South Essex tenants’ windfall over bedroom tax blunder

Echo: “Discrimination” – tenant Tony Livermore “Discrimination” – tenant Tony Livermore

NEARLY 300 south Essex council tenants are in line for bedroom tax windfalls totalling £214,000.

A loophole in the Government’s welfare reforms means long-term tenants of Southend, Basildon, Castle Point, Rochford and Thurrock councils could each be given back at least £640 in housing benefit, taken from them because they had spare rooms.

Hard-up tenants with empty bedrooms lost as much as a quarter of their housing benefit under the controversial Government measure, However, when the rules for last April’s changes were drawn up, bungling officials forgot to alter regulations affecting certain tenants.

As a result, claimants whose claim has not changed since before 1996 may well be in line for refunds this June.

One such tenant, disabled Leigh man Tony Livermore, 58, has been told he could get enough back to pay his rent for two years.

Mr Livermore has lived all his life in his three-bedroomed council house in Kent Avenue.

However, he has lived there alone since the death of his parents and his brother.

He said: “It was a ridiculous idea in the first place and I didn’t think it would work.

“It’s discrimination against people who live in council homes.”

Whitehall has now written to councils, alerting them to the mistake and insisting new regulations will be briought in later this this month to close the loophole.

Claimants with disabilities or special circumstances were helped financially via discretionary housing payments from some councils if they could prove they needed to keep their spare rooms.

Some of these claimants will not only get a refund, but may well also be allowed to keep the extra payments.

Ian Gilbert, Labour prospective Parliamentary candidate for Rochford and Southend East, said: “This shows the bedroom tax was not thought through.

“It was rushed through as another way of penalising the poor and vulnerable.

“If some people are going to get a refund, that’s good, but the whole policy should be scrapped.”

Comments (48)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:12pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Bettycraven says...

Not exactly a windfall, they did loose it from their benefits in the first place
Not exactly a windfall, they did loose it from their benefits in the first place Bettycraven
  • Score: 10

6:27pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Dan-Hockley says...

so benefit scum get even more money, while the rest of us pay more and more in taxes
so benefit scum get even more money, while the rest of us pay more and more in taxes Dan-Hockley
  • Score: -11

7:09pm Tue 4 Mar 14

jolllyboy says...

So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?
So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ? jolllyboy
  • Score: 32

7:50pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Evilgenius75 says...

Dan-Hockley wrote:
so benefit scum get even more money, while the rest of us pay more and more in taxes
I don't think labelling anyone as scum is at all helpful. We live in a day and age where there is no reason for anyone to be denied a decent standard of life no matter what their circumstances. People are on benefits are in that position for all sorts of reasons. I accept there is a small percentage who abuse the system but they aren't representative of everyone. I work 44 hours a week and pay my taxes. I don't begrudge people who are not in a position to work a penny of my contribution towards them. Maybe if we were all a little less selfish and greedy the world would be a better place.
[quote][p][bold]Dan-Hockley[/bold] wrote: so benefit scum get even more money, while the rest of us pay more and more in taxes[/p][/quote]I don't think labelling anyone as scum is at all helpful. We live in a day and age where there is no reason for anyone to be denied a decent standard of life no matter what their circumstances. People are on benefits are in that position for all sorts of reasons. I accept there is a small percentage who abuse the system but they aren't representative of everyone. I work 44 hours a week and pay my taxes. I don't begrudge people who are not in a position to work a penny of my contribution towards them. Maybe if we were all a little less selfish and greedy the world would be a better place. Evilgenius75
  • Score: 30

8:18pm Tue 4 Mar 14

rude boy says...

Your right not everyone is scum a lot of people loss there jobs of know thought of there own! I've worked since I was 15 and never been out off work I own my own house but it dosent mean a thing I could be in the same boat!
Your right not everyone is scum a lot of people loss there jobs of know thought of there own! I've worked since I was 15 and never been out off work I own my own house but it dosent mean a thing I could be in the same boat! rude boy
  • Score: 17

9:33pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Ed Woods says...

Why should a single person expect the state to provide them with a 3 bedroom house when there are families wishing they could move into that home?
Why should a single person expect the state to provide them with a 3 bedroom house when there are families wishing they could move into that home? Ed Woods
  • Score: 7

10:40pm Tue 4 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Ed Woods wrote:
Why should a single person expect the state to provide them with a 3 bedroom house when there are families wishing they could move into that home?
Do single people expect that?
[quote][p][bold]Ed Woods[/bold] wrote: Why should a single person expect the state to provide them with a 3 bedroom house when there are families wishing they could move into that home?[/p][/quote]Do single people expect that? ThisYear
  • Score: -5

6:50am Wed 5 Mar 14

Happy Chickie says...

ThisYear wrote:
Ed Woods wrote:
Why should a single person expect the state to provide them with a 3 bedroom house when there are families wishing they could move into that home?
Do single people expect that?
Sadly yes. Too many people think they are entitled to a lot, when they have done nothing to earn it.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ed Woods[/bold] wrote: Why should a single person expect the state to provide them with a 3 bedroom house when there are families wishing they could move into that home?[/p][/quote]Do single people expect that?[/p][/quote]Sadly yes. Too many people think they are entitled to a lot, when they have done nothing to earn it. Happy Chickie
  • Score: 8

7:25am Wed 5 Mar 14

whateverhappened says...

