourself on the streets and not rely on the bbc and the rags you might see then who is actually being allocated these three and four bedroom houses when they become empty .there was a three bedder recently available in abergavenny after the tenant was moved out because of bedroom tax .A Romanian family fresh into the country were given it .ukip all the way folks next election jimmysmith
  • Score: 2

3:40pm Wed 2 Apr 14

NakedDancer says...

endthelies wrote:
If there was any benefit to the taxpayer by having the bedroom tax in place, then maybe I could understand but the fact is, the bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE. rents for smaller properties are higher than ever because of the demand, and therefore, the ability for landlords to make more money by increasing the rent was very predictable. Ergo, the amount of housing benefit payments on behalf of the tenant INCREASES. There are not enough smaller houses for people to move to. If you own your home then fab. However, if you can't afford your mortgage payments (as many cannot) you would look to social housing when the bailiff knocks on the door. The bedroom tax is on the way out I'm sure and the day it goes will be the most sensible thing this lousy government have done for the less fortunate.
I think you'll find that most taxpayers (and that includes taxpayers living in social housing) are very much in favour of removing under-occupancy in tax payer funded properties. Refinement of the rules has taken place to make it more fair and some refinement may yet be needed eg if someone can demonstrate they can't find a smaller property they shouldn't be charged the excess.

However, the basic principle of providing social housing accommodation that is no more than a person/family needs is sound. It won't be repealled based on any logic - only if some politician sees an opportunity to grab votes from emotional headlines.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: If there was any benefit to the taxpayer by having the bedroom tax in place, then maybe I could understand but the fact is, the bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE. rents for smaller properties are higher than ever because of the demand, and therefore, the ability for landlords to make more money by increasing the rent was very predictable. Ergo, the amount of housing benefit payments on behalf of the tenant INCREASES. There are not enough smaller houses for people to move to. If you own your home then fab. However, if you can't afford your mortgage payments (as many cannot) you would look to social housing when the bailiff knocks on the door. The bedroom tax is on the way out I'm sure and the day it goes will be the most sensible thing this lousy government have done for the less fortunate.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that most taxpayers (and that includes taxpayers living in social housing) are very much in favour of removing under-occupancy in tax payer funded properties. Refinement of the rules has taken place to make it more fair and some refinement may yet be needed eg if someone can demonstrate they can't find a smaller property they shouldn't be charged the excess. However, the basic principle of providing social housing accommodation that is no more than a person/family needs is sound. It won't be repealled based on any logic - only if some politician sees an opportunity to grab votes from emotional headlines. NakedDancer
  • Score: 6

3:51pm Wed 2 Apr 14

endthelies says...

NakedDancer wrote:
endthelies wrote:
If there was any benefit to the taxpayer by having the bedroom tax in place, then maybe I could understand but the fact is, the bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE. rents for smaller properties are higher than ever because of the demand, and therefore, the ability for landlords to make more money by increasing the rent was very predictable. Ergo, the amount of housing benefit payments on behalf of the tenant INCREASES. There are not enough smaller houses for people to move to. If you own your home then fab. However, if you can't afford your mortgage payments (as many cannot) you would look to social housing when the bailiff knocks on the door. The bedroom tax is on the way out I'm sure and the day it goes will be the most sensible thing this lousy government have done for the less fortunate.
I think you'll find that most taxpayers (and that includes taxpayers living in social housing) are very much in favour of removing under-occupancy in tax payer funded properties. Refinement of the rules has taken place to make it more fair and some refinement may yet be needed eg if someone can demonstrate they can't find a smaller property they shouldn't be charged the excess.

However, the basic principle of providing social housing accommodation that is no more than a person/family needs is sound. It won't be repealled based on any logic - only if some politician sees an opportunity to grab votes from emotional headlines.
I would have to disagree with you. I think it will be repealed. Today it is all over the news how disabled folk are suffering because of the bedroom tax.
[quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: If there was any benefit to the taxpayer by having the bedroom tax in place, then maybe I could understand but the fact is, the bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE. rents for smaller properties are higher than ever because of the demand, and therefore, the ability for landlords to make more money by increasing the rent was very predictable. Ergo, the amount of housing benefit payments on behalf of the tenant INCREASES. There are not enough smaller houses for people to move to. If you own your home then fab. However, if you can't afford your mortgage payments (as many cannot) you would look to social housing when the bailiff knocks on the door. The bedroom tax is on the way out I'm sure and the day it goes will be the most sensible thing this lousy government have done for the less fortunate.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that most taxpayers (and that includes taxpayers living in social housing) are very much in favour of removing under-occupancy in tax payer funded properties. Refinement of the rules has taken place to make it more fair and some refinement may yet be needed eg if someone can demonstrate they can't find a smaller property they shouldn't be charged the excess. However, the basic principle of providing social housing accommodation that is no more than a person/family needs is sound. It won't be repealled based on any logic - only if some politician sees an opportunity to grab votes from emotional headlines.[/p][/quote]I would have to disagree with you. I think it will be repealed. Today it is all over the news how disabled folk are suffering because of the bedroom tax. endthelies
  • Score: -7

4:31pm Wed 2 Apr 14

-trigg- says...

The principle is imple and I'm amazed that people find room to criticise it.

If you pay your own rent in full then you can live pretty much wherever you like. However, if you expect the taxpayer to pick up some or all of the tab then the size of the house you choose to live in should match your requirements.
The principle is imple and I'm amazed that people find room to criticise it. If you pay your own rent in full then you can live pretty much wherever you like. However, if you expect the taxpayer to pick up some or all of the tab then the size of the house you choose to live in should match your requirements. -trigg-
  • Score: 16

4:54pm Wed 2 Apr 14

endthelies says...

-trigg- wrote:
The principle is imple and I'm amazed that people find room to criticise it.

If you pay your own rent in full then you can live pretty much wherever you like. However, if you expect the taxpayer to pick up some or all of the tab then the size of the house you choose to live in should match your requirements.
That is simple isn't it. Pity we don't earn enough in wages to pay our rent in full.
[quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: The principle is imple and I'm amazed that people find room to criticise it. If you pay your own rent in full then you can live pretty much wherever you like. However, if you expect the taxpayer to pick up some or all of the tab then the size of the house you choose to live in should match your requirements.[/p][/quote]That is simple isn't it. Pity we don't earn enough in wages to pay our rent in full. endthelies
  • Score: 2

4:57pm Wed 2 Apr 14

NakedDancer says...

endthelies wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
endthelies wrote: If there was any benefit to the taxpayer by having the bedroom tax in place, then maybe I could understand but the fact is, the bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE. rents for smaller properties are higher than ever because of the demand, and therefore, the ability for landlords to make more money by increasing the rent was very predictable. Ergo, the amount of housing benefit payments on behalf of the tenant INCREASES. There are not enough smaller houses for people to move to. If you own your home then fab. However, if you can't afford your mortgage payments (as many cannot) you would look to social housing when the bailiff knocks on the door. The bedroom tax is on the way out I'm sure and the day it goes will be the most sensible thing this lousy government have done for the less fortunate.
I think you'll find that most taxpayers (and that includes taxpayers living in social housing) are very much in favour of removing under-occupancy in tax payer funded properties. Refinement of the rules has taken place to make it more fair and some refinement may yet be needed eg if someone can demonstrate they can't find a smaller property they shouldn't be charged the excess. However, the basic principle of providing social housing accommodation that is no more than a person/family needs is sound. It won't be repealled based on any logic - only if some politician sees an opportunity to grab votes from emotional headlines.
I would have to disagree with you. I think it will be repealed. Today it is all over the news how disabled folk are suffering because of the bedroom tax.
As I said, It won't be repealled based on any logic - only if some politician sees an opportunity to grab votes from emotional headlines.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: If there was any benefit to the taxpayer by having the bedroom tax in place, then maybe I could understand but the fact is, the bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE. rents for smaller properties are higher than ever because of the demand, and therefore, the ability for landlords to make more money by increasing the rent was very predictable. Ergo, the amount of housing benefit payments on behalf of the tenant INCREASES. There are not enough smaller houses for people to move to. If you own your home then fab. However, if you can't afford your mortgage payments (as many cannot) you would look to social housing when the bailiff knocks on the door. The bedroom tax is on the way out I'm sure and the day it goes will be the most sensible thing this lousy government have done for the less fortunate.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that most taxpayers (and that includes taxpayers living in social housing) are very much in favour of removing under-occupancy in tax payer funded properties. Refinement of the rules has taken place to make it more fair and some refinement may yet be needed eg if someone can demonstrate they can't find a smaller property they shouldn't be charged the excess. However, the basic principle of providing social housing accommodation that is no more than a person/family needs is sound. It won't be repealled based on any logic - only if some politician sees an opportunity to grab votes from emotional headlines.[/p][/quote]I would have to disagree with you. I think it will be repealed. Today it is all over the news how disabled folk are suffering because of the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote]As I said, It won't be repealled based on any logic - only if some politician sees an opportunity to grab votes from emotional headlines. NakedDancer
  • Score: 3

5:13pm Wed 2 Apr 14

endthelies says...

if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.
if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it. endthelies
  • Score: -8

7:13pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Jack Land says...

It is NOT a tax! It is a removal of a benefit to which he is not entitled to.
It is NOT a tax! It is a removal of a benefit to which he is not entitled to. Jack Land
  • Score: 8

8:17pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

endthelies wrote:
if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.
Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes.

Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.[/p][/quote]Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: 7

9:56pm Wed 2 Apr 14

jimmysmith says...

seems my post was omitted probably because i mentioned a taboo subject .pity the argus doesnt allow its readers freedom of speech .with out us being accused of being a racist or a phobic of some sort .no wonder this countries going down the toilet .vote ukip folks
seems my post was omitted probably because i mentioned a taboo subject .pity the argus doesnt allow its readers freedom of speech .with out us being accused of being a racist or a phobic of some sort .no wonder this countries going down the toilet .vote ukip folks jimmysmith
  • Score: 7

10:21pm Wed 2 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
endthelies wrote:
if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.
Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes.

Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.
I don't think you've read my other posts Thomas. The introduction of the bedroom tax has sent the housing benefit figures up because landlords have upped the rent on small propertied due to demand. That's where the tax is being 'wasted'.And no I don't think politicians make decisions on empathy and emotion, but people have empathy and emotion and the pressure being put on the government by groups such as shelter are hopefully having an impact. Pressure had managed to get rid of ATOS, who have had their contract terminated early with no compensation, and, and its my opinion, I believe the same will be done where the bedroom tax is concerned. But hey if you're happy to pay more towards the housing benefit system to fund the bedroom tax, then you go for it.
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.[/p][/quote]Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.[/p][/quote]I don't think you've read my other posts Thomas. The introduction of the bedroom tax has sent the housing benefit figures up because landlords have upped the rent on small propertied due to demand. That's where the tax is being 'wasted'.And no I don't think politicians make decisions on empathy and emotion, but people have empathy and emotion and the pressure being put on the government by groups such as shelter are hopefully having an impact. Pressure had managed to get rid of ATOS, who have had their contract terminated early with no compensation, and, and its my opinion, I believe the same will be done where the bedroom tax is concerned. But hey if you're happy to pay more towards the housing benefit system to fund the bedroom tax, then you go for it. endthelies
  • Score: -3

10:27pm Wed 2 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Just wanted to add ive had lots of minuses on my posts but not one person has been able to show me any evidence or indeed any newspaper articles that tells me that there are NO three bedroomed properties lying empty in Wales or elsewhere. I think that says it all for me. Minus away, but please give me some facts to disprove my posts if you're going to minus them.
Just wanted to add ive had lots of minuses on my posts but not one person has been able to show me any evidence or indeed any newspaper articles that tells me that there are NO three bedroomed properties lying empty in Wales or elsewhere. I think that says it all for me. Minus away, but please give me some facts to disprove my posts if you're going to minus them. endthelies
  • Score: -1

10:31pm Wed 2 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
endthelies wrote:
if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.
Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes.

Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.
Also, are tax payers showing empathy when they also give money to fund the politicians enormous hand-outs, is it something you choose to do. Do you purposefully go to the tax man and say please make sure some person who is worst off than me gets my tax money because it doesn't work like that. To show empathy is to act on something you see as wrong. Just like I do. I have to say I haven't seen much empathy in some of the posts on here.
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.[/p][/quote]Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.[/p][/quote]Also, are tax payers showing empathy when they also give money to fund the politicians enormous hand-outs, is it something you choose to do. Do you purposefully go to the tax man and say please make sure some person who is worst off than me gets my tax money because it doesn't work like that. To show empathy is to act on something you see as wrong. Just like I do. I have to say I haven't seen much empathy in some of the posts on here. endthelies
  • Score: 3

11:08pm Wed 2 Apr 14

The People's Republic of Newp says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
jimmysmith wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .
if he is really disabled how is he going to manage a large house like that on his own dig the garden mow the lawn etc ????
You are aware - although judging by the ignorance and bigotry you display here on a regular basis, I doubt it - that there are a number of conditions other than those affecting physical capacity which render one, in the eyes of the law, disabled?
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!![/p][/quote]kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .[/p][/quote]if he is really disabled how is he going to manage a large house like that on his own dig the garden mow the lawn etc ????[/p][/quote]You are aware - although judging by the ignorance and bigotry you display here on a regular basis, I doubt it - that there are a number of conditions other than those affecting physical capacity which render one, in the eyes of the law, disabled? The People's Republic of Newp
  • Score: 5

11:26pm Wed 2 Apr 14

The People's Republic of Newp says...

