Hitting out at bedroom tax (From South Wales Argus)

Aside from the obvious fact that this benefit restriction is not a "tax", lets remember that this money comes straight from the pockets of their wage-earning neighbours and it is money that our country does not have to spare. We cannot afford to waste a penny on spare rooms for people who are living at the expense of the taxpayer. Wake up.

Katie Redmond

What happens to someone with a mortgage who loses his job/suffers break up/can't afford repayments? I'll tell you. Your on your own.

KatieRedmond wrote:
Aside from the obvious fact that this benefit restriction is not a "tax", lets remember that this money comes straight from the pockets of their wage-earning neighbours and it is money that our country does not have to spare. We cannot afford to waste a penny on spare rooms for people who are living at the expense of the taxpayer. Wake up.

Katie Redmond

The fact is re social housing, near all, CANNOT downsize, because there are not the homes to downsize to. Frankly it is a straight tax on people nothing more. Disabled people will pay the 'fine/tax' rather than accept an stranger into their homes, which is what they are suggesting, this puts people in danger. I feel sure a few test cases will force a re-think too. Cameron will get his ounce of flesh to sate the baying mob (Sorry Daily mail thickies, stupids, the red-topped media, LARGE-PRINT READING, old, disabled,and vulnerable hating fraternity and bullies), attacking anyone on allowances, but, they will NOT downsize, they can't, so the suggestion more people will get a roof over their head as a result is patently wrong, it won't happen. What will happen is the vulnerable will be made more vulnerable that's all. Not that the aforementioned miserable excuses for caring people will notice, the British are renowned for supporting the underdog? times have clearly changed, now we kick them when they are down and feel they are doing their bit for the taxpayer, of course, praying they never have to claim anything themselves,and suffer the same treatment !

Katie Redmond . . .

*clears throat*

Dur! Durr! Durrr! Durrr!!! Durrrrrr!!!!

That's what your comment reads like.

"Bedroom tax" is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard coming form a political party.
It's a mad idea from a crazy bunch.

Why should people remain in social homes with more bedrooms then they need? Why should the taxpayers subsidsies these homes?

Why should people refuse to move to a smaller home so that the larger home can be let to a familly who ned those extra rooms.

I am sure plenty of people would like to remain in a larger home at the tax payers expense but that is not fair to the taxpayers or to famillies that need those larger homes

Mervyn James wrote:

KatieRedmond wrote:
Aside from the obvious fact that this benefit restriction is not a "tax", lets remember that this money comes straight from the pockets of their wage-earning neighbours and it is money that our country does not have to spare. We cannot afford to waste a penny on spare rooms for people who are living at the expense of the taxpayer. Wake up.

Katie Redmond

The fact is re social housing, near all, CANNOT downsize, because there are not the homes to downsize to. Frankly it is a straight tax on people nothing more. Disabled people will pay the 'fine/tax' rather than accept an stranger into their homes, which is what they are suggesting, this puts people in danger. I feel sure a few test cases will force a re-think too. Cameron will get his ounce of flesh to sate the baying mob (Sorry Daily mail thickies, stupids, the red-topped media, LARGE-PRINT READING, old, disabled,and vulnerable hating fraternity and bullies), attacking anyone on allowances, but, they will NOT downsize, they can't, so the suggestion more people will get a roof over their head as a result is patently wrong, it won't happen. What will happen is the vulnerable will be made more vulnerable that's all. Not that the aforementioned miserable excuses for caring people will notice, the British are renowned for supporting the underdog? times have clearly changed, now we kick them when they are down and feel they are doing their bit for the taxpayer, of course, praying they never have to claim anything themselves,and suffer the same treatment !

t of a much needed home because you think it is you right to be subsidised?

godobe wrote:
"Bedroom tax" is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard coming form a political party.
It's a mad idea from a crazy bunch.

It isn't't a 'tax' at all. If you don't understand the debate why comment?

KatieRedmond wrote:
Aside from the obvious fact that this benefit restriction is not a "tax", lets remember that this money comes straight from the pockets of their wage-earning neighbours and it is money that our country does not have to spare. We cannot afford to waste a penny on spare rooms for people who are living at the expense of the taxpayer. Wake up.

Katie Redmond

Quite agree Katie, just look at that family in London, bunch of freeloaders, got the most expensive Council house in the UK, Buckingham Palace with 240 bedrooms. Did you know that Queenie doesn't pay bedroom tax on any of them, ruddy scroungers........