Tony Livermore, 58.... would be interested to know quite how much housing benefit you've racked up in all those years..
Tony Livermore, 58.... would be interested to know quite how much housing benefit you've racked up in all those years.. whateverhappened
  • Score: 6

9:25am Wed 5 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

whateverhappened wrote:
Tony Livermore, 58.... would be interested to know quite how much housing benefit you've racked up in all those years..
graham's number
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: Tony Livermore, 58.... would be interested to know quite how much housing benefit you've racked up in all those years..[/p][/quote]graham's number profondo asbo
  • Score: -1

11:28am Wed 5 Mar 14

Kim Gandy says...

jolllyboy wrote:
So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?
Not everyone on benefits is out of work. Some low income people qualify for benefits too.

The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages.

And the genuine benefit scroungers who have no intention of getting a job.
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?[/p][/quote]Not everyone on benefits is out of work. Some low income people qualify for benefits too. The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages. And the genuine benefit scroungers who have no intention of getting a job. Kim Gandy
  • Score: 6

12:32pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Happy Chickie wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Ed Woods wrote:
Why should a single person expect the state to provide them with a 3 bedroom house when there are families wishing they could move into that home?
Do single people expect that?
Sadly yes. Too many people think they are entitled to a lot, when they have done nothing to earn it.
That of course means ALL sorts of people.. not just does who find themselves on benefits..which is quite a sizable amount of people whether working or not.
[quote][p][bold]Happy Chickie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ed Woods[/bold] wrote: Why should a single person expect the state to provide them with a 3 bedroom house when there are families wishing they could move into that home?[/p][/quote]Do single people expect that?[/p][/quote]Sadly yes. Too many people think they are entitled to a lot, when they have done nothing to earn it.[/p][/quote]That of course means ALL sorts of people.. not just does who find themselves on benefits..which is quite a sizable amount of people whether working or not. ThisYear
  • Score: 5

12:32pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

whateverhappened wrote:
Tony Livermore, 58.... would be interested to know quite how much housing benefit you've racked up in all those years..
Why?
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: Tony Livermore, 58.... would be interested to know quite how much housing benefit you've racked up in all those years..[/p][/quote]Why? ThisYear
  • Score: 3

12:37pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?
Not everyone on benefits is out of work. Some low income people qualify for benefits too.

The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages.

And the genuine benefit scroungers who have no intention of getting a job.
** Some low income people qualify for benefits too.**


Because you find yourself in this group you feel these, and you, are not 'benefit scum' but of course if you wasnt in this bracket they would be...

Kim you are as obvious and predictable as rain on a bank holiday..
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?[/p][/quote]Not everyone on benefits is out of work. Some low income people qualify for benefits too. The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages. And the genuine benefit scroungers who have no intention of getting a job.[/p][/quote]** Some low income people qualify for benefits too.** Because you find yourself in this group you feel these, and you, are not 'benefit scum' but of course if you wasnt in this bracket they would be... Kim you are as obvious and predictable as rain on a bank holiday.. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Happy Chickie says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?
Not everyone on benefits is out of work. Some low income people qualify for benefits too.

The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages.

And the genuine benefit scroungers who have no intention of getting a job.
If you are getting third world wages Kimmy, it should be a wake up call to change your attitude!
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?[/p][/quote]Not everyone on benefits is out of work. Some low income people qualify for benefits too. The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages. And the genuine benefit scroungers who have no intention of getting a job.[/p][/quote]If you are getting third world wages Kimmy, it should be a wake up call to change your attitude! Happy Chickie
  • Score: 6

2:36pm Wed 5 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?
Not everyone on benefits is out of work. Some low income people qualify for benefits too.

The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages.

And the genuine benefit scroungers who have no intention of getting a job.
is the minimum wage a 3rd world wage?
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?[/p][/quote]Not everyone on benefits is out of work. Some low income people qualify for benefits too. The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages. And the genuine benefit scroungers who have no intention of getting a job.[/p][/quote]is the minimum wage a 3rd world wage? profondo asbo
  • Score: 4

4:30pm Wed 5 Mar 14

TheaWells says...

Bettycraven wrote:
Not exactly a windfall, they did loose it from their benefits in the first place
^^ this!!
[quote][p][bold]Bettycraven[/bold] wrote: Not exactly a windfall, they did loose it from their benefits in the first place[/p][/quote]^^ this!! TheaWells
  • Score: 1

4:31pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Happy Chickie wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?
Not everyone on benefits is out of work. Some low income people qualify for benefits too.

The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages.

And the genuine benefit scroungers who have no intention of getting a job.
If you are getting third world wages Kimmy, it should be a wake up call to change your attitude!
Bingo!
[quote][p][bold]Happy Chickie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?[/p][/quote]Not everyone on benefits is out of work. Some low income people qualify for benefits too. The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages. And the genuine benefit scroungers who have no intention of getting a job.[/p][/quote]If you are getting third world wages Kimmy, it should be a wake up call to change your attitude![/p][/quote]Bingo! ThisYear
  • Score: 2

4:32pm Wed 5 Mar 14

TheaWells says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?
Not everyone on benefits is out of work. Some low income people qualify for benefits too.