As much as it pains me, I'm beginning to think the Newport and surrounding area of my youth and young manhood was nothing more than a seductive illusion. What else can explain the vitriol, bigotry, ignorance and political extremism that these pages reflect weekly, if not sometimes daily. Pains me how the town of my youth has hardened in its assessment of the vulnerable. And please don't blame immigration or the economic downturn; I grew up in the 70s, 80s and early 90s when poverty and all that entails were never far from one's door. Although it certainly seems to me it has handled with a degree more compassion, sincerity and a more acute and mature understanding of community values and collective responsisblity than we ever see now.

The default position it now seems for a great manner of posters is to spew forth bile, invective and crass, cruel and senseless remarks no matter how a story might pluck the heartstrings.

Fundamentally, where is your pity and compassion? Why I ask, I do not know, but wager it might involve the EU, immigrants, chavs (a word I can barely bring myself to write, such are its connotations), druggies, hoodies etc etc ad nauseum. Maybe its just things you don't understand, and for that, you can read the list immediately preceding this sentence.

Frankly, a great number of you horrify me. And on this forum, do our great down a great disservice. Makes me almost ashamed to be a Newpotonian, and that's never come to pass in my relatively short, but experienced 38 years. `unbearably sad.

Sling your bows and arrows: lets see if we can spot one original though...
As much as it pains me, I'm beginning to think the Newport and surrounding area of my youth and young manhood was nothing more than a seductive illusion. What else can explain the vitriol, bigotry, ignorance and political extremism that these pages reflect weekly, if not sometimes daily. Pains me how the town of my youth has hardened in its assessment of the vulnerable. And please don't blame immigration or the economic downturn; I grew up in the 70s, 80s and early 90s when poverty and all that entails were never far from one's door. Although it certainly seems to me it has handled with a degree more compassion, sincerity and a more acute and mature understanding of community values and collective responsisblity than we ever see now. The default position it now seems for a great manner of posters is to spew forth bile, invective and crass, cruel and senseless remarks no matter how a story might pluck the heartstrings. Fundamentally, where is your pity and compassion? Why I ask, I do not know, but wager it might involve the EU, immigrants, chavs (a word I can barely bring myself to write, such are its connotations), druggies, hoodies etc etc ad nauseum. Maybe its just things you don't understand, and for that, you can read the list immediately preceding this sentence. Frankly, a great number of you horrify me. And on this forum, do our great down a great disservice. Makes me almost ashamed to be a Newpotonian, and that's never come to pass in my relatively short, but experienced 38 years. `unbearably sad. Sling your bows and arrows: lets see if we can spot one original though... The People's Republic of Newp
  • Score: 0

9:35am Thu 3 Apr 14

county mad says...

jimmysmith wrote:
county mad wrote:
jimmysmith wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .
idiotic comment blind to the facts there are families in bed and breakfast crammed into one or two rooms ,which this scheme was intended to tackle , its not the big bad tories crushing the poor its an attempt to rebalance social housing and for the record Labour brought this measure in for the private rented sector the coalition have extended itr to the public sector
dont talk rubbish and blaming the now historical labour government .your beloved david scum cameron and his party of rich boys brought this obscene bedroom tax in and wheres the facts and figures please of families ( crammed lol ) as you term it into bed and breakfast .The reason i ask is because my family own two bed and breakfast business in the gwent catchment area and they dont have any families crammed as you put it nor do any others either .you need to stop allowing yourself to be brainwashed by tory propaganda and do a little research yourself on the streets and not rely on the bbc and the rags you might see then who is actually being allocated these three and four bedroom houses when they become empty .there was a three bedder recently available in abergavenny after the tenant was moved out because of bedroom tax .A Romanian family fresh into the country were given it .ukip all the way folks next election
He is not my beloved ,I think he is an ineffective leader, the now historical labour govt did bring this in2008 check your facts . Shelter has on its website plenty of cssrs of families in cramped and overcrowded accomadation. As to a party of rich boys check the shadow cabinet out as many millionaires as the tories you stop talking rubbish
[quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]county mad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!![/p][/quote]kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .[/p][/quote]idiotic comment blind to the facts there are families in bed and breakfast crammed into one or two rooms ,which this scheme was intended to tackle , its not the big bad tories crushing the poor its an attempt to rebalance social housing and for the record Labour brought this measure in for the private rented sector the coalition have extended itr to the public sector[/p][/quote]dont talk rubbish and blaming the now historical labour government .your beloved david scum cameron and his party of rich boys brought this obscene bedroom tax in and wheres the facts and figures please of families ( crammed lol ) as you term it into bed and breakfast .The reason i ask is because my family own two bed and breakfast business in the gwent catchment area and they dont have any families crammed as you put it nor do any others either .you need to stop allowing yourself to be brainwashed by tory propaganda and do a little research yourself on the streets and not rely on the bbc and the rags you might see then who is actually being allocated these three and four bedroom houses when they become empty .there was a three bedder recently available in abergavenny after the tenant was moved out because of bedroom tax .A Romanian family fresh into the country were given it .ukip all the way folks next election[/p][/quote]He is not my beloved ,I think he is an ineffective leader, the now historical labour govt did bring this in2008 check your facts . Shelter has on its website plenty of cssrs of families in cramped and overcrowded accomadation. As to a party of rich boys check the shadow cabinet out as many millionaires as the tories you stop talking rubbish county mad
  • Score: 3

10:04am Thu 3 Apr 14

Bobevans says...

endthelies wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
endthelies wrote:
if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.
Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes.

Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.
I don't think you've read my other posts Thomas. The introduction of the bedroom tax has sent the housing benefit figures up because landlords have upped the rent on small propertied due to demand. That's where the tax is being 'wasted'.And no I don't think politicians make decisions on empathy and emotion, but people have empathy and emotion and the pressure being put on the government by groups such as shelter are hopefully having an impact. Pressure had managed to get rid of ATOS, who have had their contract terminated early with no compensation, and, and its my opinion, I believe the same will be done where the bedroom tax is concerned. But hey if you're happy to pay more towards the housing benefit system to fund the bedroom tax, then you go for it.
The reduction in benefits applies to Council housing and social housing and not to private rentals
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.[/p][/quote]Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.[/p][/quote]I don't think you've read my other posts Thomas. The introduction of the bedroom tax has sent the housing benefit figures up because landlords have upped the rent on small propertied due to demand. That's where the tax is being 'wasted'.And no I don't think politicians make decisions on empathy and emotion, but people have empathy and emotion and the pressure being put on the government by groups such as shelter are hopefully having an impact. Pressure had managed to get rid of ATOS, who have had their contract terminated early with no compensation, and, and its my opinion, I believe the same will be done where the bedroom tax is concerned. But hey if you're happy to pay more towards the housing benefit system to fund the bedroom tax, then you go for it.[/p][/quote]The reduction in benefits applies to Council housing and social housing and not to private rentals Bobevans
  • Score: 1

10:07am Thu 3 Apr 14

Bobevans says...

Good Job No Kids wrote:
endthelies

The problem with your evidence is that it seems to be focused on the North East? Liverpool echo etc

We are in South Wales which makes your evidence somewhat irrelevant to the story in question does is not?
There is a surplus of homes in some parts of the North. Lots were also bought up by councils and social housing associations for developments that never went ahead. It has nothing to do with the Housing benefit reduction
[quote][p][bold]Good Job No Kids[/bold] wrote: endthelies The problem with your evidence is that it seems to be focused on the North East? Liverpool echo etc We are in South Wales which makes your evidence somewhat irrelevant to the story in question does is not?[/p][/quote]There is a surplus of homes in some parts of the North. Lots were also bought up by councils and social housing associations for developments that never went ahead. It has nothing to do with the Housing benefit reduction Bobevans
  • Score: -3

10:09am Thu 3 Apr 14

Bobevans says...

-trigg- wrote:
This man is not being forced out of his home as a result of any tax.

Due to a change in circumstances, the amount of Housing Benefit contribution towards his rent to which he is entitled has been reduced. The article says that this is a 3 bedroom house. It is only fair that he should be asked to pay a reasonable contribution towards the rent when this is clearly far beyond his requirements.

A novel idea I know, but rather than rely on housing benefit Mr Reeve could always try getting a job and actually pay rent for the property.

Alternately he can relocate to a more appropriate property, freeing up a family home for new social tenants who need these un-used bedrooms. As a bonus, a smaller home would cost less to heat, saving him money on these bills too.
And of course would be beneficial fort is health as he claims he is no disabled, A smaller home with no garden to worry about should help to improve his health
[quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: This man is not being forced out of his home as a result of any tax. Due to a change in circumstances, the amount of Housing Benefit contribution towards his rent to which he is entitled has been reduced. The article says that this is a 3 bedroom house. It is only fair that he should be asked to pay a reasonable contribution towards the rent when this is clearly far beyond his requirements. A novel idea I know, but rather than rely on housing benefit Mr Reeve could always try getting a job and actually pay rent for the property. Alternately he can relocate to a more appropriate property, freeing up a family home for new social tenants who need these un-used bedrooms. As a bonus, a smaller home would cost less to heat, saving him money on these bills too.[/p][/quote]And of course would be beneficial fort is health as he claims he is no disabled, A smaller home with no garden to worry about should help to improve his health Bobevans
  • Score: 1

10:50am Thu 3 Apr 14

NakedDancer says...

endthelies wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
endthelies wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.
Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.
Also, are tax payers showing empathy when they also give money to fund the politicians enormous hand-outs, is it something you choose to do. Do you purposefully go to the tax man and say please make sure some person who is worst off than me gets my tax money because it doesn't work like that. To show empathy is to act on something you see as wrong. Just like I do. I have to say I haven't seen much empathy in some of the posts on here.
In Britain people do mostly empathise with people that need help. No-one in these posts have said that they do not want to pay for people to have the necessary accommodation for their situation.

I totally empathise with people that need accommodation and i understand that one day I may need that. However, I wouldn't expect the state to provide more than I need.

This is a very easy question - should the state provide accommodation bigger than a person/family needs ? no-one in their right mind could say yes. The only questions therefore are about the processes that ensure fairness.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.[/p][/quote]Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.[/p][/quote]Also, are tax payers showing empathy when they also give money to fund the politicians enormous hand-outs, is it something you choose to do. Do you purposefully go to the tax man and say please make sure some person who is worst off than me gets my tax money because it doesn't work like that. To show empathy is to act on something you see as wrong. Just like I do. I have to say I haven't seen much empathy in some of the posts on here.[/p][/quote]In Britain people do mostly empathise with people that need help. No-one in these posts have said that they do not want to pay for people to have the necessary accommodation for their situation. I totally empathise with people that need accommodation and i understand that one day I may need that. However, I wouldn't expect the state to provide more than I need. This is a very easy question - should the state provide accommodation bigger than a person/family needs ? no-one in their right mind could say yes. The only questions therefore are about the processes that ensure fairness. NakedDancer
  • Score: 6

12:10pm Thu 3 Apr 14

jimmysmith says...

NakedDancer wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
endthelies wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.
Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.
Also, are tax payers showing empathy when they also give money to fund the politicians enormous hand-outs, is it something you choose to do. Do you purposefully go to the tax man and say please make sure some person who is worst off than me gets my tax money because it doesn't work like that. To show empathy is to act on something you see as wrong. Just like I do. I have to say I haven't seen much empathy in some of the posts on here.
In Britain people do mostly empathise with people that need help. No-one in these posts have said that they do not want to pay for people to have the necessary accommodation for their situation.

I totally empathise with people that need accommodation and i understand that one day I may need that. However, I wouldn't expect the state to provide more than I need.

