Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pandabird)
    Just stick them together? What the ****. They aren't animals, they are humans, individuals.
    How dare you talk as if they are so beneath you? You repulse me.

    I feel this bed room tax is appalling. It wouldn't be so bad if the Tories were planning on following through with their mansion tax but no they turned their backs on that.

    How much do we lose out on tax evasion every year?
    The 'Mansion Tax' is in no way a Tory dream, it belongs to the minor party in Government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    your trying to put up alot of strawmen there arent you? im just going to ignore them all.

    taxes pay for schools roads healthcare etc etc etc, this benefits the tax payer and the rest of society. even benefits help everyone by reducing crime rates.
    I don't believe in sacrificing the rights of individuals to keep their property and dispose of it as they wish to the desires of collectives.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pandabird)
    Just stick them together? What the ****. They aren't animals, they are humans, individuals.
    How dare you talk as if they are so beneath you? You repulse me.

    I feel this bed room tax is appalling. It wouldn't be so bad if the Tories were planning on following through with their mansion tax but no they turned their backs on that.

    How much do we lose out on tax evasion every year?
    Why the **** should I pay hard-earned money for someone to have EXTRA rooms than they need?

    I am saving for a mortgage and would love to have extra space at present, but because I don't want to go cap in hand to the taxpayer I am having to make do with the space that I have.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dragonfly07)
    I am not able to pick any free piece of land that I find and build a house on it without permission for me to live in. For that reason, the state should be responsible to house me somewhere if I am not able to find something myself.
    I assume you, like me, support the idea of the state selling off all excess government land and removing all restrictions on building on greenfield sites, then?

    Also, have you considered that the country is overpopulated and that without the responsibility of having to find housing for themselves people will continue to create ever more people that there are not houses for?

    The amount of land in any nation, and indeed the world, is obviously finite; it cannot house an infinite number of people. Do you not think people need to the built-in incentives a free market provides to manage their consumption of land appropriately?

    Also, why does any one person deserve, or even require, to have the state rob someone else through taxation to fund their housing? I found somewhere to live without any state involvement. So did my parents, and theirs before them, and so did everyone, for that matter, before the invention of social housing.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I don't believe in sacrificing the rights of individuals to keep their property and dispose of it as they wish to the desires of collectives.
    paraphrase : im selfish and dont care about helping anyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    The 'Mansion Tax' is in no way a Tory dream, it belongs to the minor party in Government.
    Then they shouldn't have formed a coalition with such opposing views. But that's another matter altogether.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Those who are living off the government shouldn't get their own house, they should have to live with others in joint accomodation. This would mean a cheap 10 bedroom house could hold up to 20 people, and they would have more incentive to earn their own money and get their own house.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    paraphrase : im selfish and dont care about helping anyone else.
    I give to charity regularly, actually. And I work pro-bono in my law school.

    But I do these things willingly. I'm not forced to. I believe in the freedom to choose charity; and I would encourage people to do so, but I would never force another man to live for me, nor do I think it moral for him to do the same to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, let's all comment about those ghastly poor people arguing against the bedroom tax whilst we all sit here on our IPads and Apple Macs in our five bedroom house courtesy of daddy.

    Have you ever lived in a 2 bedroom house? I live in one with my family at home and although we make do it isn't ideal. They're ridiculously cramped houses, and before anybody asks no I have two working parents who don't rely on benefits at all. You can't simply put two families together like shared accommodation of students. There's a reason these people rely on the government, they're vulnerable. You can't make them more vulnerable by sticking them together to co-share a house with their respective families. I know! Let's get Fred, the unemployed burnt up schizophrenic with social problems and stick him with the teenage mother and her three young children. Good idea, no problems there.

    I understand there's a big need for welfare reform, particularly to stop it being misused, but at the expense of people's dignities, their livelihoods and general welfare I'd say there HAS to be a better solution, one better than this ridiculous tax.

    The bedroom tax smacks of people making decisions for the poor, the working class and the vulnerable without any idea of how it feels to walk a mile in their shoes. Where's the dignity for these people?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    paraphrase : im selfish and dont care about helping anyone else.
    There is not a single argument against this 'Bedroom Tax'. I would love to have more space in the house I rent, but refuse to go cap in hand to the taxpayer, so have to live within my means and save up for a mortgage in the long term. These people who expect to have their arses wiped on my taxes piss me off.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xelarose)
    Yes, let's all comment about those ghastly poor people arguing against the bedroom tax whilst we all sit here on our IPads and Apple Macs in our five bedroom house courtesy of daddy.

    Have you ever lived in a 2 bedroom house? I live in one with my family at home and although we make do it isn't ideal. They're ridiculously cramped houses, and before anybody asks no I have two working parents who don't rely on benefits at all. You can't simply put two families together like shared accommodation of students. There's a reason these people rely on the government, they're vulnerable. You can't make them more vulnerable by sticking them together to co-share a house with their respective families. I know! Let's get Fred, the unemployed burnt up schizophrenic with social problems and stick him with the teenage mother and her three young children. Good idea, no problems there.

    I understand there's a big need for welfare reform, particularly to stop it being misused, but at the expense of people's dignities, their livelihoods and general welfare I'd say there HAS to be a better solution, one better than this ridiculous tax.