The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages.

And the genuine benefit scroungers who have no intention of getting a job.
Oh my days... I agree with Kim Gandy!!

What the hell????
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: So Dan if you lose your job and cannot pay your mortgage and your house is repossessed and you have to go into social housing accom on benefits you too will be benefit scum ?[/p][/quote]Not everyone on benefits is out of work. Some low income people qualify for benefits too. The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages. And the genuine benefit scroungers who have no intention of getting a job.[/p][/quote]Oh my days... I agree with Kim Gandy!! What the hell???? TheaWells
  • Score: -5

4:35pm Wed 5 Mar 14

TheaWells says...

oh people are not agreeing with KG... and I for once am.

I know a few people who because of circumstances have had to recourse to public funds or they would have been homeless.

It's always an emotive subject this isn't it.... hmm.... but yes a house with TWO empty rooms is a bit much, especially I guess when tax payers have to slot children into small rooms on bunk beds and would LOVE a spare room...

very emotive and so many sides... so many variables.
oh people are not agreeing with KG... and I for once am. I know a few people who because of circumstances have had to recourse to public funds or they would have been homeless. It's always an emotive subject this isn't it.... hmm.... but yes a house with TWO empty rooms is a bit much, especially I guess when tax payers have to slot children into small rooms on bunk beds and would LOVE a spare room... very emotive and so many sides... so many variables. TheaWells
  • Score: 3

5:06pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Kursaal76 says...

Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further. Kursaal76
  • Score: 3

6:44pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Abington86 says...

The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages

Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.
The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into. Abington86
  • Score: 2

11:17pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses?

BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.[/p][/quote]You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses? BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that? ThisYear
  • Score: -8

11:19pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Abington86 wrote:
The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages

Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.
*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into*

Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?
[quote][p][bold]Abington86[/bold] wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.[/p][/quote]*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything? ThisYear
  • Score: 0

7:27am Thu 6 Mar 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses?

BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?
ThisYear Please do not comment on my comments please. you are an idiot i do not care what you have to say so just go away!
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.[/p][/quote]You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses? BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?[/p][/quote]ThisYear Please do not comment on my comments please. you are an idiot i do not care what you have to say so just go away! Kursaal76
  • Score: 6

8:58am Thu 6 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

TheaWells wrote:
oh people are not agreeing with KG... and I for once am.

I know a few people who because of circumstances have had to recourse to public funds or they would have been homeless.

It's always an emotive subject this isn't it.... hmm.... but yes a house with TWO empty rooms is a bit much, especially I guess when tax payers have to slot children into small rooms on bunk beds and would LOVE a spare room...

very emotive and so many sides... so many variables.
the fence is collapsing under your weight
[quote][p][bold]TheaWells[/bold] wrote: oh people are not agreeing with KG... and I for once am. I know a few people who because of circumstances have had to recourse to public funds or they would have been homeless. It's always an emotive subject this isn't it.... hmm.... but yes a house with TWO empty rooms is a bit much, especially I guess when tax payers have to slot children into small rooms on bunk beds and would LOVE a spare room... very emotive and so many sides... so many variables.[/p][/quote]the fence is collapsing under your weight profondo asbo
  • Score: -2

9:43am Thu 6 Mar 14

rude boy says...

On all fairness he dont really need a 3 bedroom house I know it was a family home. But there are family's that do need a house and really if he is disabled the council should say to him we will have to put you in to sheltered or a one bedroom place. As you can take your memories with you and if you was on your own anyway the council would only offer you a bedsit or a one bedroom property.
On all fairness he dont really need a 3 bedroom house I know it was a family home. But there are family's that do need a house and really if he is disabled the council should say to him we will have to put you in to sheltered or a one bedroom place. As you can take your memories with you and if you was on your own anyway the council would only offer you a bedsit or a one bedroom property. rude boy
  • Score: 3

9:54am Thu 6 Mar 14

yagetme says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
Poor people envious of even poorer people.

Amazing.
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.[/p][/quote]Poor people envious of even poorer people. Amazing. yagetme
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Kursaal76 says...

yagetme wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
Poor people envious of even poorer people.

Amazing.
Im not poor i work hard for a living. then i see people like this living in big houses to big for them. makes me sick
[quote][p][bold]yagetme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.[/p][/quote]Poor people envious of even poorer people. Amazing.[/p][/quote]Im not poor i work hard for a living. then i see people like this living in big houses to big for them. makes me sick Kursaal76
  • Score: 5

7:54pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses?

BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?
ThisYear Please do not comment on my comments please. you are an idiot i do not care what you have to say so just go away!
Dont be ridiculous..