This is a very easy question - should the state provide accommodation bigger than a person/family needs ? no-one in their right mind could say yes. The only questions therefore are about the processes that ensure fairness.
so you obviously dont agree with the state paying for half the world to live here for nothing either after all they take up a high per centage of houses as well wouldnt you agree?. and we wont go into how many very large houses m/p s have that are being paid for by the state .isnt chequers owned by the state ? and being paid for by the state ( obviously a form of housing benefit ) and lived in part time by a family of three . one law for the rich in power and another law for the poor and sick
[quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.[/p][/quote]Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.[/p][/quote]Also, are tax payers showing empathy when they also give money to fund the politicians enormous hand-outs, is it something you choose to do. Do you purposefully go to the tax man and say please make sure some person who is worst off than me gets my tax money because it doesn't work like that. To show empathy is to act on something you see as wrong. Just like I do. I have to say I haven't seen much empathy in some of the posts on here.[/p][/quote]In Britain people do mostly empathise with people that need help. No-one in these posts have said that they do not want to pay for people to have the necessary accommodation for their situation. I totally empathise with people that need accommodation and i understand that one day I may need that. However, I wouldn't expect the state to provide more than I need. This is a very easy question - should the state provide accommodation bigger than a person/family needs ? no-one in their right mind could say yes. The only questions therefore are about the processes that ensure fairness.[/p][/quote]so you obviously dont agree with the state paying for half the world to live here for nothing either after all they take up a high per centage of houses as well wouldnt you agree?. and we wont go into how many very large houses m/p s have that are being paid for by the state .isnt chequers owned by the state ? and being paid for by the state ( obviously a form of housing benefit ) and lived in part time by a family of three . one law for the rich in power and another law for the poor and sick jimmysmith
  • Score: 3

12:27pm Thu 3 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Bobevans wrote:
-trigg- wrote:
This man is not being forced out of his home as a result of any tax.

Due to a change in circumstances, the amount of Housing Benefit contribution towards his rent to which he is entitled has been reduced. The article says that this is a 3 bedroom house. It is only fair that he should be asked to pay a reasonable contribution towards the rent when this is clearly far beyond his requirements.

A novel idea I know, but rather than rely on housing benefit Mr Reeve could always try getting a job and actually pay rent for the property.

Alternately he can relocate to a more appropriate property, freeing up a family home for new social tenants who need these un-used bedrooms. As a bonus, a smaller home would cost less to heat, saving him money on these bills too.
And of course would be beneficial fort is health as he claims he is no disabled, A smaller home with no garden to worry about should help to improve his health
THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SMALLER PREMISES FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE TO. How hard id that to understand. And yes, the bedroom tax does apply to private tenants also.
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: This man is not being forced out of his home as a result of any tax. Due to a change in circumstances, the amount of Housing Benefit contribution towards his rent to which he is entitled has been reduced. The article says that this is a 3 bedroom house. It is only fair that he should be asked to pay a reasonable contribution towards the rent when this is clearly far beyond his requirements. A novel idea I know, but rather than rely on housing benefit Mr Reeve could always try getting a job and actually pay rent for the property. Alternately he can relocate to a more appropriate property, freeing up a family home for new social tenants who need these un-used bedrooms. As a bonus, a smaller home would cost less to heat, saving him money on these bills too.[/p][/quote]And of course would be beneficial fort is health as he claims he is no disabled, A smaller home with no garden to worry about should help to improve his health[/p][/quote]THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SMALLER PREMISES FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE TO. How hard id that to understand. And yes, the bedroom tax does apply to private tenants also. endthelies
  • Score: 2

12:55pm Thu 3 Apr 14

BassalegCountyFan says...

My thoughts go out to Mr Reeve, this is a terrible and very sad case.

Why should someone be forced to move out of the house they have lived in for 50 years? I wonder if Ian Duncan Smith - the lightweight minister responsible for bringing in this hated tax - pays tax on the spare rooms in his wife's hereditary mansion?

As well as being a thoroughly nasty tax, as others are pointed out it just isn't feasible - where are the smaller properties for people to move in to? It's another case of the tories writing up policies on the back of a fag packet and shoving them out onto the public to cause misery to the young, the old, the disabled and the poor.

The tories are obsessed with penny pinching, but would rather target vulnerable people than tax avoiding big businesses and City fatcats who cost the country far more than someone who just seems like an ordinary, decent bloke from Cwmbran.

It's textbook divide and rule tactics - turn home owners against private tenants and social housing tenants, turn the low-paid against the unemployed, public sector versus public sector and so on.

Can't wait for 2015 when we get the chance to boot out this rotten condem government.
My thoughts go out to Mr Reeve, this is a terrible and very sad case. Why should someone be forced to move out of the house they have lived in for 50 years? I wonder if Ian Duncan Smith - the lightweight minister responsible for bringing in this hated tax - pays tax on the spare rooms in his wife's hereditary mansion? As well as being a thoroughly nasty tax, as others are pointed out it just isn't feasible - where are the smaller properties for people to move in to? It's another case of the tories writing up policies on the back of a fag packet and shoving them out onto the public to cause misery to the young, the old, the disabled and the poor. The tories are obsessed with penny pinching, but would rather target vulnerable people than tax avoiding big businesses and City fatcats who cost the country far more than someone who just seems like an ordinary, decent bloke from Cwmbran. It's textbook divide and rule tactics - turn home owners against private tenants and social housing tenants, turn the low-paid against the unemployed, public sector versus public sector and so on. Can't wait for 2015 when we get the chance to boot out this rotten condem government. BassalegCountyFan
  • Score: -5

5:02pm Thu 3 Apr 14

NakedDancer says...

jimmysmith wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
endthelies wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.
Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.
Also, are tax payers showing empathy when they also give money to fund the politicians enormous hand-outs, is it something you choose to do. Do you purposefully go to the tax man and say please make sure some person who is worst off than me gets my tax money because it doesn't work like that. To show empathy is to act on something you see as wrong. Just like I do. I have to say I haven't seen much empathy in some of the posts on here.
In Britain people do mostly empathise with people that need help. No-one in these posts have said that they do not want to pay for people to have the necessary accommodation for their situation. I totally empathise with people that need accommodation and i understand that one day I may need that. However, I wouldn't expect the state to provide more than I need. This is a very easy question - should the state provide accommodation bigger than a person/family needs ? no-one in their right mind could say yes. The only questions therefore are about the processes that ensure fairness.
so you obviously dont agree with the state paying for half the world to live here for nothing either after all they take up a high per centage of houses as well wouldnt you agree?. and we wont go into how many very large houses m/p s have that are being paid for by the state .isnt chequers owned by the state ? and being paid for by the state ( obviously a form of housing benefit ) and lived in part time by a family of three . one law for the rich in power and another law for the poor and sick
You have no idea what my opinion is on any of those subjects but there's a lot about any government that I dislike. The fact that there is bad management in one part of government doesn't justify bad management in another part.

As i said, most people have no objection to providing social housing based on need. If you want to provide or receive more than is needed because there is waste elsewhere in government then that clearly makes no sense.
[quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.[/p][/quote]Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.[/p][/quote]Also, are tax payers showing empathy when they also give money to fund the politicians enormous hand-outs, is it something you choose to do. Do you purposefully go to the tax man and say please make sure some person who is worst off than me gets my tax money because it doesn't work like that. To show empathy is to act on something you see as wrong. Just like I do. I have to say I haven't seen much empathy in some of the posts on here.[/p][/quote]In Britain people do mostly empathise with people that need help. No-one in these posts have said that they do not want to pay for people to have the necessary accommodation for their situation. I totally empathise with people that need accommodation and i understand that one day I may need that. However, I wouldn't expect the state to provide more than I need. This is a very easy question - should the state provide accommodation bigger than a person/family needs ? no-one in their right mind could say yes. The only questions therefore are about the processes that ensure fairness.[/p][/quote]so you obviously dont agree with the state paying for half the world to live here for nothing either after all they take up a high per centage of houses as well wouldnt you agree?. and we wont go into how many very large houses m/p s have that are being paid for by the state .isnt chequers owned by the state ? and being paid for by the state ( obviously a form of housing benefit ) and lived in part time by a family of three . one law for the rich in power and another law for the poor and sick[/p][/quote]You have no idea what my opinion is on any of those subjects but there's a lot about any government that I dislike. The fact that there is bad management in one part of government doesn't justify bad management in another part. As i said, most people have no objection to providing social housing based on need. If you want to provide or receive more than is needed because there is waste elsewhere in government then that clearly makes no sense. NakedDancer
  • Score: 3

6:39pm Thu 3 Apr 14

HeyJudeB4Beatles says...

It is not a tax it is the removal of a subsidy.

And why should Iain Duncan Smith, or anyone else come to that, pay for unused rooms in a property they won and are not being subsidised by the public purse?

And sad as it might seem, presumably he is not actually the tenant? Just because he has lived there for almost all his life, you can't automatically inherit a tenancy.

Times are hard and the country could not go on with the benefits expenditure that had become established. I work hard and pay taxes and I know I am lucky to be in employment but too many people nowadays believe that they are owed a living without doing anything to earn it so something had to give.
It is not a tax it is the removal of a subsidy. And why should Iain Duncan Smith, or anyone else come to that, pay for unused rooms in a property they won and are not being subsidised by the public purse? And sad as it might seem, presumably he is not actually the tenant? Just because he has lived there for almost all his life, you can't automatically inherit a tenancy. Times are hard and the country could not go on with the benefits expenditure that had become established. I work hard and pay taxes and I know I am lucky to be in employment but too many people nowadays believe that they are owed a living without doing anything to earn it so something had to give. HeyJudeB4Beatles
  • Score: 5

6:40pm Thu 3 Apr 14

HeyJudeB4Beatles says...

EDIT And why should Iain Duncan Smith, or anyone else come to that, pay for unused rooms in a property they own and are not being subsidised by the public purse?
EDIT And why should Iain Duncan Smith, or anyone else come to that, pay for unused rooms in a property they own and are not being subsidised by the public purse? HeyJudeB4Beatles
  • Score: 5

7:18pm Thu 3 Apr 14

endthelies says...

HeyJudeB4Beatles wrote:
It is not a tax it is the removal of a subsidy.

And why should Iain Duncan Smith, or anyone else come to that, pay for unused rooms in a property they won and are not being subsidised by the public purse?

And sad as it might seem, presumably he is not actually the tenant? Just because he has lived there for almost all his life, you can't automatically inherit a tenancy.

Times are hard and the country could not go on with the benefits expenditure that had become established. I work hard and pay taxes and I know I am lucky to be in employment but too many people nowadays believe that they are owed a living without doing anything to earn it so something had to give.
The bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE in housing benefit because of increased rents on smaller properties, owing to demand. Therefore, the argument that this is saving the taxpayer money is false. Housing benefit has increased by 1.5 billion at the last count. Its really not working is it ?
[quote][p][bold]HeyJudeB4Beatles[/bold] wrote: It is not a tax it is the removal of a subsidy. And why should Iain Duncan Smith, or anyone else come to that, pay for unused rooms in a property they won and are not being subsidised by the public purse? And sad as it might seem, presumably he is not actually the tenant? Just because he has lived there for almost all his life, you can't automatically inherit a tenancy. Times are hard and the country could not go on with the benefits expenditure that had become established. I work hard and pay taxes and I know I am lucky to be in employment but too many people nowadays believe that they are owed a living without doing anything to earn it so something had to give.[/p][/quote]The bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE in housing benefit because of increased rents on smaller properties, owing to demand. Therefore, the argument that this is saving the taxpayer money is false. Housing benefit has increased by 1.5 billion at the last count. Its really not working is it ? endthelies
  • Score: 1

7:35pm Thu 3 Apr 14

jimmysmith says...

NakedDancer wrote:
jimmysmith wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
endthelies wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.
Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.
Also, are tax payers showing empathy when they also give money to fund the politicians enormous hand-outs, is it something you choose to do. Do you purposefully go to the tax man and say please make sure some person who is worst off than me gets my tax money because it doesn't work like that. To show empathy is to act on something you see as wrong. Just like I do. I have to say I haven't seen much empathy in some of the posts on here.
In Britain people do mostly empathise with people that need help. No-one in these posts have said that they do not want to pay for people to have the necessary accommodation for their situation. I totally empathise with people that need accommodation and i understand that one day I may need that. However, I wouldn't expect the state to provide more than I need. This is a very easy question - should the state provide accommodation bigger than a person/family needs ? no-one in their right mind could say yes. The only questions therefore are about the processes that ensure fairness.
so you obviously dont agree with the state paying for half the world to live here for nothing either after all they take up a high per centage of houses as well wouldnt you agree?. and we wont go into how many very large houses m/p s have that are being paid for by the state .isnt chequers owned by the state ? and being paid for by the state ( obviously a form of housing benefit ) and lived in part time by a family of three . one law for the rich in power and another law for the poor and sick
You have no idea what my opinion is on any of those subjects but there's a lot about any government that I dislike. The fact that there is bad management in one part of government doesn't justify bad management in another part.

