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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xelarose)
    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.
    I pay £4000 per annum in tax and national insurance (I'm only at the start of my career as well after graduating).

    You haven't given an argument against it though, just that charities don't like it. I couldn't give a **** what the charities think when they're asking me to pay for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    I pay £4000 per annum in tax and national insurance (I'm only at the start of my career as well after graduating).

    You haven't given an argument against it though, just that charities don't like it. I couldn't give a **** what the charities think when they're asking me to pay for it.
    I have. The charities don't like it because it's harmful to vulnerable people. Did you not eat that inference from the fact that they're charities designed to protect vulnerable people?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Some of you clearly have no idea how this bedroom tax works:
    Not everyone has a spare room. The Government / council claim they do; but that room is far from spare.

    There was a case recently where a family were told to pay bedroom tax. They have 2 girls, one has Downs Syndrome and the other has Spina Bifida. They both have night time care needs and depending on the severity of the girls disabilities, they may require a room to store medical equipment. Can someone really tell me it's fair that someone is forced to share a room when the other person has night time care needs and the parent / carer is up several times a night?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I literally think this forum is full of weird people who have never been in the real world. Not only does everyone on another thread feel like its there right to know why someone is on benefits for 12 years just because they pay tax is one thing, but now a thread saying put familys together to save money jeez i hope your family lose there home and when the council offer you a property you tell them no we cant have our own home lets share with joe bloggs down the road to save taxpayers money what a joke im outta this weird dilluded place.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Some of you clearly have no idea how this bedroom tax works:
    Not everyone has a spare room. The Government / council claim they do; but that room is far from spare.

    There was a case recently where a family were told to pay bedroom tax. They have 2 girls, one has Downs Syndrome and the other has Spina Bifida. They both have night time care needs and depending on the severity of the girls disabilities, they may require a room to store medical equipment. Can someone really tell me it's fair that someone is forced to share a room when the other person has night time care needs and the parent / carer is up several times a night?
    Like I've already said, there are individual cases that need review.

    The principle of the rule is right however.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Chadya)
    Like I've already said, there are individual cases that need review.

    The principle of the rule is right however.
    This rule would only be right if there was enough housing for everyone. There are more people who need smaller homes than there are smaller homes.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    No doubt the mugger that steals from me at knifepoint to buy food for his family thinks his actions moral too.

    But that does not make them so.

    If it could be proven that it would benefit 51% of society by killing the other 49%, do you think that is a moral course of conduct?

    I hold that it is not; people are ends in themselves with natural rights to freedom from coercion. The fact that others may benefit from keeping slaves does not justify slavery. The fact that others may benefit from murder does not justify murder. The fact that others may benefit from theft does not justify theft.
    Benefiting others by killing 49%? No, that's not the right analogy. If someone is starving and at the stage where they need to steal to survive, first of all, just how much CAN you blame them? If you know that £20 they stole fed them (and didn't go on drugs, alcohol etc.) for x amount of days, just how angry are you?

    So rather than letting someone starve, the government decides to give them money to survive on.....and rather than stealing from you specifically, they took that from everyone, so everyone contributed fairly.

    What's the problem?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Bloody toffs again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Benefiting others by killing 49%? No, that's not the right analogy. If someone is starving and at the stage where they need to steal to survive, first of all, just how much CAN you blame them? If you know that £20 they stole fed them (and didn't go on drugs, alcohol etc.) for x amount of days, just how angry are you?

    So rather than letting someone starve, the government decides to give them money to survive on.....and rather than stealing from you specifically, they took that from everyone, so everyone contributed fairly.

    What's the problem?
    I don't think people have the right to steal from others merely because they 'need' to.

    It's not as if they are in that position because the rest of society took their ability to survive away from them, is it?

    There is nothing wrong with acting in self-preservation where someone else has directly infringed your rights - for example, there is nothing wrong in fighting back if someone is attacking you - but I don't hold that theft is morally justifiable just because you are starving when that state has been caused by either some sort of misfortune, including disability, or your own failures.

    People that genuinely cannot provide for themselves, of which there are rather few, should rely upon voluntary charity. They are not entitled to steal from everybody else, via the proxy of government, for their survival - and nor is anyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Some of you clearly have no idea how this bedroom tax works:
    Not everyone has a spare room. The Government / council claim they do; but that room is far from spare.

    There was a case recently where a family were told to pay bedroom tax. They have 2 girls, one has Downs Syndrome and the other has Spina Bifida. They both have night time care needs and depending on the severity of the girls disabilities, they may require a room to store medical equipment. Can someone really tell me it's fair that someone is forced to share a room when the other person has night time care needs and the parent / carer is up several times a night?
    Cannot agree with you more, and if the two children suffer from these painful and difficult disabilities they'll no doubt have trouble sleeping at night. Why should they be forced to share and risk waking the other up from a much needed sleep? Also heard a case recently about a man and his disabled wife who are being forced to downgrade to one bedroom instead of two. The man and wife sleep in separate beds because if he moves in the night it hurts his wife because of her afflictions.

    Like you said, these rooms aren't spare rooms. What seems like an empty room to Osborne and Cameron is a life-saver to these people.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pandabird)
    Then they shouldn't have formed a coalition with such opposing views. But that's another matter altogether.
    Well that's something we both agree on, but like you say, that's for a different thread.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think you have all been trolled here. It's April fools day you know?

    But the bedroom "tax" is interesting because most social houses are 2 or 3 bedrooms and there is a severe lack of 1 bedroom houses (or even flats) for people to downgrade to. My hometown is full of this type of accommodation and the kind of people who live here are older people with grown up kids or pensioners. May as well evacuate the whole town. The fun part is this new tax will push up the rent on one bedroom properties and flats because there will be huge demand for it now. The struggling youth are going to love that.

    Just finding a one bedroom house or flat is a massive pain in the arse. Every time I look on rental websites you have companies falsely advertising 5 bedroom houses under 1 bedroom searches and labeling them "flat shares", yeah because that is what I was looking for. This kind of accommodation makes up the majority of properties on these websites when searching for 1 bedroom properties and it really isn't suitable for anyone but students. It's only suitable for students because they are quite happy to live in appalling conditions, or they are sharing with friends.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    some people like there freedom and don't want randomers living in there house, OP you are a mug.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Let us just put a tax on everything. Let us tax 70% of everyones salaries.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder if the Queen will be hit by the 'Bedroom Tax'? After all, she lives in a home owned by the State, and it has 100+ empty bedrooms......
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Some of you clearly have no idea how this bedroom tax works:
    Not everyone has a spare room. The Government / council claim they do; but that room is far from spare.

    There was a case recently where a family were told to pay bedroom tax. They have 2 girls, one has Downs Syndrome and the other has Spina Bifida. They both have night time care needs and depending on the severity of the girls disabilities, they may require a room to store medical equipment. Can someone really tell me it's fair that someone is forced to share a room when the other person has night time care needs and the parent / carer is up several times a night?
    You can bring up rare exceptions, and most people would agree that these cases should be exempt, but that doesn't shake the core reasoning of the policy which is to get more people into housing.

    (Original post by OU Student)
    This rule would only be right if there was enough housing for everyone. There are more people who need smaller homes than there are smaller homes.
    Say you got 20 homes with a total of 60 rooms, and 50 families needing 75 rooms in total, do you house 20 families using 30 rooms, or do you house 40 families using 60 rooms? Sure, there are some people still without a place to live, but it's less than allocating 1 family per home. My point was we don't need to have smaller homes, we can address it by putting more people in the bigger homes - I'm surprised so many people on here seem to disagree with what I've said considering how many should have been made to share a room with a stranger at university, and a kitchen and bathroom with a load more.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    I think you have all been trolled here. It's April fools day you know?

    But the bedroom "tax" is interesting because most social houses are 2 or 3 bedrooms and there is a severe lack of 1 bedroom houses (or even flats) for people to downgrade to. My hometown is full of this type of accommodation and the kind of people who live here are older people with grown up kids or pensioners. May as well evacuate the whole town. The fun part is this new tax will push up the rent on one bedroom properties and flats because there will be huge demand for it now. The struggling youth are going to love that.

    Just finding a one bedroom house or flat is a massive pain in the arse. Every time I look on rental websites you have companies falsely advertising 5 bedroom houses under 1 bedroom searches and labeling them "flat shares", yeah because that is what I was looking for. This kind of accommodation makes up the majority of properties on these websites when searching for 1 bedroom properties and it really isn't suitable for anyone but students. It's only suitable for students because they are quite happy to live in appalling conditions, or they are sharing with friends.
    Made it after noon, so no

    Why can't people share? And if the living conditions are 'appalling', then the properties were already that way before sharing, so that's another issue that needs to be addressed rather than blaming the sharing.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Hopple)
    You can bring up rare exceptions, and most people would agree that these cases should be exempt, but that doesn't shake the core reasoning of the policy which is to get more people into housing.
    There are many other cases like this.

    Say you got 20 homes with a total of 60 rooms, and 50 families needing 75 rooms in total, do you house 20 families using 30 rooms, or do you house 40 families using 60 rooms? Sure, there are some people still without a place to live, but it's less than allocating 1 family per home. My point was we don't need to have smaller homes, we can address it by putting more people in the bigger homes - I'm surprised so many people on here seem to disagree with what I've said considering how many should have been made to share a room with a stranger at university, and a kitchen and bathroom with a load more.
    Why should people be forced to live with strangers? And then there's those who have young children - not everyone wants to live with a young child / baby.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I don't think people have the right to steal from others merely because they 'need' to.

    It's not as if they are in that position because the rest of society took their ability to survive away from them, is it?

    There is nothing wrong with acting in self-preservation where someone else has directly infringed your rights - for example, there is nothing wrong in fighting back if someone is attacking you - but I don't hold that theft is morally justifiable just because you are starving when that state has been caused by either some sort of misfortune, including disability, or your own failures.

    People that genuinely cannot provide for themselves, of which there are rather few, should rely upon voluntary charity. They are not entitled to steal from everybody else, via the proxy of government, for their survival - and nor is anyone else.
    But if 100 jobs are available in the UK for 200 people, does that mean 100 people, regardless of how able they are, are responsible for their failures?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    There are many other cases like this.
    Sure, but it's hardly typical. This is off on a tangent though - for people who don't have disabilities, what do you think?



    Why should people be forced to live with strangers? And then there's those who have young children - not everyone wants to live with a young child / baby.
    If they want subsidised accommodation they can share. As for young children and babies, it's not difficult to match families up who have similarly aged children and babies.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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