Now you contentions...can you debate them or is a Kim Gandi like response.."you dont agree with me and Im right and so you must be an idiot" stylee!
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.[/p][/quote]You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses? BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?[/p][/quote]ThisYear Please do not comment on my comments please. you are an idiot i do not care what you have to say so just go away![/p][/quote]Dont be ridiculous.. Now you contentions...can you debate them or is a Kim Gandi like response.."you dont agree with me and Im right and so you must be an idiot" stylee! ThisYear
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

rude boy wrote:
On all fairness he dont really need a 3 bedroom house I know it was a family home. But there are family's that do need a house and really if he is disabled the council should say to him we will have to put you in to sheltered or a one bedroom place. As you can take your memories with you and if you was on your own anyway the council would only offer you a bedsit or a one bedroom property.
The council dont seem too bothered about providing places for exchange but ever happy to evict or take the supplementary monies paid above the rent.
[quote][p][bold]rude boy[/bold] wrote: On all fairness he dont really need a 3 bedroom house I know it was a family home. But there are family's that do need a house and really if he is disabled the council should say to him we will have to put you in to sheltered or a one bedroom place. As you can take your memories with you and if you was on your own anyway the council would only offer you a bedsit or a one bedroom property.[/p][/quote]The council dont seem too bothered about providing places for exchange but ever happy to evict or take the supplementary monies paid above the rent. ThisYear
  • Score: 1

7:58pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
yagetme wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
Poor people envious of even poorer people.

Amazing.
Im not poor i work hard for a living. then i see people like this living in big houses to big for them. makes me sick
"makes me sick"

Makes you green with envy..which i suppose is a sort of sickness..
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yagetme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.[/p][/quote]Poor people envious of even poorer people. Amazing.[/p][/quote]Im not poor i work hard for a living. then i see people like this living in big houses to big for them. makes me sick[/p][/quote]"makes me sick" Makes you green with envy..which i suppose is a sort of sickness.. ThisYear
  • Score: -2

7:59pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

yagetme wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
Poor people envious of even poorer people.

Amazing.
Right on!
[quote][p][bold]yagetme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.[/p][/quote]Poor people envious of even poorer people. Amazing.[/p][/quote]Right on! ThisYear
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses?

BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?
ThisYear Please do not comment on my comments please. you are an idiot i do not care what you have to say so just go away!
Dont be ridiculous..

Now you contentions...can you debate them or is a Kim Gandi like response.."you dont agree with me and Im right and so you must be an idiot" stylee!
BLAH BLAH BLAH
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.[/p][/quote]You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses? BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?[/p][/quote]ThisYear Please do not comment on my comments please. you are an idiot i do not care what you have to say so just go away![/p][/quote]Dont be ridiculous.. Now you contentions...can you debate them or is a Kim Gandi like response.."you dont agree with me and Im right and so you must be an idiot" stylee![/p][/quote]BLAH BLAH BLAH Kursaal76
  • Score: 0

8:23pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Kursaal76 says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses?

BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?
ThisYear Please do not comment on my comments please. you are an idiot i do not care what you have to say so just go away!
Dont be ridiculous..

Now you contentions...can you debate them or is a Kim Gandi like response.."you dont agree with me and Im right and so you must be an idiot" stylee!
I Dont agree with what you are saying that does not mean me or you are right. we just don't agree. So what is the point on commenting on it? you will not change my mind and i wont change yours so lets just leave it as that.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.[/p][/quote]You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses? BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?[/p][/quote]ThisYear Please do not comment on my comments please. you are an idiot i do not care what you have to say so just go away![/p][/quote]Dont be ridiculous.. Now you contentions...can you debate them or is a Kim Gandi like response.."you dont agree with me and Im right and so you must be an idiot" stylee![/p][/quote]I Dont agree with what you are saying that does not mean me or you are right. we just don't agree. So what is the point on commenting on it? you will not change my mind and i wont change yours so lets just leave it as that. Kursaal76
  • Score: 1

1:26am Fri 7 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses?

BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?
ThisYear Please do not comment on my comments please. you are an idiot i do not care what you have to say so just go away!
Dont be ridiculous..

Now you contentions...can you debate them or is a Kim Gandi like response.."you dont agree with me and Im right and so you must be an idiot" stylee!
BLAH BLAH BLAH
Oh dear...the plaintive 'Blah' cry of the common and garden Twit bird.
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.[/p][/quote]You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses? BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?[/p][/quote]ThisYear Please do not comment on my comments please. you are an idiot i do not care what you have to say so just go away![/p][/quote]Dont be ridiculous.. Now you contentions...can you debate them or is a Kim Gandi like response.."you dont agree with me and Im right and so you must be an idiot" stylee![/p][/quote]BLAH BLAH BLAH[/p][/quote]Oh dear...the plaintive 'Blah' cry of the common and garden Twit bird. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

1:31am Fri 7 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kursaal76 wrote:
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses?

BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?
ThisYear Please do not comment on my comments please. you are an idiot i do not care what you have to say so just go away!
Dont be ridiculous..

Now you contentions...can you debate them or is a Kim Gandi like response.."you dont agree with me and Im right and so you must be an idiot" stylee!
I Dont agree with what you are saying that does not mean me or you are right. we just don't agree. So what is the point on commenting on it? you will not change my mind and i wont change yours so lets just leave it as that.
It would seem you have no idea of the etiquette regarding civil debate..

You post something and then I reply with a comment and you decide because I do and its contrary to your belief Im an 'idiot'!