As i said, most people have no objection to providing social housing based on need. If you want to provide or receive more than is needed because there is waste elsewhere in government then that clearly makes no sense.
there you are your ignoring the crux of my argument but as you mention a waste element whats your views on the 100 million plus a week this government wastes on the eu and the billions on foreign aide i can give you figures if you like and here you are defending this scum government punishing the working class at your level .or do you think your above this ? divide and conquer the tory motto you not only took the hook youve swallowed the weight as well
[quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.[/p][/quote]Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.[/p][/quote]Also, are tax payers showing empathy when they also give money to fund the politicians enormous hand-outs, is it something you choose to do. Do you purposefully go to the tax man and say please make sure some person who is worst off than me gets my tax money because it doesn't work like that. To show empathy is to act on something you see as wrong. Just like I do. I have to say I haven't seen much empathy in some of the posts on here.[/p][/quote]In Britain people do mostly empathise with people that need help. No-one in these posts have said that they do not want to pay for people to have the necessary accommodation for their situation. I totally empathise with people that need accommodation and i understand that one day I may need that. However, I wouldn't expect the state to provide more than I need. This is a very easy question - should the state provide accommodation bigger than a person/family needs ? no-one in their right mind could say yes. The only questions therefore are about the processes that ensure fairness.[/p][/quote]so you obviously dont agree with the state paying for half the world to live here for nothing either after all they take up a high per centage of houses as well wouldnt you agree?. and we wont go into how many very large houses m/p s have that are being paid for by the state .isnt chequers owned by the state ? and being paid for by the state ( obviously a form of housing benefit ) and lived in part time by a family of three . one law for the rich in power and another law for the poor and sick[/p][/quote]You have no idea what my opinion is on any of those subjects but there's a lot about any government that I dislike. The fact that there is bad management in one part of government doesn't justify bad management in another part. As i said, most people have no objection to providing social housing based on need. If you want to provide or receive more than is needed because there is waste elsewhere in government then that clearly makes no sense.[/p][/quote]there you are your ignoring the crux of my argument but as you mention a waste element whats your views on the 100 million plus a week this government wastes on the eu and the billions on foreign aide i can give you figures if you like and here you are defending this scum government punishing the working class at your level .or do you think your above this ? divide and conquer the tory motto you not only took the hook youve swallowed the weight as well jimmysmith
  • Score: -3

8:20pm Thu 3 Apr 14

NakedDancer says...

jimmysmith wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
jimmysmith wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
endthelies wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.
Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.
Also, are tax payers showing empathy when they also give money to fund the politicians enormous hand-outs, is it something you choose to do. Do you purposefully go to the tax man and say please make sure some person who is worst off than me gets my tax money because it doesn't work like that. To show empathy is to act on something you see as wrong. Just like I do. I have to say I haven't seen much empathy in some of the posts on here.
In Britain people do mostly empathise with people that need help. No-one in these posts have said that they do not want to pay for people to have the necessary accommodation for their situation. I totally empathise with people that need accommodation and i understand that one day I may need that. However, I wouldn't expect the state to provide more than I need. This is a very easy question - should the state provide accommodation bigger than a person/family needs ? no-one in their right mind could say yes. The only questions therefore are about the processes that ensure fairness.
so you obviously dont agree with the state paying for half the world to live here for nothing either after all they take up a high per centage of houses as well wouldnt you agree?. and we wont go into how many very large houses m/p s have that are being paid for by the state .isnt chequers owned by the state ? and being paid for by the state ( obviously a form of housing benefit ) and lived in part time by a family of three . one law for the rich in power and another law for the poor and sick
You have no idea what my opinion is on any of those subjects but there's a lot about any government that I dislike. The fact that there is bad management in one part of government doesn't justify bad management in another part.

As i said, most people have no objection to providing social housing based on need. If you want to provide or receive more than is needed because there is waste elsewhere in government then that clearly makes no sense.
there you are your ignoring the crux of my argument but as you mention a waste element whats your views on the 100 million plus a week this government wastes on the eu and the billions on foreign aide i can give you figures if you like and here you are defending this scum government punishing the working class at your level .or do you think your above this ? divide and conquer the tory motto you not only took the hook youve swallowed the weight as well
Huh ? I've answered your points not ignored them. I'm certainly no supporter of this government or fooled by politicians of any party. If you want to try to claim the moral high ground I can assure you I'm working class and not wealthy. You are confusing your dislike for this government with the simple facts of this issue.

Your point is the government wastes money on other things and I've already agreed. Your other argument is that because the government wastes money on other things then people should not just get what they need from taxpayers but more than what they need. If you want to believe that its up to you. I think most people would say that is morally and financially ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: if it takes someone with empathy and emotion to repeal this unworkable bedroom tax then so be it.[/p][/quote]Do you really think politicians make decisions based on empathy and emotion ? they are only interested in votes. Taxpayers are already showing empathy by funding social housing - they do not need to fund larger accommodation than is needed to show empathy. Also, tax revenue wasted on providing larger accommodation than is needed is then not available to be spent in other areas eg support services for the disabled and elderly.[/p][/quote]Also, are tax payers showing empathy when they also give money to fund the politicians enormous hand-outs, is it something you choose to do. Do you purposefully go to the tax man and say please make sure some person who is worst off than me gets my tax money because it doesn't work like that. To show empathy is to act on something you see as wrong. Just like I do. I have to say I haven't seen much empathy in some of the posts on here.[/p][/quote]In Britain people do mostly empathise with people that need help. No-one in these posts have said that they do not want to pay for people to have the necessary accommodation for their situation. I totally empathise with people that need accommodation and i understand that one day I may need that. However, I wouldn't expect the state to provide more than I need. This is a very easy question - should the state provide accommodation bigger than a person/family needs ? no-one in their right mind could say yes. The only questions therefore are about the processes that ensure fairness.[/p][/quote]so you obviously dont agree with the state paying for half the world to live here for nothing either after all they take up a high per centage of houses as well wouldnt you agree?. and we wont go into how many very large houses m/p s have that are being paid for by the state .isnt chequers owned by the state ? and being paid for by the state ( obviously a form of housing benefit ) and lived in part time by a family of three . one law for the rich in power and another law for the poor and sick[/p][/quote]You have no idea what my opinion is on any of those subjects but there's a lot about any government that I dislike. The fact that there is bad management in one part of government doesn't justify bad management in another part. As i said, most people have no objection to providing social housing based on need. If you want to provide or receive more than is needed because there is waste elsewhere in government then that clearly makes no sense.[/p][/quote]there you are your ignoring the crux of my argument but as you mention a waste element whats your views on the 100 million plus a week this government wastes on the eu and the billions on foreign aide i can give you figures if you like and here you are defending this scum government punishing the working class at your level .or do you think your above this ? divide and conquer the tory motto you not only took the hook youve swallowed the weight as well[/p][/quote]Huh ? I've answered your points not ignored them. I'm certainly no supporter of this government or fooled by politicians of any party. If you want to try to claim the moral high ground I can assure you I'm working class and not wealthy. You are confusing your dislike for this government with the simple facts of this issue. Your point is the government wastes money on other things and I've already agreed. Your other argument is that because the government wastes money on other things then people should not just get what they need from taxpayers but more than what they need. If you want to believe that its up to you. I think most people would say that is morally and financially ridiculous. NakedDancer
  • Score: 6

8:59pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

endthelies wrote:
HeyJudeB4Beatles wrote:
It is not a tax it is the removal of a subsidy.

And why should Iain Duncan Smith, or anyone else come to that, pay for unused rooms in a property they won and are not being subsidised by the public purse?

And sad as it might seem, presumably he is not actually the tenant? Just because he has lived there for almost all his life, you can't automatically inherit a tenancy.

Times are hard and the country could not go on with the benefits expenditure that had become established. I work hard and pay taxes and I know I am lucky to be in employment but too many people nowadays believe that they are owed a living without doing anything to earn it so something had to give.
The bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE in housing benefit because of increased rents on smaller properties, owing to demand. Therefore, the argument that this is saving the taxpayer money is false. Housing benefit has increased by 1.5 billion at the last count. Its really not working is it ?
In context, the social housing bill is £24bn per annum and the forecast increase is 1bn over 4 years hence 4% increase over 4 years isn't that scary as that also includes increased demand due to immigration and other financial factors. Also the government always said it would take years for the housing stock to rebalance. If there is a shortage of small properties in the market then housing associations and private investors will increase the supply over time, hence bringing the cost of rent down.

However, the national picture is irrelevant as the housing stock, tenant demand, council policy and investor interest for small, medium and large property varies enormously by area.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HeyJudeB4Beatles[/bold] wrote: It is not a tax it is the removal of a subsidy. And why should Iain Duncan Smith, or anyone else come to that, pay for unused rooms in a property they won and are not being subsidised by the public purse? And sad as it might seem, presumably he is not actually the tenant? Just because he has lived there for almost all his life, you can't automatically inherit a tenancy. Times are hard and the country could not go on with the benefits expenditure that had become established. I work hard and pay taxes and I know I am lucky to be in employment but too many people nowadays believe that they are owed a living without doing anything to earn it so something had to give.[/p][/quote]The bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE in housing benefit because of increased rents on smaller properties, owing to demand. Therefore, the argument that this is saving the taxpayer money is false. Housing benefit has increased by 1.5 billion at the last count. Its really not working is it ?[/p][/quote]In context, the social housing bill is £24bn per annum and the forecast increase is 1bn over 4 years hence 4% increase over 4 years isn't that scary as that also includes increased demand due to immigration and other financial factors. Also the government always said it would take years for the housing stock to rebalance. If there is a shortage of small properties in the market then housing associations and private investors will increase the supply over time, hence bringing the cost of rent down. However, the national picture is irrelevant as the housing stock, tenant demand, council policy and investor interest for small, medium and large property varies enormously by area. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: 3

10:45pm Thu 3 Apr 14

endthelies says...

The housing benefit bill has increased. the government are also havng to give local authorities 190,0000 extra to help cope with the misery that this 'subsidy' has brought on people who cannot move and cannot pay their rent. As for the comment about private investors will increase properties over time, shouldn't that have been thought about before this was introduced. As it is, people have no option but to go without essentials to pay this subsidy because they have nowhere to move to.

http://www.mirror.co
.uk/news/uk-news/bed
room-tax-taxpayers-f
ork-out-3300089
.
The housing benefit bill has increased. the government are also havng to give local authorities 190,0000 extra to help cope with the misery that this 'subsidy' has brought on people who cannot move and cannot pay their rent. As for the comment about private investors will increase properties over time, shouldn't that have been thought about before this was introduced. As it is, people have no option but to go without essentials to pay this subsidy because they have nowhere to move to. http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/bed room-tax-taxpayers-f ork-out-3300089 . endthelies
  • Score: -1

11:43pm Thu 3 Apr 14

NakedDancer says...

As I said earlier:

This is a very easy question - should the taxpayer provide accommodation bigger than a person/family needs ? no-one in their right mind could say yes. The only questions therefore are about the processes that ensure fairness.

Refinement of the rules has taken place to make it more fair and some refinement may yet be needed eg if someone can demonstrate they can't find a smaller property they shouldn't be charged the excess.

However, the basic principle of providing social housing accommodation that is no more than a person/family needs is sound.
As I said earlier: This is a very easy question - should the taxpayer provide accommodation bigger than a person/family needs ? no-one in their right mind could say yes. The only questions therefore are about the processes that ensure fairness. Refinement of the rules has taken place to make it more fair and some refinement may yet be needed eg if someone can demonstrate they can't find a smaller property they shouldn't be charged the excess. However, the basic principle of providing social housing accommodation that is no more than a person/family needs is sound. NakedDancer
  • Score: 3

12:09pm Fri 4 Apr 14

-trigg- says...

Lets not forget, he is't actually being "Forced" to move. If this gentleman were to get a job and pay for the rent himself instead of relying on taxpayers to do so for him, then he could live anywhere he likes.

In fact, as the article states that the reduction in benefit would be between £70 and £90 per month, he could easily make up this shortfall with no more than a couple of hours' work each week - which would also keep him below the 16 hours threshold so dear to benefit claimants.
Lets not forget, he is't actually being "Forced" to move. If this gentleman were to get a job and pay for the rent himself instead of relying on taxpayers to do so for him, then he could live anywhere he likes. In fact, as the article states that the reduction in benefit would be between £70 and £90 per month, he could easily make up this shortfall with no more than a couple of hours' work each week - which would also keep him below the 16 hours threshold so dear to benefit claimants. -trigg-
  • Score: 6

4:41pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Dai Rear says...

endthelies wrote:
The housing benefit bill has increased. the government are also havng to give local authorities 190,0000 extra to help cope with the misery that this 'subsidy' has brought on people who cannot move and cannot pay their rent. As for the comment about private investors will increase properties over time, shouldn't that have been thought about before this was introduced. As it is, people have no option but to go without essentials to pay this subsidy because they have nowhere to move to.

http://www.mirror.co

.uk/news/uk-news/bed

room-tax-taxpayers-f

ork-out-3300089
.
You get a subsidy, you don't pay it. When all said and done, Kevin has 13 years' working life ahead of him. We all know it's miserable to be not doing anything when all your contemporaries are and I'm sure he'll get something very quickly, if he shows the same determination as he is doing in pursuing the bureaucrats and complaining to the media. Good luck Kevin, but be careful you don't get perceived as a non-worker.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: The housing benefit bill has increased. the government are also havng to give local authorities 190,0000 extra to help cope with the misery that this 'subsidy' has brought on people who cannot move and cannot pay their rent. As for the comment about private investors will increase properties over time, shouldn't that have been thought about before this was introduced. As it is, people have no option but to go without essentials to pay this subsidy because they have nowhere to move to. http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/bed room-tax-taxpayers-f ork-out-3300089 .[/p][/quote]You get a subsidy, you don't pay it. When all said and done, Kevin has 13 years' working life ahead of him. We all know it's miserable to be not doing anything when all your contemporaries are and I'm sure he'll get something very quickly, if he shows the same determination as he is doing in pursuing the bureaucrats and complaining to the media. Good luck Kevin, but be careful you don't get perceived as a non-worker. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

5:27pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Michael Weedall says...

