Bedroom Tax megathread

[Ms Macbeth]

I'm not saying they should. Just pointing out the difference.

 

Say a parent has a child 4 days a week and the other parent has the child 3 days a week, the parent that has that child 4 days a week will receive both child benefit and not have to pay the bedroom tax.

 

The other parent will not be entitled to child benefit, therefore also have to pay the bedroom tax.

 

You see where I'm coming from?

 

In an ideal world we'd all have the homes we'd like. Do you think it fair that a child of two working parents who have separate homes can't have a bedroom in each when they split their time between both because the parents can't afford big enough houses.

 

It's the same scenario.

[jane2008]

To me it would make sense for the children to stay in the same house and the parents stay there for their alloted access.

[charmer]

it's.

 

a.

 

tax.

 

it's also a punishment on the poor.

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2014 at 21:21 ----------

 

 

Teddy...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

has left the pram.

 

You obviously do not know what a tax is. Allow me to educate you;

 

Tax - a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

 

 

Having to pay your rent is not a tax. Neither is having to pay for food.

 

Again, if you think getting a smaller contribution to your rent than you were before is a punishment, please punish me.

[Epic Fail]

In an ideal world we'd all have the homes we'd like. Do you think it fair that a child of two working parents who have separate homes can't have a bedroom in each when they split their time between both because the parents can't afford big enough houses.

 

It's the same scenario.

 

Basically in the situation I described, they are saying that only 1 parent matters (Usually the mother). So in a society where the courts will generally side with the mother by giving them majority access to children, they are furthering that divide by saying the other parent should be required to pay even more. Perhaps the parents should each be requires to pay a certain percentage towards the tax instead of simply 1 has to pay and the other doesn't.

[Plain Talker]

You obviously do not know what a tax is. Allow me to educate you;

 

Tax - a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

 

 

Having to pay your rent is not a tax. Neither is having to pay for food.

 

Again, if you think getting a smaller contribution to your rent than you were before is a punishment, please punish me.

 

The punishment is being forced to move out of suitably-adapted accommodation into smaller accommodation which is not adapted, and having to live in a property that is patently no use to you, whilst waiting for the council to decide to find the funds retrofit the ramps, lifts, shower and other adaptations that you need which were already fitted to your prior property in the first place

 

And, incidentally, you really need to go back to school and leran a few things yourself.

 

In paying for many foodstuffs, you pay tax within the cost of that food. Something called VALUE ADDED... erm.... TAX. Recognise that word? TAX?

[charmer]

The punishment is being forced to move out of suitably-adapted accommodation into smaller accommodation which is not adapted, and having to live in a property that is patently no use to you, whilst waiting for the council to decide to find the funds retrofit the ramps, lifts, shower and other adaptations that you need which were already fitted to your prior property in the first place

 

And, incidentally, you really need to go back to school and leran a few things yourself.

 

In paying for many foodstuffs, you pay tax within the cost of that food. Something called VALUE ADDED... erm.... TAX. Recognise that word? TAX?

 

You are now taking extreme examples (disabled people needing specially adapted rooms) and applying this to the norm. This is poor form and shows you have a massive agenda.

 

For your information also, the vast, vast majority of foodstuffs for human consumption does not have VAT added to the price. Again, you have taken an extreme example (luxury foods do have VAT) and applied it to the norm (the majority of foods). It is a poor way to discuss issues.

[Plain Talker]

You are now taking extreme examples (disabled people needing specially adapted rooms) and applying this to the norm. This is poor form and shows you have a massive agenda.

 

For your information also, the vast, vast majority of foodstuffs for human consumption does not have VAT added to the price. Again, you have taken an extreme example (luxury foods do have VAT) and applied it to the norm (the majority of foods). It is a poor way to discuss issues.

 

Please smell the coffee, and stop spouting such trollish cobblers.

 

it's NOT an extreme example, it's an absolute fact (note, carefully, that the word fact has not been highlighted, denoting that this is truth, not hysteria or hype) that people who have had their homes adapted are being forced to look at moving into less suitable accommodation.

 

the truth of the matter is that there are cases like that of a family who have had £60,000 spent on providing a ground floor disability extension to their home to enable their severely disabled child a room of his own. A room where he can manage with his wheelchair and have enough space for his specialist equipment. because of this obscenity of a TAX his mother is now being charged as an underoccupier, and being forced to move. Even with your blinkers, I defy you to justify the vicious and cruel way this family have been treated.

My own home is extensively adapted, precisely according to my own needs as a disabled tenant. it's the right size, it has the right accessibility in terms of level access etc. It has a wet room, as per my needs and a second bedroom in order that I may have someone stay overnight, when I need them to. But despite a smaller property being

a) unavailable,

b) potentially unsuitable in terms of size and number of bedrooms, as well as

c) hampered by the impracticality of being unable to get my equipment etc into a smaller property and have room for my chariot... (or indeed a proverbial cat to swing!)

I still am being slammed with the bedroom tax on it.

 

---------- Post added 05-02-2014 at 00:01 ----------

 

did you see the inside out edition yesterday (Mon 3/2/14)?

there was an article about the BT on the show, and one woman featured was a Grimsby tenant with a disability, who was forced out of her adapted home, into a smaller home which she was not happy with.

[Epic Fail]

The bedroom tax does not seem to take into consideration individual circumstances. That's clear to see.

[Qualtrough]

Please smell the coffee, and stop spouting such trollish cobblers.

 

it's NOT an extreme example, it's an absolute fact (note, carefully, that the word fact has not been highlighted, denoting that this is truth, not hysteria or hype) that people who have had their homes adapted are being forced to look at moving into less suitable accommodation.

 

the truth of the matter is that there are cases like that of a family who have had £60,000 spent on providing a ground floor disability extension to their home to enable their severely disabled child a room of his own. A room where he can manage with his wheelchair and have enough space for his specialist equipment. because of this obscenity of a TAX his mother is now being charged as an underoccupier, and being forced to move. Even with your blinkers, I defy you to justify the vicious and cruel way this family have been treated.

My own home is extensively adapted, precisely according to my own needs as a disabled tenant. it's the right size, it has the right accessibility in terms of level access etc. It has a wet room, as per my needs and a second bedroom in order that I may have someone stay overnight, when I need them to. But despite a smaller property being

a) unavailable,

b) potentially unsuitable in terms of size and number of bedrooms, as well as

c) hampered by the impracticality of being unable to get my equipment etc into a smaller property and have room for my chariot... (or indeed a proverbial cat to swing!)

I still am being slammed with the bedroom tax on it.

 

---------- Post added 05-02-2014 at 00:01 ----------

 

did you see the inside out edition yesterday (Mon 3/2/14)?

there was an article about the BT on the show, and one woman featured was a Grimsby tenant with a disability, who was forced out of her adapted home, into a smaller home which she was not happy with.

 

So you should be exempt from the tax?

[SpikeMac]

So you should be exempt from the tax?

 

You need to get with the programme.

 

It isn't a tax. It is a way of sharing out limited resources fairly. Apparently.

 

It seems that we do this by taking stuff off poor people and giving more to rich people.