Is it about changing peoples opinions? Or about posting your own...You don't seem to be able to decide!
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.[/p][/quote]You obviously take all things personally...I wonder how enraged you were by politicians scam expenses and bankers disgusting bonuses? BTW, the man pays taxes as well doesn't he? Or can you say he doesn't and how he has managed that?[/p][/quote]ThisYear Please do not comment on my comments please. you are an idiot i do not care what you have to say so just go away![/p][/quote]Dont be ridiculous.. Now you contentions...can you debate them or is a Kim Gandi like response.."you dont agree with me and Im right and so you must be an idiot" stylee![/p][/quote]I Dont agree with what you are saying that does not mean me or you are right. we just don't agree. So what is the point on commenting on it? you will not change my mind and i wont change yours so lets just leave it as that.[/p][/quote]It would seem you have no idea of the etiquette regarding civil debate.. You post something and then I reply with a comment and you decide because I do and its contrary to your belief Im an 'idiot'! Is it about changing peoples opinions? Or about posting your own...You don't seem to be able to decide! ThisYear
  • Score: 1

3:05pm Fri 7 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

ThisYear wrote:
Abington86 wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.
*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?
ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject.
Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do?
I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV.
Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abington86[/bold] wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.[/p][/quote]*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?[/p][/quote]ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat..... cg1blue
  • Score: -1

8:01pm Fri 7 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Abington86 wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.
*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?
ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject.
Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do?
I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV.
Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....
Measure my contribution as you would measure your own..

Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop?

A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot?

I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake..

There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?

If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former?

Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up'

Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty'

Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election..

BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abington86[/bold] wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.[/p][/quote]*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?[/p][/quote]ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....[/p][/quote]Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough. ThisYear
  • Score: 2

7:42pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Idontknowy says...

Kursaal76 wrote:
Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.
Yes and do you have the remotest idea how hard genuinely disabled people have to fight to get the benefits to which they are entitled. I, as a tax-payer feel he has probably had an uphill struggle all his life and am happy for the genuinely disabled to be helped. He has probably been penalised enough already without having to lose his home because his parents died. Its not as simple as him having too many bedrooms - what about the support he might be getting from neighbours etc. Why should he have to move for all we know maybe being able to get into his own garden is all he can do. I take it most of the people who have given horrible opinions don't have any idea of his circumstances You can't just make blanket judgements on people.
[quote][p][bold]Kursaal76[/bold] wrote: Bet Tony Livermore is well happy. nice 3 bed home just for him and all paid by the tax payer well done! even gave gave us a nice photo to rub it in further.[/p][/quote]Yes and do you have the remotest idea how hard genuinely disabled people have to fight to get the benefits to which they are entitled. I, as a tax-payer feel he has probably had an uphill struggle all his life and am happy for the genuinely disabled to be helped. He has probably been penalised enough already without having to lose his home because his parents died. Its not as simple as him having too many bedrooms - what about the support he might be getting from neighbours etc. Why should he have to move for all we know maybe being able to get into his own garden is all he can do. I take it most of the people who have given horrible opinions don't have any idea of his circumstances You can't just make blanket judgements on people. Idontknowy
  • Score: 2

9:54am Mon 10 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Abington86 wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.
*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?
ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....
Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.
"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?"
Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing.
I agree more council properties need to be built and made available.
"Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' "
One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv.
"Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty"
Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family.
I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abington86[/bold] wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.[/p][/quote]*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?[/p][/quote]ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....[/p][/quote]Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.[/p][/quote]"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits.... cg1blue
  • Score: -1

11:39am Mon 10 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Abington86 wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.
*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?
ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....
Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.
"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....
One more thing. While I fully understand how difficult it is for a single occupancy council tennant to move from a 3 bed home they have occupied for decades, with strong emotional ties, is that any different from the private home owner who has to move to a smaller property because they can no longer afford the mortgage and bills as a single occupant?
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abington86[/bold] wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.[/p][/quote]*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?[/p][/quote]ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....[/p][/quote]Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.[/p][/quote]"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....[/p][/quote]One more thing. While I fully understand how difficult it is for a single occupancy council tennant to move from a 3 bed home they have occupied for decades, with strong emotional ties, is that any different from the private home owner who has to move to a smaller property because they can no longer afford the mortgage and bills as a single occupant? cg1blue
  • Score: 0

2:54pm Mon 10 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Abington86 wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.
*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?
ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....
Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.
"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?"
Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing.
I agree more council properties need to be built and made available.
"Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' "
One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv.
"Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty"
Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family.
I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....
So because people are waiting for to move to a bigger place it means the claim there are not enough smaller available places for people to downgrade to is untrue?

Again this comes down to the councils not arranging exchanges..

The people who will/can downgrade cannot be held responsible for the councils lack of action or procedure...If there are..say...100 one bedroom flats available and 98 of these are occupied then there are only 2 available...thats the operative word AVAILABLE.

So a neighbours gossip is totally reliable..but even of he does have sky..should he be on the breadline and therefore considered not to have the same rights as others?

What comes first...the moving from a large to smaller property OR the availability of the latter?

You and others are complaining about people who are stuck in houses and can't move because there is no place to them to move to..preposterous!

