Window tax could be next (From South Wales Argus)

I don't know. But if it was his own house and his mortgage was £300 a month what would you suggest he did?

Move to a one bedroom property. Saving £14 a week and also saving on heating an excessively large property. That's what I did anyway. I may be fortunate enough to be employed but still need to keep the old financial belt tight.

Just block them up there is nothing to look at in Newport !

That would be a good idea GogExile if there were enough one bedroom properties available. The Torys have decided to add this tax but haven't given a thought about how people are suppose to downsize.

dragonlady1 wrote:
That would be a good idea GogExile if there were enough one bedroom properties available. The Torys have decided to add this tax but haven't given a thought about how people are suppose to downsize.

Another one who doesn't understand the debate. It's not a tax.

It IS a tax, since if you cannot downsize then you have to pay, the decision to charge people for having unused rooms was NOT based on the fact homeless could then use them, so it is a tax, there is nowhere to downsize to. The fact they ignored disabled and elderly issues means it was pretty clear at the outset they saw this as a way of raising revenue, hence, a TAX.

There is also the fact that when my son goes to university I will then have to pay for a spare room, can someone please tell me where my son is suppose to sleep when he is at home.

dragonlady1 wrote:
There is also the fact that when my son goes to university I will then have to pay for a spare room, can someone please tell me where my son is suppose to sleep when he is at home.

If you owned the house and couldn't afford the mortgage what would you do? Clue, the tax payer won't help you then.

Mervyn James wrote:
It IS a tax, since if you cannot downsize then you have to pay, the decision to charge people for having unused rooms was NOT based on the fact homeless could then use them, so it is a tax, there is nowhere to downsize to. The fact they ignored disabled and elderly issues means it was pretty clear at the outset they saw this as a way of raising revenue, hence, a TAX.

Tripe. It's a reduction in benefit so by definition, not a tax.

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Mervyn James wrote:
It IS a tax, since if you cannot downsize then you have to pay, the decision to charge people for having unused rooms was NOT based on the fact homeless could then use them, so it is a tax, there is nowhere to downsize to. The fact they ignored disabled and elderly issues means it was pretty clear at the outset they saw this as a way of raising revenue, hence, a TAX.

Tripe. It's a reduction in benefit so by definition, not a tax.

Then they should have just cut the benefits shouldn't they.

P C Neilson wrote:

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Mervyn James wrote:
It IS a tax, since if you cannot downsize then you have to pay, the decision to charge people for having unused rooms was NOT based on the fact homeless could then use them, so it is a tax, there is nowhere to downsize to. The fact they ignored disabled and elderly issues means it was pretty clear at the outset they saw this as a way of raising revenue, hence, a TAX.

Tripe. It's a reduction in benefit so by definition, not a tax.

Then they should have just cut the benefits shouldn't they.

As opposed to only cut them for people living in houses that are too big? Why?

Llanmartinangel wrote:

P C Neilson wrote:

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Mervyn James wrote:
It IS a tax, since if you cannot downsize then you have to pay, the decision to charge people for having unused rooms was NOT based on the fact homeless could then use them, so it is a tax, there is nowhere to downsize to. The fact they ignored disabled and elderly issues means it was pretty clear at the outset they saw this as a way of raising revenue, hence, a TAX.

Tripe. It's a reduction in benefit so by definition, not a tax.

Then they should have just cut the benefits shouldn't they.

As opposed to only cut them for people living in houses that are too big? Why?

They could have, but they didn't want to. Why?

Actually I should make my position on this topic more obvious.

If it 'is not' a tax, then why are they not simply moving people to the right sized accomodation, and where is the contingency plan for the resultant baby boom, when families resist being spread from their support. What if everyone just sits tight and takes the benefit cut to stay with their support? Another cut?

I don't care what side of the fence you sit, or whether you call it 'tax' or not, this is not a plan that fits the criterion of the claim objective. I call shenanegans.

If they had to take the money from benefit spending, then they should have just taken it. It is a horrible and selfish way to cover up embarrassing, but necessary actions.

That's what it looks like without a contingency plan.

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Mervyn James wrote:
It IS a tax, since if you cannot downsize then you have to pay, the decision to charge people for having unused rooms was NOT based on the fact homeless could then use them, so it is a tax, there is nowhere to downsize to. The fact they ignored disabled and elderly issues means it was pretty clear at the outset they saw this as a way of raising revenue, hence, a TAX.

Tripe. It's a reduction in benefit so by definition, not a tax.

Not interested in benefit bashing. This is a tax on vulnerable people who have no recourse to avoid it. Maybe Cameron and Co with their 15 bedroomed housing can take a few lodgers in too... but no one has said they have to do it.

The relentless hate media aimed at people on benefits is a witch-hunt at those most in need of it and unable to fight back. No-one aprt fro myself has covered the question of (A) Downsizing, or, (B) the issue of placing strangers in the homes of vulnerable and elderly/disabled.

All I read is hit 'em where it hurts.... no-one here would take a stranger into their home. Maybe the Polish need somewhere ? I could suggest Poland.

Llanmartinangel wrote:

dragonlady1 wrote:
There is also the fact that when my son goes to university I will then have to pay for a spare room, can someone please tell me where my son is suppose to sleep when he is at home.

If you owned the house and couldn't afford the mortgage what would you do? Clue, the tax payer won't help you then.

Go into social housing or private renting and therefore might need help towards the rent, I hope you are never in the need for help. By the way I work and pay taxes.