    The bedroom tax smacks of people making decisions for the poor, the working class and the vulnerable without any idea of how it feels to walk a mile in their shoes. Where's the dignity for these people?
    What are you on about? This is about penalising families with space that they don't need. In your case you wouldn't be penalised. You have a bedroom for you and a bedroom for your parents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fudgemuffins)
    Those who are living off the government shouldn't get their own house, they should have to live with others in joint accomodation. This would mean a cheap 10 bedroom house could hold up to 20 people, and they would have more incentive to earn their own money and get their own house.
    This.

    What kind of people do you think NEED welfare? Not the ones suited for living with others.

    People with young children, illnesses, mental disabilities, physical disabilities, ex-criminals, those with drug problems, those with poor social skills, isolated men and women who haven't spoken to a family member in decades.

    These kind of people should live with each other? It'd be hard for a normal, everyday family to co-share with another, let alone people with massive issues.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I assume you, like me, support the idea of the state selling off all excess government land and removing all restrictions on building on greenfield sites, then?
    That is such a terrible idea
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    What are you on about? This is about penalising families with space that they don't need. In your case you wouldn't be penalised. You have a bedroom for you and a bedroom for your parents.
    But the point is they do need them. Else this tax wouldn't be so controversial would it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xelarose)
    But the point is they do need them. Else this tax wouldn't be so controversial would it?
    It's controversial because they have got used to having all the extra space, and don't like that they now have to downsize, or pay for it themselves.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zmai)
    Surely people might want to have a house to themselves for safety? And if someone has worked hard all their life, paying tonnes of tax anyway and helping the government by perhaps creating jobs and revenue, why can't they spend their hard earned cash on a larger house? People aren't taxed on taking holidays or buying expensive gifts? So why should they be taxed for spending their money in a different way? The well-off are giving so much of their money to taxes anyway, whereas there are people abusing benefits and doing nothing but they still get benefits? Surely councils can find voluntary jobs to suit them, so at least they're doing something in return for the community?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You can buy whatever size house you want, you can have a 20 bedroom house all to yourself if you can afford it.

    This "bedroom tax" only applies to people who live in social housing, and are therefor spending the governments money on a larger house.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    It's controversial because they have got used to having all the extra space, and don't like that they now have to downsize, or pay for it themselves.
    Really? And you know that from experience do you?

    And I assume all the charities designed to protect families and children from poverty are arguing against it because they too want all this extra space?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macabre)
    I do believe that this is what the change in benefit (Which is what it is, Labour call it a 'Tax') is trying to achieve. With a loss in earnings, the only way they can make up the money is to rent the room out to a lodger to make the shortfall. Course with it being social housing the initial occupier wouldnt benefit from the new occupant, theyd just have to live with that person being there as to not have the spare room.

    What this doesnt address in terms of housing is families. A couple with 2 children will need a minimum of two rooms, three rooms if different sex children and strain on same sex children will be shown as they get older.

    Quite simply, there is not enough affordable housing to go round. What Thatcher never predicted was a massive financial collapse which means deposits on mortgages are at crazy proportions which are out of reach of many middle class workers, never mind the working class. Add on to top the high prices of many houses equals a difficult time for people in the housing market.

    There needs to be much more heavier investment in the building of houses and, dare i say it, council houses. Why these buildings have been systematically eradicated over the past 30 years is mad and made obvious to everyone now how important they are.
    Indeed, the bottom line is, we need more housing. Secondary is we need the housing to be in the hands of the inhabitants rather than landlords who seek to drive prices up and profit from the otherwise homeless. However, with what we have, I think it makes sense to put people into the identified 'empty'/extra rooms than just take money back from the inhabitants.

    I think the change was intended to put pressure on people to downsize, rather than to get them to take in more people, hence the fuss about having to move and find somewhere else. If the extra people were arranged by the government, I think it would actually end up saving even more money because they needn't pay all sets of tenants individually, just the one amount for the property. That's as an added benefit though, the main thing would be to get as many people as possible a decent place to live.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xelarose)
    Really? And you know that from experience do you?

    And I assume all the charities designed to protect families and children from poverty are arguing against it because they too want all this extra space?
    Charities are arguing from the perspective of upheaval, which I'm sorry, isn't my problem. There are also doubtless cases that should be reviewed (like I saw an example of someone who needs the space to accommodate a large hospital bed). For the most part however, the charities are talking a pile of ****.

    Furthermore, it's only £14 a week they're cutting. That's less than most of that lot spend of cigarettes!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    Charities are arguing from the perspective of upheaval, which I'm sorry, isn't my problem. There are also doubtless cases that should be reviewed (like I saw an example of someone who needs the space to accommodate a large hospital bed). For the most part, the charities are talking a pile of ****.

    Furthermore, it's only £14 a week they're cutting. That's less than most of that lot spend of cigarettes!
    Your problem? And how much tax do you give, exactly? Charities are arguing from the perspective of the vulnerable people they try and help because that's their job, they're charities.

    Do you actually know how much £14 a week (per bedroom, I hasten to add) is to them in comparison to what they get? Quite a lot.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 12, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.