Yes people will take the cut...because they have no other option....genuine question..if this policy was rolled out across the country for EVERY household..do you think it would have the same support?
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abington86[/bold] wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.[/p][/quote]*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?[/p][/quote]ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....[/p][/quote]Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.[/p][/quote]"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....[/p][/quote]So because people are waiting for to move to a bigger place it means the claim there are not enough smaller available places for people to downgrade to is untrue? Again this comes down to the councils not arranging exchanges.. The people who will/can downgrade cannot be held responsible for the councils lack of action or procedure...If there are..say...100 one bedroom flats available and 98 of these are occupied then there are only 2 available...thats the operative word AVAILABLE. So a neighbours gossip is totally reliable..but even of he does have sky..should he be on the breadline and therefore considered not to have the same rights as others? What comes first...the moving from a large to smaller property OR the availability of the latter? You and others are complaining about people who are stuck in houses and can't move because there is no place to them to move to..preposterous! Yes people will take the cut...because they have no other option....genuine question..if this policy was rolled out across the country for EVERY household..do you think it would have the same support? ThisYear
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Mon 10 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

cg1blue wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Abington86 wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.
*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?
ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....
Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.
"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....
One more thing. While I fully understand how difficult it is for a single occupancy council tennant to move from a 3 bed home they have occupied for decades, with strong emotional ties, is that any different from the private home owner who has to move to a smaller property because they can no longer afford the mortgage and bills as a single occupant?
The difference is; the house owner can arrange to move to a smaller property because they are AVAILABLE...its not the case with the council tenant.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abington86[/bold] wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.[/p][/quote]*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?[/p][/quote]ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....[/p][/quote]Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.[/p][/quote]"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....[/p][/quote]One more thing. While I fully understand how difficult it is for a single occupancy council tennant to move from a 3 bed home they have occupied for decades, with strong emotional ties, is that any different from the private home owner who has to move to a smaller property because they can no longer afford the mortgage and bills as a single occupant?[/p][/quote]The difference is; the house owner can arrange to move to a smaller property because they are AVAILABLE...its not the case with the council tenant. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Mon 10 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Abington86 wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.
*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?
ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....
Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.
"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....
One more thing. While I fully understand how difficult it is for a single occupancy council tennant to move from a 3 bed home they have occupied for decades, with strong emotional ties, is that any different from the private home owner who has to move to a smaller property because they can no longer afford the mortgage and bills as a single occupant?
The difference is; the house owner can arrange to move to a smaller property because they are AVAILABLE...its not the case with the council tenant.
Hang on, so my friend in the 1 bed flat with 2 kids is on the exchange list waiting for a bigger place. Mr Livermore has a bigger place, and could take the 1 bed flat. So it is available!
I wonder how many occupants of larger coucil properties have genuinely tried to find a smaller property.
Something isn't right here. I guess what you're saying is the council are not capable of organising the exchange, so therefore it just won't work. I have to agree with that....
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abington86[/bold] wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.[/p][/quote]*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?[/p][/quote]ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....[/p][/quote]Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.[/p][/quote]"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....[/p][/quote]One more thing. While I fully understand how difficult it is for a single occupancy council tennant to move from a 3 bed home they have occupied for decades, with strong emotional ties, is that any different from the private home owner who has to move to a smaller property because they can no longer afford the mortgage and bills as a single occupant?[/p][/quote]The difference is; the house owner can arrange to move to a smaller property because they are AVAILABLE...its not the case with the council tenant.[/p][/quote]Hang on, so my friend in the 1 bed flat with 2 kids is on the exchange list waiting for a bigger place. Mr Livermore has a bigger place, and could take the 1 bed flat. So it is available! I wonder how many occupants of larger coucil properties have genuinely tried to find a smaller property. Something isn't right here. I guess what you're saying is the council are not capable of organising the exchange, so therefore it just won't work. I have to agree with that.... cg1blue
  • Score: 1

5:02pm Mon 10 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Abington86 wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.
*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?
ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....
Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.
"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....
One more thing. While I fully understand how difficult it is for a single occupancy council tennant to move from a 3 bed home they have occupied for decades, with strong emotional ties, is that any different from the private home owner who has to move to a smaller property because they can no longer afford the mortgage and bills as a single occupant?
The difference is; the house owner can arrange to move to a smaller property because they are AVAILABLE...its not the case with the council tenant.
Hang on, so my friend in the 1 bed flat with 2 kids is on the exchange list waiting for a bigger place. Mr Livermore has a bigger place, and could take the 1 bed flat. So it is available!
I wonder how many occupants of larger coucil properties have genuinely tried to find a smaller property.
Something isn't right here. I guess what you're saying is the council are not capable of organising the exchange, so therefore it just won't work. I have to agree with that....
No it is not available...if you were to check with the council you would see that it is occupied...the fact it is on the exchange list does not make it any less occupied..

Why is the onus on those in larger properties to find and secure smaller ones?

The council should be pulling together a file on who has what, who needs what, who will move without inducement and who will with..

