Bedroom Tax megathread

[robbert69]

Article 25.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

The disgusting bedroom tax is planned poverty by a tory government. This government of millionaire public school boys has consistanly refused to Tax Billionaires and big buisness.

 

We call on the Labour city council to protect the tennants of this city, and reclasify the so called spare rooms. and refuse to evict people hit by this tax from their homes.

 

This demonstration is hosted by the benefit justice campaign and supported by unite community, Sheffield Trades council, Sheffield anti cuts campaign, unite the resistance, and more to add your organisation to the list of supporters please email

sheffieldcommunityunion@gmail.com

[*_ash_*]

https://www.facebook.com/events/181831081969573/

 

The very first line is rubbish. Not a good start.

 

 

The disgusting bedroom tax is planned poverty by a tory government.

 

Planned poverty?

 

They sit and plan poverty?

 

Not often I use this, but:

[robbert69]

The very first line is rubbish. Not a good start.

 

 

 

 

Planned poverty?

 

They sit and plan poverty?

 

Not often I use this, but:

 

i did not wright it you fool

[*_ash_*]

i did not wright it you fool

 

I never said you wrote it. You posted a link to a petition against the 'tax', then posted a link to something supporting a demo against the 'tax', then followed it up with a link to Article 25 of HR. So I assumed that you were supporting them. Surely I can't be wrong there?!

 

If you are supporting something that posts ridiculous claims (based on the first line), then surely you can answer my last post.

[robbert69]

If the system favours social tenants, then why does this privileged group remain poor.

 

When blacks were enslaved, and white people were favoured, the whites got rich on the back of the blacks.

 

Social tenants and private tenants remain poor. They are not getting rich off of the backs of others.

 

The system favours landowners and landlords. It is they who get rich off of the backs of others.

 

In modern slavery;

 

Tenants are the blacks, and landowners and landlords are the whites.

 

remember i said this last year it going to course problems no one believed me except a couple we did not take council housing on for the government to change the tenants rights its not what i sign up for .......remember human right article 25 the government are breaking the UN law

[brianthedog]

Let's go back to basics with this. Two points need to be considered. Firstly, there is not enough social housing stock to house those people who wish to be housed via this route. Secondly, a lot of people in social housing are living in properties which are not fully utilised.

 

The common sense approach to this would be to move everyone into appropriate housing according to their requirements. Think that would be popular? Of course not. Alternatively, the government could introduce incentives to get people into appropriately sized properties - which is what is happening here. Nobody in their right mind can defend people living in large, tax payer funded properties with spare bedrooms which are surplus to their requirements. Anyone on the private market - either renting or buying - is aware of this; yet social tenants seem to think they are excluded from this. Social tenants should be more commercially minded.

[poppet2]

Let's go back to basics with this. Two points need to be considered. Firstly, there is not enough social housing stock to house those people who wish to be housed via this route. Secondly, a lot of people in social housing are living in properties which are not fully utilised.

 

The common sense approach to this would be to move everyone into appropriate housing according to their requirements. Think that would be popular? Of course not. Alternatively, the government could introduce incentives to get people into appropriately sized properties - which is what is happening here. Nobody in their right mind can defend people living in large, tax payer funded properties with spare bedrooms which are surplus to their requirements. Anyone on the private market - either renting or buying - is aware of this; yet social tenants seem to think they are excluded from this. Social tenants should be more commercially minded.

 

But some social tenants ARE excluded from this - pensioners. Pure discrimination and political manipulation on behalf of the government. It would be interesting to know what the government's reason for this is. That they don't have enough one bedroomed properties, perhaps?

[WeX]

Let's go back to basics with this. Two points need to be considered. Firstly, there is not enough social housing stock to house those people who wish to be housed via this route. Secondly, a lot of people in social housing are living in properties which are not fully utilised.

 

The common sense approach to this would be to move everyone into appropriate housing according to their requirements. Think that would be popular? Of course not. Alternatively, the government could introduce incentives to get people into appropriately sized properties - which is what is happening here. Nobody in their right mind can defend people living in large, tax payer funded properties with spare bedrooms which are surplus to their requirements. Anyone on the private market - either renting or buying - is aware of this; yet social tenants seem to think they are excluded from this. Social tenants should be more commercially minded.

 

Some social housing tenets needs to be less greedy and let families use the houses they do not obviously need.

 

"But its my home". No its not, its social housing. If you want to call the shots about your home, go buy one.

[brianthedog]

But some social tenants ARE excluded from this - pensioners. Pure discrimination and political manipulation on behalf of the government. It would be interesting to know what the government's reason for this is. That they don't have enough one bedroomed properties, perhaps?

 

But the bit you've quoted isn't the approach they've taken.

 

I've got to say, while it's perceived as unfair I think it's right to exclude pensioners - they're not as financially "agile" as working age people. Plus, if you move them to a new area you run the risk of them being isolated, which typically incurs other public sector costs (increased hospital admissions, etc).

[poppet2]

But the bit you've quoted isn't the approach they've taken.

 

Er, what bit?

What you have just written can also be applied to someone living on JSA at £71.00 a week, half the amount a pensioner lives on. Out of this comes £10-25.00 bedroom tax.

A pensioner can contact their children if they are suffering hardship, or even move in with them.