Bobevans wrote:
Why should people remain in social homes with more bedrooms then they need? Why should the taxpayers subsidsies these homes?

Why should people refuse to move to a smaller home so that the larger home can be let to a familly who ned those extra rooms.

I am sure plenty of people would like to remain in a larger home at the tax payers expense but that is not fair to the taxpayers or to famillies that need those larger homes

Where are all the smaller dwellings coming from?
They are not out there.

Howie' wrote:

KatieRedmond wrote:
Aside from the obvious fact that this benefit restriction is not a "tax", lets remember that this money comes straight from the pockets of their wage-earning neighbours and it is money that our country does not have to spare. We cannot afford to waste a penny on spare rooms for people who are living at the expense of the taxpayer. Wake up.

Katie Redmond

Quite agree Katie, just look at that family in London, bunch of freeloaders, got the most expensive Council house in the UK, Buckingham Palace with 240 bedrooms. Did you know that Queenie doesn't pay bedroom tax on any of them, ruddy scroungers........

On the other hand, she does pay a huge amount of tax and has worked here for nearly 70 years, (no retirement for her on Blair's 5 Million a year and state funded gilt-edged pension). She didn't arrive here yesterday from Gdansk and get given it, neither is she sending a few hundred quid of our money back to the kids in Poland every month.

Bobevans wrote:

Mervyn James wrote:

KatieRedmond wrote:
Aside from the obvious fact that this benefit restriction is not a "tax", lets remember that this money comes straight from the pockets of their wage-earning neighbours and it is money that our country does not have to spare. We cannot afford to waste a penny on spare rooms for people who are living at the expense of the taxpayer. Wake up.

Katie Redmond

The fact is re social housing, near all, CANNOT downsize, because there are not the homes to downsize to. Frankly it is a straight tax on people nothing more. Disabled people will pay the 'fine/tax' rather than accept an stranger into their homes, which is what they are suggesting, this puts people in danger. I feel sure a few test cases will force a re-think too. Cameron will get his ounce of flesh to sate the baying mob (Sorry Daily mail thickies, stupids, the red-topped media, LARGE-PRINT READING, old, disabled,and vulnerable hating fraternity and bullies), attacking anyone on allowances, but, they will NOT downsize, they can't, so the suggestion more people will get a roof over their head as a result is patently wrong, it won't happen. What will happen is the vulnerable will be made more vulnerable that's all. Not that the aforementioned miserable excuses for caring people will notice, the British are renowned for supporting the underdog? times have clearly changed, now we kick them when they are down and feel they are doing their bit for the taxpayer, of course, praying they never have to claim anything themselves,and suffer the same treatment !

t of a much needed home because you think it is you right to be subsidised?

You are being abstruse, and offensive. The points made, was not about taxpayers are subsiding people with loads of extra room to spare, but, contrary to government statements, local authorities do not HAVE:

(A) The smaller accommodation to downsize TO, and

(B) Make no provision for disabled and elderly who need that extra room for equipment and carer stay overs.

Frankly I think they are also putting many disabled and old people AT RISK,by demanding they take in strangers. Show me the alternatives we can discuss things, but I am not interested in bashing people on benefits which seems to be the nasty and ignorant pastime of most here.

People are in social housing for a reason, ask anyone who has applied for it. And anyone who thinks it is a cushy number has no idea what they are talking about, it looks like some petty and vindictive jealously because vulnerable are being helped, what has happened to this country ? do we not care any more ?

Mervyn James wrote:

Bobevans wrote:

Mervyn James wrote:

KatieRedmond wrote:
Aside from the obvious fact that this benefit restriction is not a "tax", lets remember that this money comes straight from the pockets of their wage-earning neighbours and it is money that our country does not have to spare. We cannot afford to waste a penny on spare rooms for people who are living at the expense of the taxpayer. Wake up.

Katie Redmond

The fact is re social housing, near all, CANNOT downsize, because there are not the homes to downsize to. Frankly it is a straight tax on people nothing more. Disabled people will pay the 'fine/tax' rather than accept an stranger into their homes, which is what they are suggesting, this puts people in danger. I feel sure a few test cases will force a re-think too. Cameron will get his ounce of flesh to sate the baying mob (Sorry Daily mail thickies, stupids, the red-topped media, LARGE-PRINT READING, old, disabled,and vulnerable hating fraternity and bullies), attacking anyone on allowances, but, they will NOT downsize, they can't, so the suggestion more people will get a roof over their head as a result is patently wrong, it won't happen. What will happen is the vulnerable will be made more vulnerable that's all. Not that the aforementioned miserable excuses for caring people will notice, the British are renowned for supporting the underdog? times have clearly changed, now we kick them when they are down and feel they are doing their bit for the taxpayer, of course, praying they never have to claim anything themselves,and suffer the same treatment !

t of a much needed home because you think it is you right to be subsidised?

