Bedroom Tax

[Max Power]

A scrounger who has never worked although perfectly able bodied, and lives alone in a three bedroomed house was complaining about either having to move to smaller accommodation or be "penalised" for having two empty bedrooms.
My response was that if I couldn't afford to live in a property that was much larger than my needs then I would have to move , so why shouldn't he do the same and why the hell should my taxes go to subsidising his excesses.
For some reason he took offence :roll: , was I wrong

 

[Max Power]

could a mod please move this to general chat
thanks

 

[MickCheese]

No, you're absolutely right.

Mick

 

[eribaMotters]

To give you some indication of how much benefit is being claimed, consider my position. I do not earn a lot, just a little over the average wage. I am a 51 year old teacher with 30 years experience, married with 2 sons, 20 and 23. Admittedly I work a 40 week year, but I average 55hrs a week as opposed to the "normal" 38hrs. After I have deducted the mortgage from my take home pay I am left with an amount substantially less than my [Post Office counters part time working] wife routinely hands out each week to 30 year olds who are unemployed. This is of course after she has taken out the vastly reduced rent they pay to the council.
Admittedly I am fortunate enough in getting odd paying woodwork jobs, but without these I get no holidays and have no spending money.
I am only grateful the "gentleman" with bedrooms you mentioned has not crossed my path.

Colin

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I used to use a post office on a council estate because it was easy parking, and I was there one social security day. The amount of money handed out was unreal, and I followed a girl from the p.o. counter to the front of the shop where she bought £5 of chocolate, 200 cigarettes and thirty quids worth of lottery tickets. Nice work if you can get it.
I see in one area rent arrears have gone up 500% since they stopped paying the money directly to the landlords - I wonder who thought that was a good idea?

 

[eribaMotters]

I should not post this, but I will. The previous Post Office branch my good lady worked at was a "corner shop" affair. It had been raided on several occasions and I could not figure out why, until I was informed that it had to carry sufficient funds to cover it if the usual cash delivery was late. 15/20 years ago we were looking at £1/4 million plus.

Colin

 

[Jacob]

A scrounger who has never worked although perfectly able bodied, and lives alone in a three bedroomed house was complaining about either having to move to smaller accommodation or be "penalised" for having two empty bedrooms.
My response was that if I couldn't afford to live in a property that was much larger than my needs then I would have to move , so why shouldn't he do the same and why the hell should my taxes go to subsidising his excesses.
For some reason he took offence :roll: , was I wrong

Yes you were wrong. If your story is in any way true no doubt the truth itself is far more complicated. Most likely it's just supposition as there is a great deal of malicious gossip being generated and directed at the poor; tory policy eagerly assisted by right wing press.
It's a band-wagon everybody seems keen to get on (see other posts :roll: ) - the bankers and tax evaders must laugh their socks off! Not to mention the second home owners, large house owners and other wealthy under-occupiers of many varieties.

There are some layabouts living in this place - they've got plenty of spare bedrooms:

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Jacob, I live in a very poor area. The majority of the poor are the ones working their nuts off to subsidise people who pick up more in benefits than they do working. The area is swamped with Poles,Lithuanians and Latvians doing jobs that are beneath the local pond life. Malicious gossip? Tory policy eagerly assisted by a right wing press? A band wagon everybody seems keen to get on? You are kidding, aren't you?

 

[Jacob]

Jacob, I live in a very poor area. The majority of the poor are the ones working their nuts off to subsidise people who pick up more in benefits than they do working. The area is swamped with Poles,Lithuanians and Latvians doing jobs that are beneath the local pond life. Malicious gossip? Tory policy eagerly assisted by a right wing press? A band wagon everybody seems keen to get on? You are kidding, aren't you?

No joke at all. Social problems in the SW (and many other places particularly London) are very much down to high house prices and low wages. Wages can't cover rents or mortgages which creates another benefits trap. This opens the way for migrant workers who are less dependent on housing and make do with some appalling but short term conditions. This is all well documented, but not if you read the Mail, Express, Telegraph etc.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I'll have you know I read the three finest publications in the country - Viz, Private Eye and the Times.

 

[MickCheese]

Jacob

I think if i just look at the original posters complaint I sympathise. It was simply a person living alone having their rent paid by the tax payer. Should they continue to be subsidised or should they be made to move.

The question would not arise if they were paying for the accommodation themselves. They would be forced to move by simple financial need.

I was interested listening to a radio phone in show recently. Many people on benefit phoning in saying they choose not to work so they can make life style choices to stay at home and look after their children and still have holidays and a better life style. Benefits were supposed to be a safety net not a life style choice.

Mick

 

[nanscombe]

A scrounger who has never worked although perfectly able bodied, and lives alone in a three bedroomed house was complaining about either having to move to smaller accommodation or be "penalised" for having two empty bedrooms.
My response was that if I couldn't afford to live in a property that was much larger than my needs then I would have to move , so why shouldn't he do the same and why the hell should my taxes go to subsidising his excesses.
For some reason he took offence :roll: , was I wrong

Yes you were wrong. If your story is in any way true no doubt the truth itself is far more complicated. Most likely it's just supposition as there is a great deal of malicious gossip being generated and directed at the poor; tory policy eagerly assisted by right wing press.
It's a band-wagon everybody seems keen to get on (see other posts :roll: ) - the bankers and tax evaders must laugh their socks off! Not to mention the second home owners, large house owners and other wealthy under-occupiers of many varieties.