I would of thought Mr Reeve wishes he never got the SWA involved with all these negative comments. I think he thinks he has automatic rights to the house, and as a single person disabled or not that is not the case unless he pays for the privilege.
I would of thought Mr Reeve wishes he never got the SWA involved with all these negative comments. I think he thinks he has automatic rights to the house, and as a single person disabled or not that is not the case unless he pays for the privilege. Michael Weedall
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Dai Rear says...

Michael Weedall wrote:
I would of thought Mr Reeve wishes he never got the SWA involved with all these negative comments. I think he thinks he has automatic rights to the house, and as a single person disabled or not that is not the case unless he pays for the privilege.
He's not disabled. He's on JSA. It says so. The DLA was for his late father.
[quote][p][bold]Michael Weedall[/bold] wrote: I would of thought Mr Reeve wishes he never got the SWA involved with all these negative comments. I think he thinks he has automatic rights to the house, and as a single person disabled or not that is not the case unless he pays for the privilege.[/p][/quote]He's not disabled. He's on JSA. It says so. The DLA was for his late father. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

7:25pm Fri 4 Apr 14

jimmysmith says...

The People's Republic of Newp wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
jimmysmith wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .
if he is really disabled how is he going to manage a large house like that on his own dig the garden mow the lawn etc ????
You are aware - although judging by the ignorance and bigotry you display here on a regular basis, I doubt it - that there are a number of conditions other than those affecting physical capacity which render one, in the eyes of the law, disabled?
you call me a bigot and ignorant and you got a username The peoples republic of newport .deary deary me what a fool
[quote][p][bold]The People's Republic of Newp[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!![/p][/quote]kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .[/p][/quote]if he is really disabled how is he going to manage a large house like that on his own dig the garden mow the lawn etc ????[/p][/quote]You are aware - although judging by the ignorance and bigotry you display here on a regular basis, I doubt it - that there are a number of conditions other than those affecting physical capacity which render one, in the eyes of the law, disabled?[/p][/quote]you call me a bigot and ignorant and you got a username The peoples republic of newport .deary deary me what a fool jimmysmith
  • Score: 1

7:32pm Fri 4 Apr 14

jimmysmith says...

-trigg- wrote:
Lets not forget, he is't actually being "Forced" to move. If this gentleman were to get a job and pay for the rent himself instead of relying on taxpayers to do so for him, then he could live anywhere he likes.

In fact, as the article states that the reduction in benefit would be between £70 and £90 per month, he could easily make up this shortfall with no more than a couple of hours' work each week - which would also keep him below the 16 hours threshold so dear to benefit claimants.
do some research on exactly how much he would lose if he did work a few hours .dont believe anything these traitors in downing street tell you .
[quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: Lets not forget, he is't actually being "Forced" to move. If this gentleman were to get a job and pay for the rent himself instead of relying on taxpayers to do so for him, then he could live anywhere he likes. In fact, as the article states that the reduction in benefit would be between £70 and £90 per month, he could easily make up this shortfall with no more than a couple of hours' work each week - which would also keep him below the 16 hours threshold so dear to benefit claimants.[/p][/quote]do some research on exactly how much he would lose if he did work a few hours .dont believe anything these traitors in downing street tell you . jimmysmith
  • Score: -1

7:38pm Fri 4 Apr 14

jimmysmith says...

The People's Republic of Newp wrote:
As much as it pains me, I'm beginning to think the Newport and surrounding area of my youth and young manhood was nothing more than a seductive illusion. What else can explain the vitriol, bigotry, ignorance and political extremism that these pages reflect weekly, if not sometimes daily. Pains me how the town of my youth has hardened in its assessment of the vulnerable. And please don't blame immigration or the economic downturn; I grew up in the 70s, 80s and early 90s when poverty and all that entails were never far from one's door. Although it certainly seems to me it has handled with a degree more compassion, sincerity and a more acute and mature understanding of community values and collective responsisblity than we ever see now.

The default position it now seems for a great manner of posters is to spew forth bile, invective and crass, cruel and senseless remarks no matter how a story might pluck the heartstrings.

Fundamentally, where is your pity and compassion? Why I ask, I do not know, but wager it might involve the EU, immigrants, chavs (a word I can barely bring myself to write, such are its connotations), druggies, hoodies etc etc ad nauseum. Maybe its just things you don't understand, and for that, you can read the list immediately preceding this sentence.

Frankly, a great number of you horrify me. And on this forum, do our great down a great disservice. Makes me almost ashamed to be a Newpotonian, and that's never come to pass in my relatively short, but experienced 38 years. `unbearably sad.

Sling your bows and arrows: lets see if we can spot one original though...
Gas the lot of the above and get us out of the eu .you bleat on all you want but your bull s--t dont wash with the majority of people any more
[quote][p][bold]The People's Republic of Newp[/bold] wrote: As much as it pains me, I'm beginning to think the Newport and surrounding area of my youth and young manhood was nothing more than a seductive illusion. What else can explain the vitriol, bigotry, ignorance and political extremism that these pages reflect weekly, if not sometimes daily. Pains me how the town of my youth has hardened in its assessment of the vulnerable. And please don't blame immigration or the economic downturn; I grew up in the 70s, 80s and early 90s when poverty and all that entails were never far from one's door. Although it certainly seems to me it has handled with a degree more compassion, sincerity and a more acute and mature understanding of community values and collective responsisblity than we ever see now. The default position it now seems for a great manner of posters is to spew forth bile, invective and crass, cruel and senseless remarks no matter how a story might pluck the heartstrings. Fundamentally, where is your pity and compassion? Why I ask, I do not know, but wager it might involve the EU, immigrants, chavs (a word I can barely bring myself to write, such are its connotations), druggies, hoodies etc etc ad nauseum. Maybe its just things you don't understand, and for that, you can read the list immediately preceding this sentence. Frankly, a great number of you horrify me. And on this forum, do our great down a great disservice. Makes me almost ashamed to be a Newpotonian, and that's never come to pass in my relatively short, but experienced 38 years. `unbearably sad. Sling your bows and arrows: lets see if we can spot one original though...[/p][/quote]Gas the lot of the above and get us out of the eu .you bleat on all you want but your bull s--t dont wash with the majority of people any more jimmysmith
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Fri 4 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Dai Rear wrote:
endthelies wrote:
The housing benefit bill has increased. the government are also havng to give local authorities 190,0000 extra to help cope with the misery that this 'subsidy' has brought on people who cannot move and cannot pay their rent. As for the comment about private investors will increase properties over time, shouldn't that have been thought about before this was introduced. As it is, people have no option but to go without essentials to pay this subsidy because they have nowhere to move to.

http://www.mirror.co


.uk/news/uk-news/bed


room-tax-taxpayers-f


ork-out-3300089
.
You get a subsidy, you don't pay it. When all said and done, Kevin has 13 years' working life ahead of him. We all know it's miserable to be not doing anything when all your contemporaries are and I'm sure he'll get something very quickly, if he shows the same determination as he is doing in pursuing the bureaucrats and complaining to the media. Good luck Kevin, but be careful you don't get perceived as a non-worker.
The tenant does have to pay the spare room subsidy Dai so I'm not sure I know what you mean. It is £14 a week for one spare bedroom and £25 per week for two (on average).
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: The housing benefit bill has increased. the government are also havng to give local authorities 190,0000 extra to help cope with the misery that this 'subsidy' has brought on people who cannot move and cannot pay their rent. As for the comment about private investors will increase properties over time, shouldn't that have been thought about before this was introduced. As it is, people have no option but to go without essentials to pay this subsidy because they have nowhere to move to. http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/bed room-tax-taxpayers-f ork-out-3300089 .[/p][/quote]You get a subsidy, you don't pay it. When all said and done, Kevin has 13 years' working life ahead of him. We all know it's miserable to be not doing anything when all your contemporaries are and I'm sure he'll get something very quickly, if he shows the same determination as he is doing in pursuing the bureaucrats and complaining to the media. Good luck Kevin, but be careful you don't get perceived as a non-worker.[/p][/quote]The tenant does have to pay the spare room subsidy Dai so I'm not sure I know what you mean. It is £14 a week for one spare bedroom and £25 per week for two (on average). endthelies
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Fri 4 Apr 14

kez1968 says...

I think it's really sad that there as been a lot of personal attacks on me and other contributors to this article, end of the day, we live in a free society and we are allowed to express our opinions. The story was about a man who is claiming JSA and having is housing benefit reduced, because is late father was disabled and claimed disability benefits who passed away before Christmas. Some thought it was unfair he payed it, some of us didn't, if you don't like other people's opinion and you have to abuse them, go to another website, there plenty of them out there for the less articulate.
I think it's really sad that there as been a lot of personal attacks on me and other contributors to this article, end of the day, we live in a free society and we are allowed to express our opinions. The story was about a man who is claiming JSA and having is housing benefit reduced, because is late father was disabled and claimed disability benefits who passed away before Christmas. Some thought it was unfair he payed it, some of us didn't, if you don't like other people's opinion and you have to abuse them, go to another website, there plenty of them out there for the less articulate. kez1968
  • Score: 0

11:09pm Fri 4 Apr 14

endthelies says...

I know what you mean Kez. I know you and I have differing views on this subject but that's why I like to join in with discussions. It would be a pretty boring discussion if we just all agreed with each other. However, I think that when it comes to name-calling etc, then a person is just showing that they feel they are 'losing' a discussion and therefore fight back in a derogatory manner. It just makes me aware that a strong female can be threatening to others and I take it as a compliment!
I know what you mean Kez. I know you and I have differing views on this subject but that's why I like to join in with discussions. It would be a pretty boring discussion if we just all agreed with each other. However, I think that when it comes to name-calling etc, then a person is just showing that they feel they are 'losing' a discussion and therefore fight back in a derogatory manner. It just makes me aware that a strong female can be threatening to others and I take it as a compliment! endthelies
  • Score: 0

8:19am Sat 5 Apr 14

Dai Rear says...

endthelies wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
endthelies wrote:
The housing benefit bill has increased. the government are also havng to give local authorities 190,0000 extra to help cope with the misery that this 'subsidy' has brought on people who cannot move and cannot pay their rent. As for the comment about private investors will increase properties over time, shouldn't that have been thought about before this was introduced. As it is, people have no option but to go without essentials to pay this subsidy because they have nowhere to move to.

http://www.mirror.co



.uk/news/uk-news/bed



room-tax-taxpayers-f



ork-out-3300089
.
You get a subsidy, you don't pay it. When all said and done, Kevin has 13 years' working life ahead of him. We all know it's miserable to be not doing anything when all your contemporaries are and I'm sure he'll get something very quickly, if he shows the same determination as he is doing in pursuing the bureaucrats and complaining to the media. Good luck Kevin, but be careful you don't get perceived as a non-worker.
The tenant does have to pay the spare room subsidy Dai so I'm not sure I know what you mean. It is £14 a week for one spare bedroom and £25 per week for two (on average).
Well it may be semantics, but you pay rent; you receive a subsidy. This gentleman , if he chose to work, would pay rent to the Council, not subsidise it. Frankly this bit of micro-management legislation was a waste of time. I hate to say it but means-tested welfare is perhaps the only area where we need to follow our European neighbours. Immigrants don't pause in Paris or Madrid but flock here because our means tested welfare is wholly unaffordable and will have to be reined back dramatically when the politicos have the courage.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: The housing benefit bill has increased. the government are also havng to give local authorities 190,0000 extra to help cope with the misery that this 'subsidy' has brought on people who cannot move and cannot pay their rent. As for the comment about private investors will increase properties over time, shouldn't that have been thought about before this was introduced. As it is, people have no option but to go without essentials to pay this subsidy because they have nowhere to move to. http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/bed room-tax-taxpayers-f ork-out-3300089 .[/p][/quote]You get a subsidy, you don't pay it. When all said and done, Kevin has 13 years' working life ahead of him. We all know it's miserable to be not doing anything when all your contemporaries are and I'm sure he'll get something very quickly, if he shows the same determination as he is doing in pursuing the bureaucrats and complaining to the media. Good luck Kevin, but be careful you don't get perceived as a non-worker.[/p][/quote]The tenant does have to pay the spare room subsidy Dai so I'm not sure I know what you mean. It is £14 a week for one spare bedroom and £25 per week for two (on average).[/p][/quote]Well it may be semantics, but you pay rent; you receive a subsidy. This gentleman , if he chose to work, would pay rent to the Council, not subsidise it. Frankly this bit of micro-management legislation was a waste of time. I hate to say it but means-tested welfare is perhaps the only area where we need to follow our European neighbours. Immigrants don't pause in Paris or Madrid but flock here because our means tested welfare is wholly unaffordable and will have to be reined back dramatically when the politicos have the courage. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Sat 5 Apr 14

brynglas says...