Till then people are considered to be in a property to large for them until the pay the bedroom tax and then alls well in the council coffers.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abington86[/bold] wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.[/p][/quote]*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?[/p][/quote]ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....[/p][/quote]Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.[/p][/quote]"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....[/p][/quote]One more thing. While I fully understand how difficult it is for a single occupancy council tennant to move from a 3 bed home they have occupied for decades, with strong emotional ties, is that any different from the private home owner who has to move to a smaller property because they can no longer afford the mortgage and bills as a single occupant?[/p][/quote]The difference is; the house owner can arrange to move to a smaller property because they are AVAILABLE...its not the case with the council tenant.[/p][/quote]Hang on, so my friend in the 1 bed flat with 2 kids is on the exchange list waiting for a bigger place. Mr Livermore has a bigger place, and could take the 1 bed flat. So it is available! I wonder how many occupants of larger coucil properties have genuinely tried to find a smaller property. Something isn't right here. I guess what you're saying is the council are not capable of organising the exchange, so therefore it just won't work. I have to agree with that....[/p][/quote]No it is not available...if you were to check with the council you would see that it is occupied...the fact it is on the exchange list does not make it any less occupied.. Why is the onus on those in larger properties to find and secure smaller ones? The council should be pulling together a file on who has what, who needs what, who will move without inducement and who will with.. Till then people are considered to be in a property to large for them until the pay the bedroom tax and then alls well in the council coffers. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Mon 10 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Abington86 wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.
*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?
ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....
Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.
"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....
One more thing. While I fully understand how difficult it is for a single occupancy council tennant to move from a 3 bed home they have occupied for decades, with strong emotional ties, is that any different from the private home owner who has to move to a smaller property because they can no longer afford the mortgage and bills as a single occupant?
The difference is; the house owner can arrange to move to a smaller property because they are AVAILABLE...its not the case with the council tenant.
Hang on, so my friend in the 1 bed flat with 2 kids is on the exchange list waiting for a bigger place. Mr Livermore has a bigger place, and could take the 1 bed flat. So it is available! I wonder how many occupants of larger coucil properties have genuinely tried to find a smaller property. Something isn't right here. I guess what you're saying is the council are not capable of organising the exchange, so therefore it just won't work. I have to agree with that....
No it is not available...if you were to check with the council you would see that it is occupied...the fact it is on the exchange list does not make it any less occupied.. Why is the onus on those in larger properties to find and secure smaller ones? The council should be pulling together a file on who has what, who needs what, who will move without inducement and who will with.. Till then people are considered to be in a property to large for them until the pay the bedroom tax and then alls well in the council coffers.
"The council should be pulling together a file on who has what, who needs what"
I agree with that part.
"who will move without inducement and who will with.."
So in our example, the one who will move without inducement would be the small family in the one bed flat, right? And the one who needs inducement is the single occupant of the 3 bed house, presumably?
One could suggest the inducement for him is that he will get his full entitlement to benefits back if he moves. I think that was the idea behind the policy.
Not saying it works though......
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abington86[/bold] wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.[/p][/quote]*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?[/p][/quote]ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....[/p][/quote]Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.[/p][/quote]"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....[/p][/quote]One more thing. While I fully understand how difficult it is for a single occupancy council tennant to move from a 3 bed home they have occupied for decades, with strong emotional ties, is that any different from the private home owner who has to move to a smaller property because they can no longer afford the mortgage and bills as a single occupant?[/p][/quote]The difference is; the house owner can arrange to move to a smaller property because they are AVAILABLE...its not the case with the council tenant.[/p][/quote]Hang on, so my friend in the 1 bed flat with 2 kids is on the exchange list waiting for a bigger place. Mr Livermore has a bigger place, and could take the 1 bed flat. So it is available! I wonder how many occupants of larger coucil properties have genuinely tried to find a smaller property. Something isn't right here. I guess what you're saying is the council are not capable of organising the exchange, so therefore it just won't work. I have to agree with that....[/p][/quote]No it is not available...if you were to check with the council you would see that it is occupied...the fact it is on the exchange list does not make it any less occupied.. Why is the onus on those in larger properties to find and secure smaller ones? The council should be pulling together a file on who has what, who needs what, who will move without inducement and who will with.. Till then people are considered to be in a property to large for them until the pay the bedroom tax and then alls well in the council coffers.[/p][/quote]"The council should be pulling together a file on who has what, who needs what" I agree with that part. "who will move without inducement and who will with.." So in our example, the one who will move without inducement would be the small family in the one bed flat, right? And the one who needs inducement is the single occupant of the 3 bed house, presumably? One could suggest the inducement for him is that he will get his full entitlement to benefits back if he moves. I think that was the idea behind the policy. Not saying it works though...... cg1blue
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Mon 10 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Abington86 wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.
*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?
ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....
Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.
"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....
One more thing. While I fully understand how difficult it is for a single occupancy council tennant to move from a 3 bed home they have occupied for decades, with strong emotional ties, is that any different from the private home owner who has to move to a smaller property because they can no longer afford the mortgage and bills as a single occupant?
The difference is; the house owner can arrange to move to a smaller property because they are AVAILABLE...its not the case with the council tenant.
Hang on, so my friend in the 1 bed flat with 2 kids is on the exchange list waiting for a bigger place. Mr Livermore has a bigger place, and could take the 1 bed flat. So it is available! I wonder how many occupants of larger coucil properties have genuinely tried to find a smaller property. Something isn't right here. I guess what you're saying is the council are not capable of organising the exchange, so therefore it just won't work. I have to agree with that....
No it is not available...if you were to check with the council you would see that it is occupied...the fact it is on the exchange list does not make it any less occupied.. Why is the onus on those in larger properties to find and secure smaller ones? The council should be pulling together a file on who has what, who needs what, who will move without inducement and who will with.. Till then people are considered to be in a property to large for them until the pay the bedroom tax and then alls well in the council coffers.
"The council should be pulling together a file on who has what, who needs what"
I agree with that part.
"who will move without inducement and who will with.."
So in our example, the one who will move without inducement would be the small family in the one bed flat, right? And the one who needs inducement is the single occupant of the 3 bed house, presumably?
One could suggest the inducement for him is that he will get his full entitlement to benefits back if he moves. I think that was the idea behind the policy.
Not saying it works though......
I don't think anyone knows what the idea behind the policy was/is!