You are being abstruse, and offensive. The points made, was not about taxpayers are subsiding people with loads of extra room to spare, but, contrary to government statements, local authorities do not HAVE:

(A) The smaller accommodation to downsize TO, and

(B) Make no provision for disabled and elderly who need that extra room for equipment and carer stay overs.

Frankly I think they are also putting many disabled and old people AT RISK,by demanding they take in strangers. Show me the alternatives we can discuss things, but I am not interested in bashing people on benefits which seems to be the nasty and ignorant pastime of most here.

People are in social housing for a reason, ask anyone who has applied for it. And anyone who thinks it is a cushy number has no idea what they are talking about, it looks like some petty and vindictive jealously because vulnerable are being helped, what has happened to this country ? do we not care any more ?

Well said Mervyn. We 'should' care.

There is no Bedroom tax.

The hosing benefit system is being changed to a Housing need system

If you only require a 1 Bed Home than the benefit is now based on a 1 Bed Room. You can still choose to stay in a larger property but housing benefit will no longer subsidise it



The subsidy on Social housing is very High. THe rents typically only cover 50% of costs so half the rent is subsidised by the taxpayers

For those on Housing Benefits they are typically only paying 25% of the rent


We simple cannot afford to continue to maintain that level of subsidy just because people want to stay in a subsidised house larger than they need. These people are also tying up much needed familly size acoomodation.

Contrary to claims there is plenty of 1 & 2 Bed Homes available and more are being built

Bob Evans you show us where these 1 & 2 bed houses are, I work but need help with my rent but when my son goes to university this September I will then be charge the 'bedroom tax', you tell me where that is fair, if I downsize where is my son suppose to sleep when he is home from university.

P C Neilson wrote:

Mervyn James wrote:

Bobevans wrote:

Mervyn James wrote:

KatieRedmond wrote: Aside from the obvious fact that this benefit restriction is not a "tax", lets remember that this money comes straight from the pockets of their wage-earning neighbours and it is money that our country does not have to spare. We cannot afford to waste a penny on spare rooms for people who are living at the expense of the taxpayer. Wake up. Katie Redmond

The fact is re social housing, near all, CANNOT downsize, because there are not the homes to downsize to. Frankly it is a straight tax on people nothing more. Disabled people will pay the 'fine/tax' rather than accept an stranger into their homes, which is what they are suggesting, this puts people in danger. I feel sure a few test cases will force a re-think too. Cameron will get his ounce of flesh to sate the baying mob (Sorry Daily mail thickies, stupids, the red-topped media, LARGE-PRINT READING, old, disabled,and vulnerable hating fraternity and bullies), attacking anyone on allowances, but, they will NOT downsize, they can't, so the suggestion more people will get a roof over their head as a result is patently wrong, it won't happen. What will happen is the vulnerable will be made more vulnerable that's all. Not that the aforementioned miserable excuses for caring people will notice, the British are renowned for supporting the underdog? times have clearly changed, now we kick them when they are down and feel they are doing their bit for the taxpayer, of course, praying they never have to claim anything themselves,and suffer the same treatment !

t of a much needed home because you think it is you right to be subsidised?

You are being abstruse, and offensive. The points made, was not about taxpayers are subsiding people with loads of extra room to spare, but, contrary to government statements, local authorities do not HAVE: (A) The smaller accommodation to downsize TO, and (B) Make no provision for disabled and elderly who need that extra room for equipment and carer stay overs. Frankly I think they are also putting many disabled and old people AT RISK,by demanding they take in strangers. Show me the alternatives we can discuss things, but I am not interested in bashing people on benefits which seems to be the nasty and ignorant pastime of most here. People are in social housing for a reason, ask anyone who has applied for it. And anyone who thinks it is a cushy number has no idea what they are talking about, it looks like some petty and vindictive jealously because vulnerable are being helped, what has happened to this country ? do we not care any more ?

Well said Mervyn. We 'should' care.

We simply can't afford it anymore