The bedroom tax is increasing costs for social landlords like bron afon because of the resulting rent arrears and additional expense involved in advising and assisting tenants.

This will pushes up rents, increase the housing benefit bill and will ultimately cost more than the government hopes to make in savings.

Typical nasty, greedy, short-sighted Tory stupidity; punishing the poorest in society based on ideological dogmatism with no fiscal benefit.
The bedroom tax is increasing costs for social landlords like bron afon because of the resulting rent arrears and additional expense involved in advising and assisting tenants. This will pushes up rents, increase the housing benefit bill and will ultimately cost more than the government hopes to make in savings. Typical nasty, greedy, short-sighted Tory stupidity; punishing the poorest in society based on ideological dogmatism with no fiscal benefit. brynglas
  • Score: -1

4:30pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Dai Rear says...

brynglas wrote:
The bedroom tax is increasing costs for social landlords like bron afon because of the resulting rent arrears and additional expense involved in advising and assisting tenants.

This will pushes up rents, increase the housing benefit bill and will ultimately cost more than the government hopes to make in savings.

Typical nasty, greedy, short-sighted Tory stupidity; punishing the poorest in society based on ideological dogmatism with no fiscal benefit.
Actually, you know most people are pretty weary of this socialist rubbish. The simplest thing would be to stop rewarding people for not working. Stop bribing people to have children they can neither maintain nor nurture. Stop calling public housing "social housing". Stop talking about "poor" when there are millions and millions of actual poor people in the world and not one of them is living on welfare in Cwmbran. If we had a real liberal government instead of a left of centre apology that you call "Tory" (you really have no idea what that means , have you?) maybe some of these things would come to pass. But we'll agree. Micromanaging like this is silly and cannot repair the mess that is "Britain 2014 The Dependency Culture".
[quote][p][bold]brynglas[/bold] wrote: The bedroom tax is increasing costs for social landlords like bron afon because of the resulting rent arrears and additional expense involved in advising and assisting tenants. This will pushes up rents, increase the housing benefit bill and will ultimately cost more than the government hopes to make in savings. Typical nasty, greedy, short-sighted Tory stupidity; punishing the poorest in society based on ideological dogmatism with no fiscal benefit.[/p][/quote]Actually, you know most people are pretty weary of this socialist rubbish. The simplest thing would be to stop rewarding people for not working. Stop bribing people to have children they can neither maintain nor nurture. Stop calling public housing "social housing". Stop talking about "poor" when there are millions and millions of actual poor people in the world and not one of them is living on welfare in Cwmbran. If we had a real liberal government instead of a left of centre apology that you call "Tory" (you really have no idea what that means , have you?) maybe some of these things would come to pass. But we'll agree. Micromanaging like this is silly and cannot repair the mess that is "Britain 2014 The Dependency Culture". Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

5:05pm Sat 5 Apr 14

brynglas says...

@Dai Rear by "Tory" I mean "the Conservative Party". You know, Thatcher's party; the ones that deregulated the banking system in the 1980s and resulted in a world of cheap money that several future generations of the poorest in society will now have to pay for.
@Dai Rear by "Tory" I mean "the Conservative Party". You know, Thatcher's party; the ones that deregulated the banking system in the 1980s and resulted in a world of cheap money that several future generations of the poorest in society will now have to pay for. brynglas
  • Score: -2

5:17pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Dai Rear says...

brynglas wrote:
@Dai Rear by "Tory" I mean "the Conservative Party". You know, Thatcher's party; the ones that deregulated the banking system in the 1980s and resulted in a world of cheap money that several future generations of the poorest in society will now have to pay for.
You missed out original sin. They did that in the 1980's as well. You could smell the sulphur, even just watching Mrs Thatcher on TV, couldn't you? And before that there were no "poor people" in society either. Thank God dear old Liam 'I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left" Byrne, Balls and Brown did such a cracking job that by 2010 we.....er....?
[quote][p][bold]brynglas[/bold] wrote: @Dai Rear by "Tory" I mean "the Conservative Party". You know, Thatcher's party; the ones that deregulated the banking system in the 1980s and resulted in a world of cheap money that several future generations of the poorest in society will now have to pay for.[/p][/quote]You missed out original sin. They did that in the 1980's as well. You could smell the sulphur, even just watching Mrs Thatcher on TV, couldn't you? And before that there were no "poor people" in society either. Thank God dear old Liam 'I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left" Byrne, Balls and Brown did such a cracking job that by 2010 we.....er....? Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Sat 5 Apr 14

brynglas says...

And why did Liam Byrne quip that "I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left"?

Because in order to save the banking system in 2008 and 2009 that the Tories (you know who I mean) had deregulated in the 1980s, the Labour government was forced to bail out the banks to the tune of £955 billion. The Tories (you know who I mean) created a financial time bomb, and now they expect us to pay for the damage that their policies created.
And why did Liam Byrne quip that "I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left"? Because in order to save the banking system in 2008 and 2009 that the Tories (you know who I mean) had deregulated in the 1980s, the Labour government was forced to bail out the banks to the tune of £955 billion. The Tories (you know who I mean) created a financial time bomb, and now they expect us to pay for the damage that their policies created. brynglas
  • Score: 2

6:16pm Sat 5 Apr 14

NakedDancer says...

endthelies wrote:
I know what you mean Kez. I know you and I have differing views on this subject but that's why I like to join in with discussions. It would be a pretty boring discussion if we just all agreed with each other. However, I think that when it comes to name-calling etc, then a person is just showing that they feel they are 'losing' a discussion and therefore fight back in a derogatory manner. It just makes me aware that a strong female can be threatening to others and I take it as a compliment!
Other contributors would not know you are a woman (unless you told them). Also, you have no idea what sex other contributors are. It's irrelevant to any discussion anyway.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I know what you mean Kez. I know you and I have differing views on this subject but that's why I like to join in with discussions. It would be a pretty boring discussion if we just all agreed with each other. However, I think that when it comes to name-calling etc, then a person is just showing that they feel they are 'losing' a discussion and therefore fight back in a derogatory manner. It just makes me aware that a strong female can be threatening to others and I take it as a compliment![/p][/quote]Other contributors would not know you are a woman (unless you told them). Also, you have no idea what sex other contributors are. It's irrelevant to any discussion anyway. NakedDancer
  • Score: 1

6:20pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Dai Rear says...

An international time bomb indeed. And when Brown, post 2002, started borrowing like there was no tomorrow it was the wicked Tories who encouraged him and savants like Balls who told him that he was behaving in a very un-socialist way. Indeed Mr Balls was only joking when he ridiculed the Conservative / SDP Alliance for not doing more of the same.
An international time bomb indeed. And when Brown, post 2002, started borrowing like there was no tomorrow it was the wicked Tories who encouraged him and savants like Balls who told him that he was behaving in a very un-socialist way. Indeed Mr Balls was only joking when he ridiculed the Conservative / SDP Alliance for not doing more of the same. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Sat 5 Apr 14

brynglas says...

@Dai Rear Brown's borrowing did not cause the banking crisis and the recession; it was regulatory failures resulting from Tory (you know who I mean) deregulation policies. Why did the Tories (you know who I mean) want deregulation? So that the banks could take bigger risks and make bigger profits. Unfortunately capitalist greed pushed the risk taking to the point of global financial collapse.
@Dai Rear Brown's borrowing did not cause the banking crisis and the recession; it was regulatory failures resulting from Tory (you know who I mean) deregulation policies. Why did the Tories (you know who I mean) want deregulation? So that the banks could take bigger risks and make bigger profits. Unfortunately capitalist greed pushed the risk taking to the point of global financial collapse. brynglas
  • Score: 1

8:23pm Sat 5 Apr 14

The People's Republic of Newp says...

jimmysmith wrote:
The People's Republic of Newp wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
jimmysmith wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .
if he is really disabled how is he going to manage a large house like that on his own dig the garden mow the lawn etc ????
You are aware - although judging by the ignorance and bigotry you display here on a regular basis, I doubt it - that there are a number of conditions other than those affecting physical capacity which render one, in the eyes of the law, disabled?
you call me a bigot and ignorant and you got a username The peoples republic of newport .deary deary me what a fool
My username makes me bigoted? Hilarious.
[quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The People's Republic of Newp[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!![/p][/quote]kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .[/p][/quote]if he is really disabled how is he going to manage a large house like that on his own dig the garden mow the lawn etc ????[/p][/quote]You are aware - although judging by the ignorance and bigotry you display here on a regular basis, I doubt it - that there are a number of conditions other than those affecting physical capacity which render one, in the eyes of the law, disabled?[/p][/quote]you call me a bigot and ignorant and you got a username The peoples republic of newport .deary deary me what a fool[/p][/quote]My username makes me bigoted? Hilarious. The People's Republic of Newp
  • Score: 1

8:25pm Sat 5 Apr 14

The People's Republic of Newp says...

jimmysmith wrote:
The People's Republic of Newp wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
jimmysmith wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
Welshmarti wrote:
Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.
Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!!
kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .
if he is really disabled how is he going to manage a large house like that on his own dig the garden mow the lawn etc ????
You are aware - although judging by the ignorance and bigotry you display here on a regular basis, I doubt it - that there are a number of conditions other than those affecting physical capacity which render one, in the eyes of the law, disabled?
you call me a bigot and ignorant and you got a username The peoples republic of newport .deary deary me what a fool
And Jimmy, I wasn't calling you bigoted. I was referring to ScraptheWAG. I was actually backing you up.
[quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The People's Republic of Newp[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshmarti[/bold] wrote: Bad reporting again by Argus, as they have forgot to mention that Mr Reeve is also now register disable himself, so therefore cant go out to work. He has also offer to move out of the family home once suitable housing is found. Which to this day, still nothing found. All this information was given to the report, but wanted to put their spin on it, so people would put such comments.[/p][/quote]Well he was a carer for his dad so he can't be that disabled!!![/p][/quote]kez you just sit back and wallow in your arrogance and ignorance and just hope the same fate at some time dont beget you some of us on here have lived a little and seen a little and see right through this treacherous government and the argus betrayal of the working classes of gwent with its flawed reporting of this poor man and his plight .[/p][/quote]if he is really disabled how is he going to manage a large house like that on his own dig the garden mow the lawn etc ????[/p][/quote]You are aware - although judging by the ignorance and bigotry you display here on a regular basis, I doubt it - that there are a number of conditions other than those affecting physical capacity which render one, in the eyes of the law, disabled?[/p][/quote]you call me a bigot and ignorant and you got a username The peoples republic of newport .deary deary me what a fool[/p][/quote]And Jimmy, I wasn't calling you bigoted. I was referring to ScraptheWAG. I was actually backing you up. The People's Republic of Newp
  • Score: 0

9:05am Sun 6 Apr 14

Dai Rear says...

Yes, wicked capitalism. Strange how, if your lot had got their way there'd be no world wide web. The Chinese politburo is incredibly uncomfortable with the ability of the "masses" to express themselves. If only socialism had won! We wouldn't read newspaper articles like this. Wouldn't need to. Kevin would be where the party had put him-and jolly well like it.
As the man said Brynglas capitalism is a terrible concept, just better than any other.
Yes, wicked capitalism. Strange how, if your lot had got their way there'd be no world wide web. The Chinese politburo is incredibly uncomfortable with the ability of the "masses" to express themselves. If only socialism had won! We wouldn't read newspaper articles like this. Wouldn't need to. Kevin would be where the party had put him-and jolly well like it. As the man said Brynglas capitalism is a terrible concept, just better than any other. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

11:02am Sun 6 Apr 14

endthelies says...

NakedDancer wrote:
endthelies wrote:
I know what you mean Kez. I know you and I have differing views on this subject but that's why I like to join in with discussions. It would be a pretty boring discussion if we just all agreed with each other. However, I think that when it comes to name-calling etc, then a person is just showing that they feel they are 'losing' a discussion and therefore fight back in a derogatory manner. It just makes me aware that a strong female can be threatening to others and I take it as a compliment!
Other contributors would not know you are a woman (unless you told them). Also, you have no idea what sex other contributors are. It's irrelevant to any discussion anyway.
Some do after I put them straight when they kept calling me mate or buddy. Believe me its not irrelevant (although it is to me).
[quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I know what you mean Kez. I know you and I have differing views on this subject but that's why I like to join in with discussions. It would be a pretty boring discussion if we just all agreed with each other. However, I think that when it comes to name-calling etc, then a person is just showing that they feel they are 'losing' a discussion and therefore fight back in a derogatory manner. It just makes me aware that a strong female can be threatening to others and I take it as a compliment![/p][/quote]Other contributors would not know you are a woman (unless you told them). Also, you have no idea what sex other contributors are. It's irrelevant to any discussion anyway.[/p][/quote]Some do after I put them straight when they kept calling me mate or buddy. Believe me its not irrelevant (although it is to me). endthelies
  • Score: 0

11:49am Sun 6 Apr 14

laurie says...