Its a dog-dinner of a policy...

The money earned cannot be the reason, nor can the 'freeing up' because the govt has no idea of the number of those who have moved, those who haven't, how much was deducted, how much was saves and how many got out via loopholes or even with council help...ie Leeds Councils
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abington86[/bold] wrote: The real "scum" are the employers who pay Third World wages Not all employers can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. The government provdes help (in the form of top ups) for those on the minimum wage and it is right to do so. It is not fair that some people have never worked and have no intention of ever working and still receive benefits. We have all seen those types on TV or in the press. The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into.[/p][/quote]*The bedroom tax is an excellent idea but probably unworkable as there seems to be a shortage of 1 bedroom flats or houses across the county for people to move into* Yet it is still in place...but doesn't the fact that by paying extra money people are allowed to remain where they are, show that if you have money in this country you can buy anything?[/p][/quote]ThisYear, you have a lot to say on bedroom tax. I'm curious to know if you're just arguing and being contrary because you enjoy it, or if you have genuine beliefs and ideas on the subject. Do you agree it's morally wrong that this man is occupying a 3 bedroomed council property living all alone, while there are small families stuck in 1 bedroom flats? Assuming you agree with that, then what do you propose the government should do? I suppose the alternative would be to force people like Mr Livermore to move out to a smaller property. But by cutting his benefit it gives him the choice - either move to a smaller property, or give up a 'luxury' such as Sky TV. Isn't that more humane than forced evictions? Admittedly this doesn't help the family stuck in the 1 bedroom flat.....[/p][/quote]Measure my contribution as you would measure your own.. Morals do not come into this..of course in ideal circumstances both would be accommodated but ousting one to accommodate the other would seem immoral if morals came into it....where would such actions stop? A single person needing an operation being delayed while a parent is given the slot? I would suggest the government start building council properties to accommodate the many people who need them..a number which is getting larger every year...selling of the properties was a big mistake.. There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states? If you accept thats the latter then why penalise the former? Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty...btw it was also knows as a 'under-occupancy penalty' Most people will hold on and pay and do without knowing that this horrendous action against the people of the country by the state will be appealed at the political slaughter that will be the next general election.. BTW Im apolitical...they are all swine at the trough.[/p][/quote]"There doesn't seem to be smaller accommodation to move into...is that Mr Livermores fault or the states?" Not true. I know people on the exchange list living in 1 bed accommodation waiting for a larger place to become available. That won't happen until single occupants of larger properties do the right thing. I agree more council properties need to be built and made available. "Why do you assume he has sky or anything besides food and heat to 'give up' " One of his neighbours told me he has Sky tv. "Doesn't you humane suggestion reiterate that this is a tax, a punishment and penalty" Of course it's a penalty. To avoid the penalty you need to move to an appropriately sized property, freeing up your council property for a larger family. I'm not saying it'll work though. People with strong emotional ties to a house would rather take the cut in benefits....[/p][/quote]One more thing. While I fully understand how difficult it is for a single occupancy council tennant to move from a 3 bed home they have occupied for decades, with strong emotional ties, is that any different from the private home owner who has to move to a smaller property because they can no longer afford the mortgage and bills as a single occupant?[/p][/quote]The difference is; the house owner can arrange to move to a smaller property because they are AVAILABLE...its not the case with the council tenant.[/p][/quote]Hang on, so my friend in the 1 bed flat with 2 kids is on the exchange list waiting for a bigger place. Mr Livermore has a bigger place, and could take the 1 bed flat. So it is available! I wonder how many occupants of larger coucil properties have genuinely tried to find a smaller property. Something isn't right here. I guess what you're saying is the council are not capable of organising the exchange, so therefore it just won't work. I have to agree with that....[/p][/quote]No it is not available...if you were to check with the council you would see that it is occupied...the fact it is on the exchange list does not make it any less occupied.. Why is the onus on those in larger properties to find and secure smaller ones? The council should be pulling together a file on who has what, who needs what, who will move without inducement and who will with.. Till then people are considered to be in a property to large for them until the pay the bedroom tax and then alls well in the council coffers.[/p][/quote]"The council should be pulling together a file on who has what, who needs what" I agree with that part. "who will move without inducement and who will with.." So in our example, the one who will move without inducement would be the small family in the one bed flat, right? And the one who needs inducement is the single occupant of the 3 bed house, presumably? One could suggest the inducement for him is that he will get his full entitlement to benefits back if he moves. I think that was the idea behind the policy. Not saying it works though......[/p][/quote]I don't think anyone knows what the idea behind the policy was/is! Its a dog-dinner of a policy... The money earned cannot be the reason, nor can the 'freeing up' because the govt has no idea of the number of those who have moved, those who haven't, how much was deducted, how much was saves and how many got out via loopholes or even with council help...ie Leeds Councils ThisYear
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree