Jeffrey Shaw Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 In paying for many foodstuffs, you pay tax within the cost of that food. Something called VALUE ADDED... erm.... TAX. Recognise that word? TAX? Er, no; most foods are zero-rated for VAT. The few to which VAT applies are non-essentials. [Yep: chocolate is deemed non-essential!] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldleaf Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I personally don't have this problem but i think its wrong ! I could go on but wont. bedroom tax is a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 What happens to housing benefit if you're sanctioned? Do you get back pay in order to catch up with your rent if the DHSS has got it wrong or made a mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I personally don't have this problem but i think its wrong ! I could go on but wont. bedroom tax is a farce. That's about the size of it isn't it? Most people are happy to jump up and down on someone's head until it becaomes their head that other people are jumping up and down on. By then it's far too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Jump up and down on. That's a funny way of describing no longer paying for a spare room for people who don't pay for it themselves. What level of spare room allocation do you think is actually fair, does everyone deserve one? Or just those who don't pay for themselves? Or perhaps they actually deserve two spare rooms? ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 08:29 ---------- No, they don't get money for rent in the same way as someone living independently, they'd just get the flat rate benefit. Chem1st specifically said that HB shouldn't exist and JSA should be doubled or tripled for everyone. That was specifically what my question was about. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 08:32 ---------- I fail to see why an unemployed person should get less based upon housing tenure. Because the state is acting like a safety net, the amount they are given is entirely dependant on their circumstances. They have more money if working, as they do not have to pay rent. So? Perhaps you think that workers should get lower wages if they live at home? No, but wages are an exchange for labour, benefits are a safety net, not a guaranteed income. As it stands at the minute, the housing benefit system funnels money into rents and pushes them up. We need to change the way the system works. Pay people the money, and let them spend it as they wish. Rather than using them as pawns to set and inflate rents via housing benefit. I think you have cause and effect entirely backwards. People could save up dole and invest in housing If they could then clearly the state would be giving them too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Jump up and down on. That's a funny way of describing no longer paying for a spare room for people who don't pay for it themselves. What level of spare room allocation do you think is actually fair, does everyone deserve one? Or just those who don't pay for themselves? Or perhaps they actually deserve two spare rooms Until it's your turn to be jumped on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff1johnny Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I don't know if anyone knows anybody affected by this exemption. If you have live in the same council property since 1996, and are affected by bedroom tax, you may not have to pay. There may a couple of other things, but its deffienetly worth looking into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I don't know if anyone knows anybody affected by this exemption. If you have live in the same council property since 1996, and are affected by bedroom tax, you may not have to pay. There may a couple of other things, but its deffienetly worth looking into. I know several people who have been in their council home since well before 1996 and have their benefits reduced. I have been in council property since 1987 but I was forced to move in 1999 because of demolition. I also have had benefits reduced and will be appealing as it was a forced move. But, its probably the case that this government will just amend the rules so it has no time limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terminator Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Just been paid back £914.76 but the loophole ends and starts all over again 3rd of March 14 .Due to corrections Bent Bxxxxxd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff1johnny Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 389 people have been affected by the loophole in Sheffield alone. ---------- Post added 01-03-2014 at 20:24 ---------- a forced move includes property made uninhabitable, by fire, or flood. I too am trying on the demolition, but its hard to find if this would be classed as a forced move. Has anyone managed to get a refund, and did you have to ask, or was it just given to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.