There are some layabouts living in this place - they've got plenty of spare bedrooms:

No layabouts living there. What you've pictured is the offices of a Government department, of around 1000 staff, with some accommodation that goes with the job.

The Royal Household aims to provide exceptional support and advice to The Queen, enabling her to serve the nation and its people. It employs approximately 1,200 staff, of whom approximately 450 are funded by the taxpayer.

Are you one of these misinformed people who thinks HM The Queen gets paid rather than being given a budget to run her department? :lol:

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Jacob, I live in a very poor area. The majority of the poor are the ones working their nuts off to subsidise people who pick up more in benefits than they do working. The area is swamped with Poles,Lithuanians and Latvians doing jobs that are beneath the local pond life. Malicious gossip? Tory policy eagerly assisted by a right wing press? A band wagon everybody seems keen to get on? You are kidding, aren't you?

No joke at all. Social problems in the SW (and many other places particularly London) are very much down to high house prices and low wages. Wages can't cover rents or mortgages which creates another benefits trap. This opens the way for migrant workers who are less dependent on housing and make do with some appalling but short term conditions. This is all well documented, but not if you read the Mail, Express, Telegraph etc.

Well, there's another 'interpretation' of truth propounded by left-leaning politicians, commentators and journalists. It's probably equally exaggerated. The truth is harder to find, but probably lies somewhere between.

Some months ago, a policy was announced that any one person would have their benefit payments limited to a maximum of £24,000 a year. That equates to a gross income of about £35,000 a year. The thing that startled me was some people must have been receiving more than this in benefits. I know an awful lot of people who earn less than £24,000 gross per annum, and have to run a house and bring up a family on it.

The Welfare system had become something of a mess, and even Labour party senior politiciand agree that it needed sorting out. It's perfectly fair to support people who for whatever reason cannot support themselves, but it also has to be fair to those paying in through their taxes. The fact that the current economic position is dire merely highlights the problem and adds urgency to sorting it; it should have been controlled many years ago.

 

[Max Power]

I can remember long back when being on permanent benefit would have been embarrassing. Its now considered a career move by many

 

[Jacob]

I can remember long back when being on permanent benefit would have been embarrassing. Its now considered a career move by many

Fair enough good luck to them. And they are doing job seekers a favour. There's no shame in getting benefits, whether it's cash, NHS treatment, pensions, education, you name it. It's called "civilisation" - a new and too radical idea for many I know.
Of course when a job comes up they tend to queue around the block even for rubbish wages and temporary jobs. They must be off their heads.

 

[RogerS]

Butler...you poor deluded soul. There certainly is no shame in claiming benefits because for many it IS their job.

Just for once, admit that there are benefit scroungers out there. Stop trying to apologise for the feckless who have no intention of doing an honest days work in their life. They exist. You know that they do. But you won't admit it.
.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I can remember long back when being on permanent benefit would have been embarrassing. Its now considered a career move by many

Fair enough good luck to them. And they are doing job seekers a favour. There's no shame in getting benefits, whether it's cash, NHS treatment, pensions, education, you name it. It's called "civilisation" - a new and too radical idea for many I know.
Of course when a job comes up they tend to queue around the block even for rubbish wages and temporary jobs. They must be off their heads.

Jacob - you do enjoy posting a load of utter b-----ks just to wind people up, don't you!

I know. Let's all live off benefits, every one of us. The entire nation can live on government handouts. That would be fair, wouldn't it? Just like they did in Greece.....

 

[RogerBoyle]

The one and only time I applied for benefits it was against my better judgement :evil: :evil:

After the initial interview i was given a schedule and a booklet
The schedule was to sign on, on a fortnightly basis and the booklet was for me to record what I did to look for new work .
I also applied for help towards my mortgage.
After 4 weeks of a miserable time feeling lower than pond scum etc
I recieved a letter to say that they had approved my claim for housing benifit to help pay the mortgage
I was entitled to £20 per calender month and as I was to in reciept of this my Job seekers allowance would be altered.

I would now only be eligible for £00.10 per week job seekers no you read that correctly,,, that really was 10 pence a week job seekers allowance

When I queried the amounts I was told that the figures were indeed correct and that the Government could not be seen to be buying peoples houses
And the reason I got the 10 Pence a week was It is law that I must recieve something for job seekers allowance and in my case it was the least amount that they could pay me without affecting my housing benifit amount of £20..

I was also advised to sell my house . Not to declare more £16 thousand profit and resubmit my claim as I would then be entitled to either rented accomodation
or a council house , I would get full jobseekers allowance , And help towards re training

They seemed to be quite amazed when I told them to stick it where the sun don't shine as I walked out .

Unfortunatly I do know of people that do milk the system and are far better off than you would believe..

Roger

 

[Jacob]

Butler...you poor deluded soul. ....
.

Funny how Roger keeps calling me by my surname. I think he imagines he's still in some sort of prep school! :lol: :lol:
I wonder if he is senile?

 

[Jacob]

......
Unfortunatly I do know of people that do milk the system and are far better off than you would believe..

Roger

Having failed to milk the system yourself why do you imagine that others can do it?