Bedroom tax and the disabled.

[truman]

That's the point I made in other threads. No matter what obstacles are thrown in peoples' paths, it won't change them or the way they live. It never has done and it never will.

 

So upping the price of cigarettes doesn't stop people smoking?

[Mecky]

So upping the price of cigarettes doesn't stop people smoking?

 

No, people still smoking, buying duty free, nasty baccy (stuff which has been diluted with other ingredients) or switching to the E cigs which are cheaper. There's also an acrease in tab-ending by the looks of things.

[truman]

No, people still smoking, buying duty free, nasty baccy (stuff which has been diluted with other ingredients) or switching to the E cigs which are cheaper. There's also an acrease in tab-ending by the looks of things.

 

As many people smoking as before?

This says different

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20780577

 

and this

 

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/81566/number-of-smokers-falling

 

and this

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4315296/Lowest-ever-number-of-smokers-after-public-ban-and-health-campaigns.html

 

I'd be interested if you could find links pointing to an increase in smoking..genuinely..

[sheff1johnny]

If this was about freeing up extra houses, why would a disabled person if they became a lodger, or took a lodger in, another person who is struggling with the bedroom tax, told that they would have their severe disability premium taken away from them. In the rules, there is a loophole, where an unemployed person wouldn't lose any money in this situation. They can rent their spare room out for £25, and keep every penny. I just feel that they should extend this to people on all benefits. No-one would be getting more money, they'd get exactly the same minus one lot of housing benefit.

I can not understand why the government doesn't look into this, as it would free some more housing stock up.

The premium is around £60, so its not even worth considering at present.

[Rupert_Baehr]

One lady who was complaining said she used the additional room in her house as an office.

 

That sounds like a pretty good use for an additional room to me - but why should the taxpayer fund an office for her when there are people who can't get a house with enough bedrooms for them each to have one?

[sheff1johnny]

One lady who was complaining said she used the additional room in her house as an office.

 

That sounds like a pretty good use for an additional room to me - but why should the taxpayer fund an office for her when there are people who can't get a house with enough bedrooms for them each to have one?

 

If you were given something, stuck to every detail of the tenancy agreement, in other words were a good tenant, did nothing wrong, and in that agreement was no mention of a bedroom tax, what is the point of the agreement, if it can be changed when ever anyone sees fit. Maybe the changes should apply to new tennants. Instead because of the bedroom tax, you have people trying to downsize properties, which makes it harder for people who have no where to go. hardly anyone is paying the bedroom tax, and it will cost more in summonses than it will ever raise. When Universal Credit comes in, and claimants are paid their own rent, and have to give it the council. The council will be lucky to get their rent, never mind bedroom tax. Sometimes instead of punishing everyone on benefits, realise the demonisation will end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run.

[melthebell]

Sometimes instead of punishing everyone on benefits, realise the demonisation will end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run.

its what the tories do, always have, always will

[Rupert_Baehr]

If you were given something, stuck to every detail of the tenancy agreement, in other words were a good tenant, did nothing wrong, and in that agreement was no mention of a bedroom tax, what is the point of the agreement, if it can be changed when ever anyone sees fit. Maybe the changes should apply to new tennants. Instead because of the bedroom tax, you have people trying to downsize properties, which makes it harder for people who have no where to go. hardly anyone is paying the bedroom tax, and it will cost more in summonses than it will ever raise. When Universal Credit comes in, and claimants are paid their own rent, and have to give it the council. The council will be lucky to get their rent, never mind bedroom tax. Sometimes instead of punishing everyone on benefits, realise the demonisation will end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run.

 

 

Do private tenants ever find that their landlord increases their rent?

 

I thought the main argument for the 'bedroom tax' was that there are many people living in council accommodation which is too small for their families and others living in accommodation which is larger than they need?

 

If people are trying to move out of the larger houses/flats into smaller houses/flats, then surely the bedroom tax is beginning to work?

[chem1st]

If I take advantage of the right to buy I can get a 60% discount on the price.

 

With 3 bedrooms. That's nearly 2 bedrooms free!

 

If your a tenant who has worked most of their life and have paid for your house 10 times over in rent and suddenly find yourself unemployed, you can be financially raped.

A £20/week bedroom tax would result in you having to earn some £6000+ per year to pay the tax due to extremely high effective taxation (100% in cases).

 

Yet all the other rooms, the private bathroom, hall, living room and private kitchen are disregarded. Whilst many in the PRS don't have their own kitchen or bathroom.

 

Workers in the 'free market' can't afford their own kitchens and bathrooms, so why should council tenants be subsidised

 

They aren't means tested, bet neither is the garden. What with the current assault upon allotment holders via the way above inflation rent increases, I can't imagine it being too long before council house tenants have their gardens taxed.

 

I am surprised living rooms haven't been classed as bedrooms yet. Among my peers, the living room mattress/matresses are practically a given standard. Living rooms are forced to function as bedrooms.

 

---------- Post added 12-08-2013 at 01:52 ----------

 

Taking benefits away from fat people, will not make them thin. There is the same problem, on a minor scale, with alcoholism, the benefits that the state gives them, get spent on alcohol.

My daughter was refered to a hospital dietician when she was younger, she has never had a problem with her weight. Just like many young girls, she has no interest in any sport, and exercise.

 

The tax on alcohol is so high that alcoholics that do a bit of cash in hand soon become NET taxpayers.

 

Whist many dual income families are NET recipients of benefits due to speenhamland business subsidy (tax credits).

[sheff1johnny]

to be honest how many people on benefits could afford to buy their council house, even with the discount. the only people who benefit from right to buy, would be those in employment, when a house is sold by the council, no money is invested building a new property. If a council tennant had paid rent, as sorry to tell you this, some council tenants (shock, horror) actually work. I know, have a breather, it may come as a surprise, 80 % of people, who recieve housing benefit, are in employment.They too would, have paid for their house, twice, maybe three times over. Sorry to stuff your pipe, but you needed something to smoke.