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

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Why don't those 100 people that are left-over get together and do something of value, for one thing?

    And secondly, that speaks more to the other point; regardless of misfortune (finding yourself in a bad economy) I don't believe it is the moral obligation of others to help you. If they choose to, they are to be commended, but I don't think anyone is obliged to.
    You appreciate the fact that a job is available, having a job doesn't equal being "helped out," the employers make a profit out of it, you earn less money than you have contributed to the company.

    Also "get together and do something of value?" Like what exactly? I remember your views on welfare as, so I assume it fits in here too. Well done to those who've successfully become businessmen, those who've developed a successful app or something like that, but it's not exactly easy. Joe Bloggs walks in, having been laid off at the construction site, you say to him, "go out there and do something."

    Go to university? Without capital there isn't much to do as a businessman.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkWhite)
    I don't think 'bedroom tax' is the best phrase, because whoever receives housing benefit doesn't receive the money, but receive the housing.

    Housing benefit goes into the pockets of landlords, which is why it would be far better economically if this government and past governments had built more social housing - the money gets pumped back into local services, people get the housing they need instead of a 50% rise in homelessness last year, and the economy gets a cheeky boost.

    But you know, the coalition doesn't believe in growth, or poor people.
    Expecting Tories to build council houses? The same ones that were sold off by Thatcher?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Expecting Tories to build council houses? The same ones that were sold off by Thatcher?
    Quite.

    Labour were no better in their latest years unfortunately. As a party, they understand the benefits, but clearly it didn't fall into their priorities.

    Might be a policy-winner for 2015 GE?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkWhite)
    Quite.

    Labour were no better in their latest years unfortunately. As a party, they understand the benefits, but clearly it didn't fall into their priorities.

    Might be a policy-winner for 2015 GE?
    Might be, but unlikely. Most people (of voting age) in this country are homeowners, and to build more homes will 'devalue' their 'investment'. It's why, even though the bank bailouts plunged us into crazy debt, Labour still managed to come second in the last GE - most people are homeowners and appreciated Labour keeping their house price up. I'm not saying people didn't mind being dumped in that much debt, but it wasn't the death knell it would have been otherwise.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    this bedroom tax would work if there were smaller houses for people to go to, as there arent forcing 2 families to share living and cooking toilet etc facilities is not the right way to go about it, what if one family has lived in a house with a spare room for 5 years, has it decorated how they like it with all their own stuff in it, how would you like to have a couple or family with a baby forced into your home?
    I wouldn't much like it. But then again, I'm not on living off other people: I pay my rent, and actually do share my flat. The Government isn't even asking that, simply that they pay 14% of their rental value to secure a separate bedroom.

    (Original post by Hopple)
    What sort of people have been wrongly hit? I remember Channel 4 news doing a piece on this, and the first (and only) example they used was a woman who needed a (massive) hospital bed - obviously something that needs to be looked at but hardly a criticism of the scheme's essence.
    Realistically, these things are being funded by discretionary housing payments. This is because they are too difficult to legislate exemptions for: there are too many possible variations of circumstances that might well necessitate flexibility.

    The left have used that, stupidly, to pretend that there is somehow no provision for the disabled. That's simply not the case.

    (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 share a flat. Am I some sort of animal?

    How much do we lose out on tax evasion every year?
    Very little. Indeed, the costs of pursuing all cases of tax evasion would hugely outweigh the extra money for the exchequer. We'd essentially be poorer.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Expecting Tories to build council houses? The same ones that were sold off by Thatcher?
    The Tories have a fine record of council house building in the past...
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    The Tories have a fine record of council house building in the past...
    And a fine record of selling them off and then not rebuilding more
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I wouldn't much like it. But then again, I'm not on living off other people: I pay my rent, and actually do share my flat. The Government isn't even asking that, simply that they pay 14% of their rental value to secure a separate bedroom.
    have you lived in that flat your whole life with a family? no, well your point is irrelevant then, asking them to pay 14% more for a room they have always had and with no where smaller to go is wrong.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Dear oh dear, the loony left Labour Nazis are out in force again, spouting off things they have no idea what they are talking about :rolleyes:

    Just to offer some clarification, I abhorrently oppose what is a reduction in benefit allowance (not, for God's sake, a bedroom tax :rolleyes: ) but can we please stop calling it a bedroom tax?

    The actual problem here isn't, actually, about who owning what vs. how much they actually need. It's about the lack of housing. If the government was really insistent on helping people out and making things 'fairer', then the government would instead spend money on renovating derelict houses and building new ones - not by penalising people for what they have.

    The fact that the Tories are touting this to be fair is a complete and utter BS. This is another attempt at squeezing people for what little they have. But, just like the riots in Hackney and Tottingham over the student fees two years ago and the Poll Tax in 1990 - By the same party no less - This unfair and totally unworkable benefit cut will be met by with high resistance from the British public :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "loony left Labour Nazis"?

    You seem a tad confused.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I wouldn't much like it. But then again, I'm not on living off other people: I pay my rent, and actually do share my flat. The Government isn't even asking that, simply that they pay 14% of their rental value to secure a separate bedroom.



    Realistically, these things are being funded by discretionary housing payments. This is because they are too difficult to legislate exemptions for: there are too many possible variations of circumstances that might well necessitate flexibility.

    The left have used that, stupidly, to pretend that there is somehow no provision for the disabled. That's simply not the case.



    I share a flat. Am I some sort of animal?



    Very little. Indeed, the costs of pursuing all cases of tax evasion would hugely outweigh the extra money for the exchequer. We'd essentially be poorer.
    No but you are either a student or a young, ambitious budding professional who has it all planned out....share a flat with some like-minded young people for the beginning. Then live in a small, but nice house with a partner, then live in a bigger family home.

    How would you feel about sharing your young family home with other lodgers in your late thirties? Have some insight.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    have you lived in that flat your whole life with a family? no, well your point is irrelevant then, asking them to pay 14% more for a room they have always had and with no where smaller to go is wrong.
    It is unfair. If there were a surplus of small houses and a massive demand for family homes then fair enough. But as is always the case, the Tories didn't think it through properly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    have you lived in that flat your whole life with a family? no, well your point is irrelevant then, asking them to pay 14% more for a room they have always had and with no where smaller to go is wrong.
    Hmmm

    But there is private accommodation available

    After all it's cheaper to pay a 1bed private rent than a 3bed private place
    Offline

    19
    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
    So get benefits and work for free = Slavery.

    Work for a salery which is the same as benefits i.e £1.78 per hour (£71 pounds for 40 hours work) = Expliotation.

    Voluntary jobs are for people who want to volunteer, something a benefits claimant can do already.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    What sort of people have been wrongly hit? I remember Channel 4 news doing a piece on this, and the first (and only) example they used was a woman who needed a (massive) hospital bed - obviously something that needs to be looked at but hardly a criticism of the scheme's essence.

    Why shouldn't a living room count as an extra bedroom? If we (the taxpayer) pay for a bed to go in there and it isn't a connecting room (i.e. the only route from another bedroom to a shared room), then it makes sense to stick an extra set of people in there, as many students will know.

    I'm not saying the 'bedroom tax' scheme is perfect, far from it, but given that it's looking at how many rooms are in a property, it makes sense to stick people in there instead of just taking some money back.



    No, the murderer is responsible for the murder. The only lawyers licking their lips would be the prosecution at the prospect of the defence being "I killed him because I had to share a house with him". Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?
    Would you like the poorest in society to go back towards the living conditions of 100 years ago?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)


    Realistically, these things are being funded by discretionary housing payments. This is because they are too difficult to legislate exemptions for: there are too many possible variations of circumstances that might well necessitate flexibility.

    The left have used that, stupidly, to pretend that there is somehow no provision for the disabled. That's simply not the case.
    Yeah, that report by Ch4 news really annoyed me (as proof, it's stuck in my mind), I wouldn't have thought they'd do such shoddy journalism. I remember more recently some MP being asked if they should have explained more clearly about the funding for such exceptions, and I just thought the media in general wasn't doing its job - instead of scaremongering, see what options are actually available.
    (Original post by paul514)
    Would you like the poorest in society to go back towards the living conditions of 100 years ago?
    If you have 2 extra rooms in a home, would you rather they stay empty or we get another family into housing? People keep forgetting about the extra people we'd manage to house, and instead focus only on the people having to share. This is a way to get more people into housing using the information already compiled for the "Bedroom Tax", i.e. how many people in various properties and how many rooms.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I was going to read all the posts on this thread and reply as I saw fit to each one but it got to the point where enough was enough I couldnt read anymore *******s.

    Simple facts are these..... we live in a socialist/capitalist country, in such a country where if fate deals you a bad hand you have access to the basics in life such as a roof over your head, food in your belly and treatment for sickness. Isnt that great?

    Well.... yes is the simple answer.

    The issue of the day isnt if that is the right or wrong thing to do but how far do you go and how much does it cost.

    At face value the idea of placing one person from a 3 bed home is a good idea but then you have the following issues.....

    1. There isnt enough 1 bed places.
    2. The demand to reorganise social housing isnt needed in certain areas of the country.
    3. The people moving home generally have to buy new things for there home who pays for this?(a three seat sofa is unlikely to fit etc).
    4. Down sizing forces them to sell their possessions (they wont fit).
    5. People with a larger home had this home for a reason 99% of the time it will be because they had a family of this size what happens when they want to visit their parents?
    6. Again using point 5 the tennant is likely to have occupied the home for a long time and be part of the community therefore moving them has an effect on that community and social house is likely to be with many other social houses making the people who live in that area move in and out quickly due to their current circumstances and completely destroying the community of the area.
    7. When a tennant is likely to stay in a home for a long time they are likely to take more care of said property with keeping it in a good condition.

    To follow this lets play the blame game there are two reasons why we are in the state we are in with regards to social housing.

    Firstly the right to buy introduced by Thatcher, this has been a great social mobility tool and created many many property owners however when the houses were sold the money went to central government and not to local and therefore the housing stock was never replaced. Before the right to buy was introduced a massive part of society lived in houses rented from the council.

    Secondly the credit crunch of 2007 ment we have apparently needed to spend less as a government, this was not the fault of social tenants and one could and in my opinon should argue that it should be paid back by the people who benefitted in the main from those institutions that caused the crisis this is the banks themselves and more importantly the people who own them the shareholders. This should not be paid back by the lower classes in society for want of a better term.

    Getting back on topic it comes down to this as a country with our ideals we have a set of rules people get free education (erroded idea by tuition fees), free health care, a roof over your head and a little money in your pocket should you fall into a situation where you need the latter.

    All of the above is paid for via taxes of every working person which avoids all sorts of issues which are far worse than paying for the current system.

    The solution really is stop moaning and sort the situation out they could for example introduce a law for the next five years where planning permisison is relaxed for social housing and simply build more homes making this issue null and void and getting the construction sector moving and helping the economy as a whole.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I would also like to add if it is ok to say these people shouldnt be given this level of support then why should students get grants? I'm not against grants at all but it is something for some people on this forum to ponder who are so against the welfare system.

    Social mobility should always be the order of the day empowering people to be the best they can be so they can benefit themselves and the country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I was going to read all the posts on this thread and reply as I saw fit to each one but it got to the point where enough was enough I couldnt read anymore *******s.
    I don't think you read the first post, let alone the second or third.


    1. There isnt enough 1 bed places.
    2. The demand to reorganise social housing isnt needed in certain areas of the country.
    3. The people moving home generally have to buy new things for there home who pays for this?(a three seat sofa is unlikely to fit etc).
    4. Down sizing forces them to sell their possessions (they wont fit).
    5. People with a larger home had this home for a reason 99% of the time it will be because they had a family of this size what happens when they want to visit their parents?
    6. Again using point 5 the tennant is likely to have occupied the home for a long time and be part of the community therefore moving them has an effect on that community and social house is likely to be with many other social houses making the people who live in that area move in and out quickly due to their current circumstances and completely destroying the community of the area.
    7. When a tennant is likely to stay in a home for a long time they are likely to take more care of said property with keeping it in a good condition.
    My suggestion goes some way to alleviate 1, and if we're sticking the one bedroom desiring currently homeless people into bigger properties, then 3, 4, 6 and 7 don't apply. 2 is valid, but not a criticism past "We don't need to implement it everywhere" - few people would argue that we have no housing shortage anywhere, or even in most places. 5 might be an issue, but I'd rather have an extra family in housing than keep a room empty for the occasions when they have a visitor - sofas aren't that bad, and I've even slept on the floor to no ill effects.

    You're right about the need to build more housing (not just social housing), but no government wants to do that, especially right now, because it'll reduce the value of existing houses, which is what our economy depends on. It makes sense to anyone to have cheap food, water, gas, electricity, place to live, transport and so on (well, cheap everything would be nice, but those are the essentials), but unfortunately loads of people decided to 'invest' in property and profit from otherwise homeless people, and there are so many of them (single home owners too, though they aren't doing anything negative) that it's bad politics to (deliberately) devalue house prices.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    I don't think you read the first post, let alone the second or third.




    My suggestion goes some way to alleviate 1, and if we're sticking the one bedroom desiring currently homeless people into bigger properties, then 3, 4, 6 and 7 don't apply. 2 is valid, but not a criticism past "We don't need to implement it everywhere" - few people would argue that we have no housing shortage anywhere, or even in most places. 5 might be an issue, but I'd rather have an extra family in housing than keep a room empty for the occasions when they have a visitor - sofas aren't that bad, and I've even slept on the floor to no ill effects.

    You're right about the need to build more housing (not just social housing), but no government wants to do that, especially right now, because it'll reduce the value of existing houses, which is what our economy depends on. It makes sense to anyone to have cheap food, water, gas, electricity, place to live, transport and so on (well, cheap everything would be nice, but those are the essentials), but unfortunately loads of people decided to 'invest' in property and profit from otherwise homeless people, and there are so many of them (single home owners too, though they aren't doing anything negative) that it's bad politics to (deliberately) devalue house prices.
    Home sharing will never happen and the whole issue is avoided by building more social homes so I shall skip to that point.

    Yes the housing market is important to the economy but just because you build a million homes and there happens to be 20 million already doesnt mean house prices will drop by 5%.

    Simply more of the demand for houses will be met at the bottom end of the ladder. As for bad politics all people have an equal vote at the general election and a propperty investor doesnt recieve 10000 ballets to fill out so it certainly isnt bad politics.

    It just takes balls to carry out the action... building on green belt upsets the greens, borrowing money to do this upsets the right wing, and people as a whole sit on the fence over such issues as it is so bold and they worry about the effects needlessly such as their house price.

    The prime perpose of a home is to live in not to make money from it.
 
 
 
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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    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

    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.