rossyrooney Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Can't see any church reference there, just quoted from 2010. And that's just jet another moan about the "bedroom tax". How flippant ... there are people at their wits end out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMoon Posted April 3, 2013 Author Share Posted April 3, 2013 Can't see any church reference there, just quotes from 2010. And that's just jet another moan about the "bedroom tax". Think you've missed the point of the thread haven't you. http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/poorest-families-left-defenceless http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/33327 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Whereas churches telling lies about the sky fairy and how to get "salvation" is acceptable hmm? Much as the church cannot prove the existence of a "sky fairy "..you cannot prove the non existence..so which of you is telling lies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Hahaha, oh the irony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I don't have any truck with the church or religion. i do believe that if the church or any other powerful media voice decries the actions now being carried out against the old, infirm and vunerable,then that voice carries far better than yours or mine. If your next question is if i put scroungers in the same group,then the answer is no. ---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 13:52 ---------- At what cost? Not much cost, because there is very little cuts to benefits being made (if you look past the headlines) Low paid workers are much better off. Pretty good trade off to me. Bedroom tax is not really a tax, social housing is exactly that, if the property is too large for your needs you either move to something more befitting so that the property can be used to house a bigger family or you receive less housing benefit. Seems pretty fair to me now that I have actually read into it, if there is no alternative property available you don't have your benefits cut and if you are a pensioner you are exempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossyrooney Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 ]Not much cost' date=' because there is very little cuts to benefits being made (if you look past the headlines) Low paid workers are much better off.[/b'][/u] Pretty good trade off to me. Bedroom tax is not really a tax, social housing is exactly that, if the property is too large for your needs you either move to something more befitting so that the property can be used to house a bigger family or you receive less housing benefit. Seems pretty fair to me now that I have actually read into it, if there is no alternative property available you don't have your benefits cut and if you are a pensioner you are exempt. Not half as much as the top earners like Cameron and Clegg.. I read that 37 one bedroomed apartments were available via social housing in Sheffield,not very many to be able to let folk downsize. B.T.W. Will the people who have to downsize be given the money to move and buy new carpets,curtaining etc?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Not half as much as the top earners like Cameron and Clegg.. I read that 37 one bedroomed apartments were available via social housing in Sheffield,not very many to be able to let folk downsize. B.T.W. Will the people who have to downsize be given the money to move and buy new carpets,curtaining etc?. Not half as much as Cameron and Clegg what? that makes no sense. Half as much better off? If so, their taxed income is also reduced as they are PAYE. Take the curtains with them they'll have spare as they'll have less windows when they downsize. As for carpets - will the previous tenants take the carpet with them? What do you think should happen? You have a council house with 3 bedrooms, your children grow up and move out. Do you get to stay there forever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Bedroom tax is not really a tax, social housing is exactly that, if the property is too large for your needs you either move to something more befitting so that the property can be used to house a bigger family or you receive less housing benefit. Seems pretty fair to me now that I have actually read into it, if there is no alternative property available you don't have your benefits cut and if you are a pensioner you are exempt. That's why I've not understood the revolt against it. I've known single people on the Stradbroke estate but in two and three bedroom houses, and they've refused to move elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossyrooney Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Not half as much as Cameron and Clegg what? that makes no sense. Half as much better off? If so, their taxed income is also reduced as they are PAYE. Take the curtains with them they'll have spare as they'll have less windows when they downsize. As for carpets - will the previous tenants take the carpet with them? What do you think should happen? You have a council house with 3 bedrooms, your children grow up and move out. Do you get to stay there forever? AS Clegg and Cameron have benefited from the new lower high rate tax. Where are they to find the finances to pay for removals,carpet re-laying,curtain alterations etc.? And no ... i don't think they should be left in 3 bedroomed houses,but surely that's the reason we pay for council rehousing departments through our Council Taxes. You seem to be advocating targeting the old and infirm. ---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 14:38 ---------- That's why I've not understood the revolt against it. I've known single people on the Stradbroke estate but in two and three bedroom houses, and they've refused to move elsewhere. I fully agree,but let's try to rehouse them first,if then they are not willing to move, they would know the consequences. But to bring it in without is un christian to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 AS Clegg and Cameron have benefited from the new lower high rate tax. Where are they to find the finances to pay for removals,carpet re-laying,curtain alterations etc.? And no ... i don't think they should be left in 3 bedroomed houses,but surely that's the reason we pay for council rehousing departments through our Council Taxes. You seem to be advocating targeting the old and infirm. ---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 14:38 ---------- I fully agree,but let's try to rehouse them first,if then they are not willing to move, they would know the consequences. But to bring it in without is un christian to say the least. Well they know the consequences now, and it has been on the cards for a while. Also you keep quoting a soundbite about the old and the infirm, Pensioners are exempt. That is what we pay the council rehousing team for but prior to the reduction in housing benefit there was no consequence to refusing to move. ---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 14:49 ---------- That's why I've not understood the revolt against it. I've known single people on the Stradbroke estate but in two and three bedroom houses, and they've refused to move elsewhere. It's because its the nasty Conservative party, if it was Ed Balls implementing it - Sheffield Forum would see it as great. Those pesky middle class people in their 3 bed council houses, only using one room while unemployed Dave, his missus, and new born twins live in a one bed flat above the chippy. Blah blah blah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.