I am wondering why this man only gets 71.00 a week if he is disabled? he should get a lot more money than this.Bedroom tax is a nightmare to many people especially the disabled.I know a 55 year old man who was married and had a daughter 28 years ago She was born with a very severe case of cerebral palsy she can not walk,talk or feed herself and needs to be washed and dressed,all personal care needed 24/7.His wife had another girl who is now 26 they lived in a 2 bedroom council house When the disabled daughter was little the dad would carry the girl upstairs to bed and the bathroom.How ever when the girl was 16 it got to much for him to carry her,he is only slightly built,his wife had died when the girls were little.The council built a room downstairs for the girl she has carers who come in twice a day to change her etc.She goes into respite once a month for the weekend.The Dad has not been able to work for years because he has been caring for this poor girl,I suppose you have guessed what I am going to say next?.For all of his devotion to his child he has been repayed by having the HB cut.His other daughter had moved out has a partner a child,a life of her own,but has had no choice but to move back in so that her Dad and sister can afford to live in a small 3 bedroom house.The whole thing sickens me to my stomach and should be abolished. Kevin should get a lodger it is allowed.
I am wondering why this man only gets 71.00 a week if he is disabled? he should get a lot more money than this.Bedroom tax is a nightmare to many people especially the disabled.I know a 55 year old man who was married and had a daughter 28 years ago She was born with a very severe case of cerebral palsy she can not walk,talk or feed herself and needs to be washed and dressed,all personal care needed 24/7.His wife had another girl who is now 26 they lived in a 2 bedroom council house When the disabled daughter was little the dad would carry the girl upstairs to bed and the bathroom.How ever when the girl was 16 it got to much for him to carry her,he is only slightly built,his wife had died when the girls were little.The council built a room downstairs for the girl she has carers who come in twice a day to change her etc.She goes into respite once a month for the weekend.The Dad has not been able to work for years because he has been caring for this poor girl,I suppose you have guessed what I am going to say next?.For all of his devotion to his child he has been repayed by having the HB cut.His other daughter had moved out has a partner a child,a life of her own,but has had no choice but to move back in so that her Dad and sister can afford to live in a small 3 bedroom house.The whole thing sickens me to my stomach and should be abolished. Kevin should get a lodger it is allowed. laurie
  • Score: 2

11:56am Sun 6 Apr 14

laurie says...

PS to the stupid person that said how can some one suddenly become disabled,all it takes is a fall down the stairs,a car accident,stroke,hear
t attack,a mental illness,a disease blah blah blah the list is endless.
PS to the stupid person that said how can some one suddenly become disabled,all it takes is a fall down the stairs,a car accident,stroke,hear t attack,a mental illness,a disease blah blah blah the list is endless. laurie
  • Score: 1

1:08pm Sun 6 Apr 14

brynglas says...

@Dai Reader I'm advocating democratic socialism not totalitarianism. You think that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand? Just look at the USA where capitalism has evolved into corporatism - most wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of giant corporations. Big government is used as a tool by these corporations to consolidate wealth and power even further, subverting democracy.
@Dai Reader I'm advocating democratic socialism not totalitarianism. You think that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand? Just look at the USA where capitalism has evolved into corporatism - most wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of giant corporations. Big government is used as a tool by these corporations to consolidate wealth and power even further, subverting democracy. brynglas
  • Score: 0

2:03pm Sun 6 Apr 14

endthelies says...

laurie wrote:
I am wondering why this man only gets 71.00 a week if he is disabled? he should get a lot more money than this.Bedroom tax is a nightmare to many people especially the disabled.I know a 55 year old man who was married and had a daughter 28 years ago She was born with a very severe case of cerebral palsy she can not walk,talk or feed herself and needs to be washed and dressed,all personal care needed 24/7.His wife had another girl who is now 26 they lived in a 2 bedroom council house When the disabled daughter was little the dad would carry the girl upstairs to bed and the bathroom.How ever when the girl was 16 it got to much for him to carry her,he is only slightly built,his wife had died when the girls were little.The council built a room downstairs for the girl she has carers who come in twice a day to change her etc.She goes into respite once a month for the weekend.The Dad has not been able to work for years because he has been caring for this poor girl,I suppose you have guessed what I am going to say next?.For all of his devotion to his child he has been repayed by having the HB cut.His other daughter had moved out has a partner a child,a life of her own,but has had no choice but to move back in so that her Dad and sister can afford to live in a small 3 bedroom house.The whole thing sickens me to my stomach and should be abolished. Kevin should get a lodger it is allowed.
He probably isn't getting more because of the way disabled benefits are assessed. Atos assessments are seriously flawed with an emphasis on stopping peoples benefits rather than helping them to get the benefits to which they should be entitled. Add to that the fact that people are no longer able to access legal aid to help them when it comes to having to go to a tribunal to try and fight atos findings and the outlook for the disabled is pretty bleak. Some people don't realise how hard physically and mentally it is to be a carer. I myself worked with disabled children for many years and loved my job. I am now disabled myself so I see things from all sides of the coin and, even though I am disabled, I count myself lucky that I still have the verbal and mental ability to fight for those things that I believe in. Others may not be as fortunate. The picture you have painted of the gentleman caring for his daughter is, unfortunately, becoming more and more commonplace and needs to be stopped. Otherwise, what have we as a society become?
[quote][p][bold]laurie[/bold] wrote: I am wondering why this man only gets 71.00 a week if he is disabled? he should get a lot more money than this.Bedroom tax is a nightmare to many people especially the disabled.I know a 55 year old man who was married and had a daughter 28 years ago She was born with a very severe case of cerebral palsy she can not walk,talk or feed herself and needs to be washed and dressed,all personal care needed 24/7.His wife had another girl who is now 26 they lived in a 2 bedroom council house When the disabled daughter was little the dad would carry the girl upstairs to bed and the bathroom.How ever when the girl was 16 it got to much for him to carry her,he is only slightly built,his wife had died when the girls were little.The council built a room downstairs for the girl she has carers who come in twice a day to change her etc.She goes into respite once a month for the weekend.The Dad has not been able to work for years because he has been caring for this poor girl,I suppose you have guessed what I am going to say next?.For all of his devotion to his child he has been repayed by having the HB cut.His other daughter had moved out has a partner a child,a life of her own,but has had no choice but to move back in so that her Dad and sister can afford to live in a small 3 bedroom house.The whole thing sickens me to my stomach and should be abolished. Kevin should get a lodger it is allowed.[/p][/quote]He probably isn't getting more because of the way disabled benefits are assessed. Atos assessments are seriously flawed with an emphasis on stopping peoples benefits rather than helping them to get the benefits to which they should be entitled. Add to that the fact that people are no longer able to access legal aid to help them when it comes to having to go to a tribunal to try and fight atos findings and the outlook for the disabled is pretty bleak. Some people don't realise how hard physically and mentally it is to be a carer. I myself worked with disabled children for many years and loved my job. I am now disabled myself so I see things from all sides of the coin and, even though I am disabled, I count myself lucky that I still have the verbal and mental ability to fight for those things that I believe in. Others may not be as fortunate. The picture you have painted of the gentleman caring for his daughter is, unfortunately, becoming more and more commonplace and needs to be stopped. Otherwise, what have we as a society become? endthelies
  • Score: 4

6:16pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Dano1967 says...

laurie wrote:
PS to the stupid person that said how can some one suddenly become disabled,all it takes is a fall down the stairs,a car accident,stroke,hear

t attack,a mental illness,a disease blah blah blah the list is endless.
OK anybody can become disabled! That's how the system can be played.
Quite a lot of people play the system and I know a few.
My sympathy for this case went when the person in question become disabled when he needed to get a job.
No, I do not know all the facts, but this story went to print to get sympathy and in my case it failed with that one detail.
I have seen it so many times before.
[quote][p][bold]laurie[/bold] wrote: PS to the stupid person that said how can some one suddenly become disabled,all it takes is a fall down the stairs,a car accident,stroke,hear t attack,a mental illness,a disease blah blah blah the list is endless.[/p][/quote]OK anybody can become disabled! That's how the system can be played. Quite a lot of people play the system and I know a few. My sympathy for this case went when the person in question become disabled when he needed to get a job. No, I do not know all the facts, but this story went to print to get sympathy and in my case it failed with that one detail. I have seen it so many times before. Dano1967
  • Score: -1

6:33pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Dai Rear says...

brynglas wrote:
@Dai Reader I'm advocating democratic socialism not totalitarianism. You think that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand? Just look at the USA where capitalism has evolved into corporatism - most wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of giant corporations. Big government is used as a tool by these corporations to consolidate wealth and power even further, subverting democracy.
democratic socialism-an oxymoron. But I think you win because you have a faith. Socialism is that, an irrational faith. Its believers just wear everyone down. I suppose the socialist goal is a Jonestown event involving the rational.
[quote][p][bold]brynglas[/bold] wrote: @Dai Reader I'm advocating democratic socialism not totalitarianism. You think that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand? Just look at the USA where capitalism has evolved into corporatism - most wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of giant corporations. Big government is used as a tool by these corporations to consolidate wealth and power even further, subverting democracy.[/p][/quote]democratic socialism-an oxymoron. But I think you win because you have a faith. Socialism is that, an irrational faith. Its believers just wear everyone down. I suppose the socialist goal is a Jonestown event involving the rational. Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

7:20pm Sun 6 Apr 14

brynglas says...

@Dai Reader No faith but I do hope...

I can't express it any better than Bertrand Russell did in Roads to Freedom:

- Basic economic decisions, as well as political decisions, must reflect the common good. The entire economy should operate for the good of the entire society, with no one left behind.
- No private concentrations of capital or other wealth, and no other types of private concentrations of power.
- The end of money's domination over society. The end of the priority of property and private greed.
- Socialism will complete what democracy began-- the transfer of sovereignty in all spheres from elites to the people.
@Dai Reader No faith but I do hope... I can't express it any better than Bertrand Russell did in Roads to Freedom: - Basic economic decisions, as well as political decisions, must reflect the common good. The entire economy should operate for the good of the entire society, with no one left behind. - No private concentrations of capital or other wealth, and no other types of private concentrations of power. - The end of money's domination over society. The end of the priority of property and private greed. - Socialism will complete what democracy began-- the transfer of sovereignty in all spheres from elites to the people. brynglas
  • Score: 2

12:57pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

endthelies wrote:
HeyJudeB4Beatles wrote:
It is not a tax it is the removal of a subsidy.

And why should Iain Duncan Smith, or anyone else come to that, pay for unused rooms in a property they won and are not being subsidised by the public purse?

And sad as it might seem, presumably he is not actually the tenant? Just because he has lived there for almost all his life, you can't automatically inherit a tenancy.

Times are hard and the country could not go on with the benefits expenditure that had become established. I work hard and pay taxes and I know I am lucky to be in employment but too many people nowadays believe that they are owed a living without doing anything to earn it so something had to give.
The bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE in housing benefit because of increased rents on smaller properties, owing to demand. Therefore, the argument that this is saving the taxpayer money is false. Housing benefit has increased by 1.5 billion at the last count. Its really not working is it ?
That may be the case in the short term.
However, once the procedure has been in place for some time then the long term benefits may become evident.
There is always some initial cost in changing a system, but that is not a valid reason for failing to act to change it for the better.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HeyJudeB4Beatles[/bold] wrote: It is not a tax it is the removal of a subsidy. And why should Iain Duncan Smith, or anyone else come to that, pay for unused rooms in a property they won and are not being subsidised by the public purse? And sad as it might seem, presumably he is not actually the tenant? Just because he has lived there for almost all his life, you can't automatically inherit a tenancy. Times are hard and the country could not go on with the benefits expenditure that had become established. I work hard and pay taxes and I know I am lucky to be in employment but too many people nowadays believe that they are owed a living without doing anything to earn it so something had to give.[/p][/quote]The bedroom tax is costing the taxpayer MORE in housing benefit because of increased rents on smaller properties, owing to demand. Therefore, the argument that this is saving the taxpayer money is false. Housing benefit has increased by 1.5 billion at the last count. Its really not working is it ?[/p][/quote]That may be the case in the short term. However, once the procedure has been in place for some time then the long term benefits may become evident. There is always some initial cost in changing a system, but that is not a valid reason for failing to act to change it for the better. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: -1

1:04pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

brynglas wrote:
@Dai Reader No faith but I do hope...

I can't express it any better than Bertrand Russell did in Roads to Freedom:

- Basic economic decisions, as well as political decisions, must reflect the common good. The entire economy should operate for the good of the entire society, with no one left behind.
- No private concentrations of capital or other wealth, and no other types of private concentrations of power.
- The end of money's domination over society. The end of the priority of property and private greed.
- Socialism will complete what democracy began-- the transfer of sovereignty in all spheres from elites to the people.
Tell that to Tony B Liar and the Kinnocks.
[quote][p][bold]brynglas[/bold] wrote: @Dai Reader No faith but I do hope... I can't express it any better than Bertrand Russell did in Roads to Freedom: - Basic economic decisions, as well as political decisions, must reflect the common good. The entire economy should operate for the good of the entire society, with no one left behind. - No private concentrations of capital or other wealth, and no other types of private concentrations of power. - The end of money's domination over society. The end of the priority of property and private greed. - Socialism will complete what democracy began-- the transfer of sovereignty in all spheres from elites to the people.[/p][/quote]Tell that to Tony B Liar and the Kinnocks. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

brynglas wrote:
@Dai Reader No faith but I do hope...

I can't express it any better than Bertrand Russell did in Roads to Freedom:

- Basic economic decisions, as well as political decisions, must reflect the common good. The entire economy should operate for the good of the entire society, with no one left behind.
- No private concentrations of capital or other wealth, and no other types of private concentrations of power.
- The end of money's domination over society. The end of the priority of property and private greed.
- Socialism will complete what democracy began-- the transfer of sovereignty in all spheres from elites to the people.
Tell that to Tony B Liar and the Kinnocks.
[quote][p][bold]brynglas[/bold] wrote: @Dai Reader No faith but I do hope... I can't express it any better than Bertrand Russell did in Roads to Freedom: - Basic economic decisions, as well as political decisions, must reflect the common good. The entire economy should operate for the good of the entire society, with no one left behind. - No private concentrations of capital or other wealth, and no other types of private concentrations of power. - The end of money's domination over society. The end of the priority of property and private greed. - Socialism will complete what democracy began-- the transfer of sovereignty in all spheres from elites to the people.[/p][/quote]Tell that to Tony B Liar and the Kinnocks. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: -1

4:51pm Mon 7 Apr 14

wheelypete says...

Lots of misconceptions here I'm afraid? Where to start? The Argus, well these stories are far too complicated to expect any newspaper to fully explain all the possible scenarios, and therefore to accuse the report of bias in one direction or another is hardly fair in this instance? The 'Bedroom Tax' is in fact 'The Under-Occupancy Penalty' but that sounds too harsh, so the Con-Dem Government settle for 'Tax'.

Penalty: The dictionary definition

1. Something (e.g. imprisonment or paying a fine) someone is made to do to compensate for a wrongdoing, especially for crime; the act of punishing


2. A payment required for not fulfilling a contract


3. The disadvantage or painful consequences of an action or condition


4. A handicap or disadvantage that is imposed on a competitor (or a team) for an infraction of the rules of the game

5. A free kick from a spot marked in front of the goal, defended only by the goalkeeper


Whatever cash benefits a claimant may receive for whatever benefit/s they claim is decided by the State. The Government decide that you require X amount per week to live on. For this example, lets say the amount is £100.00

Not all tenancies are the same, even with the same Landlord in the same area, using this family as our example, given the length of the tenancy, it would've originally have been a 'Secure' tenancy with 'The Council' in this instance, Torfaen CBC. Being a Secure tenancy, the tenants would indeed have enjoyed a right to a tenancy for life with one 'Right to Succession'. Assuming a joint tenancy, the first 'Right to Succession' would've taken place at the death of the gentleman's mother. At that time, the gentlemen would not have qualified for succession, as his father would've been the 'Joint Tenant'.

At the point of Stock Transfer, the 'Secure Tenancy' would've automatically transferred to Bron Afon Community Housing, and gained a second 'Right to Succession' as per the 'Offer Document' commitment. This would not however have been the case in Newport with Newport City Homes as far as I'm aware? Upon the death of his father, the gentleman would've been entitled to exercise his second 'Right to Succession' to the tenancy, however, whilst that tenancy remains 'Secure' as in all his 'Rights' prior to stock transfer have been preserved, it would not apply to a particular property, which would mean that subject to availability, Bron Afon would require him to move to a property that better suited his needs in order to free-up a 3 bedroom property. The gentleman may however still qualify for a 2 bed property depending upon his circumstances?

At the current rate of demand and supply, (Not including tenants affected by the under-occupation penalty), Bron Afon will take upwards of 17 years to accommodate those already requiring 1 and 2 bed accommodation, so those affected by the under-occupation penalty realistically have two options, to move away from Torfaen and any family and support networks that they have in place, or to move into the Private -Rented Sector where rents are much more expensive, in this case for the tax-payers?

The Under-Occupation Penalty is NOT merely a removal of subsidy as someone suggested earlier, and isn't always as little as £14 -£25 either? The penalty is imposed thus;

The Government says that the Tenant requires £100.00 per week to live on. This figure does not include any portion of his/her Rent, Water Rates or Council Tax.

The Rent for the property for the 3 bedroom property is £90.00 per week, the Water Rates are £9.75 per week.

The tenant, though no fault of their own, is either trapped in a Bron Afon property with excellent 'Rights' attached to his/her tenancy for the next 17 years or so, or could move into the Private-Rented Sector with little or no 'Rights' or 'Security' of tenure or move out of the area, assuming that a smaller Council or Housing Association property is instantly available?

The tenant, needing the support network around him/her is forced to stay put. His/her Housing Benefit is now reduced by £14 or 25% of the Rent for more than one bedroom under-occupied, so in this instance, £30.00 per week. The Landlord, in this case Bron Afon, is therefore paid £30.00 per week less for that property by Housing Benefit meaning that should the tenant be unable to survive on less than the £100.00 per week that the Government says S/he NEEDS to live on, then they very quickly become heavily into Rent Arrears.

Lenders, (The Banks), who supply Housing Associations with the loans they require to build and maintain their Housing Stock are already putting pressure on Registered Social Landlords to invoke 'Mandatory Grounds' 8 and 11 upon tenants who find themselves in this situation, not because they agree with the ideology of this Penalty, but to protect their Loan Repayments, as landlords like Bron Afon suffer a reduction in income and an increase in costs to both prevent and recover lost revenues?

In my own case, my Bron Afon Rent is £97.00 per week, for a property that cost upwards of £30,000 to adapt to my specific needs, in order to downsize to a 2 bedroom property, I would have to go into the Private-Rented Sector, the cheapest of which locally is £150.00 per week, and currently has no adaptations? As a Tax-payer, (and we all pay indirect taxes), and the majority of tenants receiving housing benefits are actually working, which would you prefer to pay? It would be almost impossible to find a Private Landlord willing to adapt a property to suit my needs, much less pay for it, and how much additional Rent would S/He charge?

I'm lucky, I have a working son living with me who pays the Penalty, not everyone is as lucky as I am?

For the record, Labour did in fact introduce this Penalty for Private-Rented Sector Landlords, because too many Landlords, (especially in and around London and the south-east), were 'Playing the System' charging extortionate Rents for larger properties Under-Occupied by choice rather than necessity, IDS and his Con-Dem chums have merely redressed the balance in their favour once again.
Lots of misconceptions here I'm afraid? Where to start? The Argus, well these stories are far too complicated to expect any newspaper to fully explain all the possible scenarios, and therefore to accuse the report of bias in one direction or another is hardly fair in this instance? The 'Bedroom Tax' is in fact 'The Under-Occupancy Penalty' but that sounds too harsh, so the Con-Dem Government settle for 'Tax'. Penalty: The dictionary definition 1. Something (e.g. imprisonment or paying a fine) someone is made to do to compensate for a wrongdoing, especially for crime; the act of punishing 2. A payment required for not fulfilling a contract 3. The disadvantage or painful consequences of an action or condition 4. A handicap or disadvantage that is imposed on a competitor (or a team) for an infraction of the rules of the game 5. A free kick from a spot marked in front of the goal, defended only by the goalkeeper Whatever cash benefits a claimant may receive for whatever benefit/s they claim is decided by the State. The Government decide that you require X amount per week to live on. For this example, lets say the amount is £100.00 Not all tenancies are the same, even with the same Landlord in the same area, using this family as our example, given the length of the tenancy, it would've originally have been a 'Secure' tenancy with 'The Council' in this instance, Torfaen CBC. Being a Secure tenancy, the tenants would indeed have enjoyed a right to a tenancy for life with one 'Right to Succession'. Assuming a joint tenancy, the first 'Right to Succession' would've taken place at the death of the gentleman's mother. At that time, the gentlemen would not have qualified for succession, as his father would've been the 'Joint Tenant'. At the point of Stock Transfer, the 'Secure Tenancy' would've automatically transferred to Bron Afon Community Housing, and gained a second 'Right to Succession' as per the 'Offer Document' commitment. This would not however have been the case in Newport with Newport City Homes as far as I'm aware? Upon the death of his father, the gentleman would've been entitled to exercise his second 'Right to Succession' to the tenancy, however, whilst that tenancy remains 'Secure' as in all his 'Rights' prior to stock transfer have been preserved, it would not apply to a particular property, which would mean that subject to availability, Bron Afon would require him to move to a property that better suited his needs in order to free-up a 3 bedroom property. The gentleman may however still qualify for a 2 bed property depending upon his circumstances? At the current rate of demand and supply, (Not including tenants affected by the under-occupation penalty), Bron Afon will take upwards of 17 years to accommodate those already requiring 1 and 2 bed accommodation, so those affected by the under-occupation penalty realistically have two options, to move away from Torfaen and any family and support networks that they have in place, or to move into the Private -Rented Sector where rents are much more expensive, in this case for the tax-payers? The Under-Occupation Penalty is NOT merely a removal of subsidy as someone suggested earlier, and isn't always as little as £14 -£25 either? The penalty is imposed thus; The Government says that the Tenant requires £100.00 per week to live on. This figure does not include any portion of his/her Rent, Water Rates or Council Tax. The Rent for the property for the 3 bedroom property is £90.00 per week, the Water Rates are £9.75 per week. The tenant, though no fault of their own, is either trapped in a Bron Afon property with excellent 'Rights' attached to his/her tenancy for the next 17 years or so, or could move into the Private-Rented Sector with little or no 'Rights' or 'Security' of tenure or move out of the area, assuming that a smaller Council or Housing Association property is instantly available? The tenant, needing the support network around him/her is forced to stay put. His/her Housing Benefit is now reduced by £14 or 25% of the Rent for more than one bedroom under-occupied, so in this instance, £30.00 per week. The Landlord, in this case Bron Afon, is therefore paid £30.00 per week less for that property by Housing Benefit meaning that should the tenant be unable to survive on less than the £100.00 per week that the Government says S/he NEEDS to live on, then they very quickly become heavily into Rent Arrears. Lenders, (The Banks), who supply Housing Associations with the loans they require to build and maintain their Housing Stock are already putting pressure on Registered Social Landlords to invoke 'Mandatory Grounds' 8 and 11 upon tenants who find themselves in this situation, not because they agree with the ideology of this Penalty, but to protect their Loan Repayments, as landlords like Bron Afon suffer a reduction in income and an increase in costs to both prevent and recover lost revenues? In my own case, my Bron Afon Rent is £97.00 per week, for a property that cost upwards of £30,000 to adapt to my specific needs, in order to downsize to a 2 bedroom property, I would have to go into the Private-Rented Sector, the cheapest of which locally is £150.00 per week, and currently has no adaptations? As a Tax-payer, (and we all pay indirect taxes), and the majority of tenants receiving housing benefits are actually working, which would you prefer to pay? It would be almost impossible to find a Private Landlord willing to adapt a property to suit my needs, much less pay for it, and how much additional Rent would S/He charge? I'm lucky, I have a working son living with me who pays the Penalty, not everyone is as lucky as I am? For the record, Labour did in fact introduce this Penalty for Private-Rented Sector Landlords, because too many Landlords, (especially in and around London and the south-east), were 'Playing the System' charging extortionate Rents for larger properties Under-Occupied by choice rather than necessity, IDS and his Con-Dem chums have merely redressed the balance in their favour once again. wheelypete
  • Score: 1

8:55pm Mon 7 Apr 14

endthelies says...

Well said Wheely pete.
Well said Wheely pete. endthelies
  • Score: 2

11:49pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Mwy Eira says...

What is wrong with getting a lodger? As someone has pointed out, it is allowed. Gives someone else a home too. Medical students etc are always looking for house shares. Years ago it was the norm to have a lodger to help ends meet.
What is wrong with getting a lodger? As someone has pointed out, it is allowed. Gives someone else a home too. Medical students etc are always looking for house shares. Years ago it was the norm to have a lodger to help ends meet. Mwy Eira
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree