Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

The "Bedroom Tax" doesn't go far enough! Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    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.
    yes there is, no where near enough smaller houses for people to move into.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    There is a problem with availability of alternatives. These people are being charged NOW with little warning.

    Local authorities admit it could take years to rehouse those who choose to downside to avoid the payments. Ummm... Not really fair...

    The government's answer is for people to turn to the private sector. This is an ideological suggestion and desire and is not based on value for the individuals, the private landlords or, in fact, the taxpayer.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Sure, but it's hardly typical. This is off on a tangent though - for people who don't have disabilities, what do you think?
    For non-disabled who don't have their children overnight, (by that I mean the absent parent who has their child a few nights a week) I think it's fair enough.
    Offline

    1
    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.
    Utter tosh. None of the above are even a little bit related to welfare.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    For non-disabled who don't have their children overnight, (by that I mean the absent parent who has their child a few nights a week) I think it's fair enough.
    And don't you see the problem with such people using disabled people to hide (themselves or others) behind? Because that is what has happened, with people wheeling out (no pun intended) disabled people as reason why the whole thing should be scrapped.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    paraphrase : im selfish and dont care about helping anyone else.
    Additional note: 'aspiringlawstudent' and completely oblivious to welfare needs, social policy and disability.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ziggy2252)
    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.
    I agree. It's like the application of soviet policy to British welfare and treating the poor and needy like trash will solve the issue.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    And don't you see the problem with such people using disabled people to hide (themselves or others) behind? Because that is what has happened, with people wheeling out (no pun intended) disabled people as reason why the whole thing should be scrapped.
    They're not saying the whole thing should be scrapped. But it should be taken into consideration that 2 disabled children can't share a room, that a disabled adult can't share a room with their partner, etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Not quite true. The Registered Social Landlord that I work for has a large number of under occupied properties as well as a proportion of over occupied. So there is the potential for people to exchange with each other.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    They're not saying the whole thing should be scrapped. But it should be taken into consideration that 2 disabled children can't share a room, that a disabled adult can't share a room with their partner, etc.
    Not all are, but I've seen a lot of people complain about being 'made to share' even if there isn't anyone disabled in the family.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    They're not saying the whole thing should be scrapped. But it should be taken into consideration that 2 disabled children can't share a room, that a disabled adult can't share a room with their partner, etc.
    Or for instance where parents are no longer together but share joint custody of the child. Only one parent receives the child benefit and is classed as the 'main carer', as such the other parent is then 'taxed' on the second bedroom that they need to have in order to accommodate the child for half the week.

    And before people jump on their soapboxes I'm not talking about those on JSA. I'm talking about ESA/ DLA claimants who are classed as unfit for work and have no choice but to claim Housing Benefit.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I don't understand the people that call getting less stolen money a 'tax'.

    A tax is where you earn some money through work, the sale of something or investment and the government (read: a band of looters) forcibly takes part of that money from you and claims to have your consent, or to be acting for your own good, or to be acting for the good of the collective; in the public interest.

    This benefit reform means that you get slightly less stolen money.

    That's it.

    The idea that this is a 'tax' is baffling; it's like thinking that you're being taxed if you're given £100 for your birthday one year and £75 the next year. Nobody in their right mind would call that a tax; because you've done nothing whatsoever to be entitled to that money. It's simply that you're being given less money, for which you should still be grateful, for you are not entitled to anything at all.
    Well said mate!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    There is a problem with availability of alternatives. These people are being charged NOW with little warning.

    Local authorities admit it could take years to rehouse those who choose to downside to avoid the payments. Ummm... Not really fair...

    The government's answer is for people to turn to the private sector. This is an ideological suggestion and desire and is not based on value for the individuals, the private landlords or, in fact, the taxpayer.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Indeed this is another problem too. There are long waiting lists for social housing and you aren't going to get those 1 bedroom flats if someone else needs it more than you. Downsizing your current home probably isn't going to be high on the list of priorities.

    I don't think the posh people on this forum realise that you can't just move to another council house just like that. My parents waited on lists for years.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ziggy2252)
    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.
    I understand why people want their own home, their own room, free money and so on, but my question is, why should they get it at the taxpayer's expense, especially as it means another homeless family don't get somewhere to live.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This all stems from a) the lack of regulation in the rental market and b) that a huge section of society- the over 65s - are overprotected.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    I understand why people want their own home, their own room, free money and so on, but my question is, why should they get it at the taxpayer's expense, especially as it means another homeless family don't get somewhere to live.
    Because in Britain thats what we think everyone should have, if it does not come at the taxpayers expense where else would it come from? People are given homes and money to help them become tax paying citizens again.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ziggy2252)
    Because in Britain thats what we think everyone should have, if it does not come at the taxpayers expense where else would it come from? People are given homes and money to help them become tax paying citizens again.
    All the more reason to give that to even more families. By arguing against sharing, you're arguing for fewer families to have a home.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imelda)
    Utter tosh. None of the above are even a little bit related to welfare.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You understand welfare is funded by taxation?

    My point is that taxation is immoral; it does not become legitimate simply because a majority of people say it is legitimate.

    Nobody (I should hope) would say that murder would become legitimate simply if a majority of people voted for it; or slavery, or rape, or assault; so why do we treat theft as legitimate when a majority of people vote to steal through the proxy of government?
 
 
 
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
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

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