Family's agony over bedroom tax

Family's agony over bedroom tax

Family's agony over bedroom tax

First published in Local News
Last updated

A FAMILY faces being made homeless as Basildon Council prepares for its first-ever controversial “bedroom tax” eviction.

The authority is taking Teresa Whitby, 59, to court on Friday to apply for possession of her home after she fell into rent arrears.

The Tory administration is thought to be one of the first authorities in the country to start evicting people who have fallen into arrears because of the benefit slash.

Angry campaigners called Basildon Council “the meanest in the country”.

Mrs Whitby claims about half of her £900 arrears have been caused by the spare room subsidy, dubbed the “bedroom tax”, which was introduced last year.

The Government scheme, which cuts benefits to social housing tenants deemed to have an empty room, was brought in to encourage people to move into smaller properties.

Mrs Whitby, husband Bill, 62, and their son, could now be evicted from their three-bedroom home.

They have struggled to cope since their housing benefit was cut by £15 a week.

She said: “I’ve called councillors, MPs, and have even been to a church to see if they can do anything, but I don’t think there’s anything anyone can do now.

“The stress has been unbelievable and I’m living in fear of being homeless.”

The couple moved into their home 40 years ago.

Mrs Whitby added: “We’ve been living in this town all our lives and my father helped build it.

“We’ve been working here for so long and have been paying our taxes and rent all our lives until we ran into difficulties when we lost our jobs.”

The couple receive £112aweek between them in Jobseeker's Allowance, but claim this does not cover their rent. The Echo revealed earlier this year that the 15,000 Basildon residents affected by the “bedroom tax”

have almost no hope of downsizing due to a lack of council homes.

Since the reforms were introduced, just 48 tenants have moved.

Dave Murray, who set up the Basildon Against Bedroom Tax campaign group, said: “Basildon is looking like it is the meanest council in the country with this move.

“This is a person that has never claimed benefits before in her life before last April’s bedroom tax was brought in and now she has fallen into arrears.”

Comments (166)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:05am Tue 8 Apr 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

There will always be a victim, when progress is made...
There will always be a victim, when progress is made... carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: -1

8:14am Tue 8 Apr 14

compaq7500 says...

I got made redundant 2 years ago and the house I had lived in all my life was repossessed as a family of 4 with 2 children under 7 we are not in arrears and we are currently in receipt of jobseekers allowance income based, we as a family pay our bills each month benefit life is no life people you have to make cutbacks if council tenants get into rent or council tax arrears then they are overspending the day's of tenants of council houses thinking they are for life are gone £9000 in arrears whether it's for council tax,bedroom tax whatever is crazy money my housing benefit goes straight to the housing association so I don't have the temptation to spend that money each month.
I got made redundant 2 years ago and the house I had lived in all my life was repossessed as a family of 4 with 2 children under 7 we are not in arrears and we are currently in receipt of jobseekers allowance income based, we as a family pay our bills each month benefit life is no life people you have to make cutbacks if council tenants get into rent or council tax arrears then they are overspending the day's of tenants of council houses thinking they are for life are gone £9000 in arrears whether it's for council tax,bedroom tax whatever is crazy money my housing benefit goes straight to the housing association so I don't have the temptation to spend that money each month. compaq7500
  • Score: 44

8:45am Tue 8 Apr 14

LinfordsLunchbox says...

Meanwhile a family of somalians in west london get £1million worth of adaptations to a £3million house before they move into it...
Meanwhile a family of somalians in west london get £1million worth of adaptations to a £3million house before they move into it... LinfordsLunchbox
  • Score: 56

8:59am Tue 8 Apr 14

Happy Chickie says...

LinfordsLunchbox wrote:
Meanwhile a family of somalians in west london get £1million worth of adaptations to a £3million house before they move into it...
I do believe that was under a Labour government. Certainly not under a Tory one where the welfare cap is 26G.
[quote][p][bold]LinfordsLunchbox[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile a family of somalians in west london get £1million worth of adaptations to a £3million house before they move into it...[/p][/quote]I do believe that was under a Labour government. Certainly not under a Tory one where the welfare cap is 26G. Happy Chickie
  • Score: -6

9:28am Tue 8 Apr 14

Ironman says...

Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.
Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples. Ironman
  • Score: 15

9:29am Tue 8 Apr 14

Happy Chickie says...

Ironman wrote:
Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.
Their son is living there as well - surely he could contribute.
[quote][p][bold]Ironman[/bold] wrote: Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.[/p][/quote]Their son is living there as well - surely he could contribute. Happy Chickie
  • Score: 42

9:36am Tue 8 Apr 14

pembury53 says...

Happy Chickie wrote:
Ironman wrote: Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.
Their son is living there as well - surely he could contribute.
...... with his job seekers ?
[quote][p][bold]Happy Chickie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ironman[/bold] wrote: Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.[/p][/quote]Their son is living there as well - surely he could contribute.[/p][/quote]...... with his job seekers ? pembury53
  • Score: 10

9:44am Tue 8 Apr 14

Howard Cháse says...

No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?
No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago? Howard Cháse
  • Score: 12

9:50am Tue 8 Apr 14

pembury53 says...

Howard Cháse wrote:
No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?
cameron's "we're all in together" was a subtle hint....
[quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?[/p][/quote]cameron's "we're all in together" was a subtle hint.... pembury53
  • Score: 7

9:56am Tue 8 Apr 14

Howard Cháse says...

pembury53 wrote:
Howard Cháse wrote:
No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?
cameron's "we're all in together" was a subtle hint....
Tea break's over. Back on your heads......
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?[/p][/quote]cameron's "we're all in together" was a subtle hint....[/p][/quote]Tea break's over. Back on your heads...... Howard Cháse
  • Score: 2

10:07am Tue 8 Apr 14

Happy Chickie says...

pembury53 wrote:
Happy Chickie wrote:
Ironman wrote: Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.
Their son is living there as well - surely he could contribute.
...... with his job seekers ?
Where does it say the son gets jobseekers?

It doesn't.
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Happy Chickie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ironman[/bold] wrote: Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.[/p][/quote]Their son is living there as well - surely he could contribute.[/p][/quote]...... with his job seekers ?[/p][/quote]Where does it say the son gets jobseekers? It doesn't. Happy Chickie
  • Score: 10

10:10am Tue 8 Apr 14

Happy Chickie says...

Howard Cháse wrote:
No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?
The rent increase was not a lot.

"Massive" is a bit OTT
[quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?[/p][/quote]The rent increase was not a lot. "Massive" is a bit OTT Happy Chickie
  • Score: 9

10:17am Tue 8 Apr 14

compaq7500 says...

I'm on benefits and agree that everyone needs to pay a little bit to get our country back on track which is due to years of a labour government over spending and over spending if your on benefits luxuries go out the window no holidays etc etc I sign on every 2 weeks and are currently on a work programme which is a nuisance but understand why as you can clearly see who don't want work and those that are trying to get a job I agree that the benefit system is a joke and people think it's still a gravy train and a way of life which it shouldn't be, I for one can't wait to get off benefits I absolutely hate the stigma that comes with claiming benefits I'm claiming benefits because I have to not that I want to which for most on benefits is a lifestyle choice.
I'm on benefits and agree that everyone needs to pay a little bit to get our country back on track which is due to years of a labour government over spending and over spending if your on benefits luxuries go out the window no holidays etc etc I sign on every 2 weeks and are currently on a work programme which is a nuisance but understand why as you can clearly see who don't want work and those that are trying to get a job I agree that the benefit system is a joke and people think it's still a gravy train and a way of life which it shouldn't be, I for one can't wait to get off benefits I absolutely hate the stigma that comes with claiming benefits I'm claiming benefits because I have to not that I want to which for most on benefits is a lifestyle choice. compaq7500
  • Score: 7

10:21am Tue 8 Apr 14

angryofessex says...

Ironman wrote:
Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.
Just because some politicians are no better than they should be, seems to be used to excuse anybody from responsibility for not supporting themselves to committing fraud, it’s wearing a bit thin now.
[quote][p][bold]Ironman[/bold] wrote: Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.[/p][/quote]Just because some politicians are no better than they should be, seems to be used to excuse anybody from responsibility for not supporting themselves to committing fraud, it’s wearing a bit thin now. angryofessex
  • Score: 13

10:23am Tue 8 Apr 14

Howard Cháse says...

Happy Chickie wrote:
Howard Cháse wrote:
No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?
The rent increase was not a lot.

"Massive" is a bit OTT
Yes. Sorry.

The amount of contribution for the rent although now larger not a three hundred percent increase compared to two years ago like that for Council Tax.

My apologies for being OTT on that one.
[quote][p][bold]Happy Chickie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?[/p][/quote]The rent increase was not a lot. "Massive" is a bit OTT[/p][/quote]Yes. Sorry. The amount of contribution for the rent although now larger not a three hundred percent increase compared to two years ago like that for Council Tax. My apologies for being OTT on that one. Howard Cháse
  • Score: 7

10:31am Tue 8 Apr 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

This lazy oik needs to get off his ar5e and get a job, building labourer, 100 quid a day, high time they abolished the job seekers allowance, as nobody who gets our taxes, ever goes seeking work.
This lazy oik needs to get off his ar5e and get a job, building labourer, 100 quid a day, high time they abolished the job seekers allowance, as nobody who gets our taxes, ever goes seeking work. carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: -20

10:57am Tue 8 Apr 14

Happy Chickie says...

Howard Cháse wrote:
Happy Chickie wrote:
Howard Cháse wrote:
No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?
The rent increase was not a lot.

"Massive" is a bit OTT
Yes. Sorry.

The amount of contribution for the rent although now larger not a three hundred percent increase compared to two years ago like that for Council Tax.

My apologies for being OTT on that one.
"three hundred percent increase compared to two years ago"

Eh?
[quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Happy Chickie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?[/p][/quote]The rent increase was not a lot. "Massive" is a bit OTT[/p][/quote]Yes. Sorry. The amount of contribution for the rent although now larger not a three hundred percent increase compared to two years ago like that for Council Tax. My apologies for being OTT on that one.[/p][/quote]"three hundred percent increase compared to two years ago" Eh? Happy Chickie
  • Score: 3

10:59am Tue 8 Apr 14

LinfordsLunchbox says...

compaq7500 wrote:
I'm on benefits and agree that everyone needs to pay a little bit to get our country back on track which is due to years of a labour government over spending and over spending if your on benefits luxuries go out the window no holidays etc etc I sign on every 2 weeks and are currently on a work programme which is a nuisance but understand why as you can clearly see who don't want work and those that are trying to get a job I agree that the benefit system is a joke and people think it's still a gravy train and a way of life which it shouldn't be, I for one can't wait to get off benefits I absolutely hate the stigma that comes with claiming benefits I'm claiming benefits because I have to not that I want to which for most on benefits is a lifestyle choice.
Shut it sponger! Sitting there, sipping your bolinger, smoking your cuban cigars and eating your caviar on your 2000ft yacht at our expense! Living the life of riley on the £60 a week we break our backs to hand you on a silver platter! Anybody on benefits isnt allowed an opinion here mate
[quote][p][bold]compaq7500[/bold] wrote: I'm on benefits and agree that everyone needs to pay a little bit to get our country back on track which is due to years of a labour government over spending and over spending if your on benefits luxuries go out the window no holidays etc etc I sign on every 2 weeks and are currently on a work programme which is a nuisance but understand why as you can clearly see who don't want work and those that are trying to get a job I agree that the benefit system is a joke and people think it's still a gravy train and a way of life which it shouldn't be, I for one can't wait to get off benefits I absolutely hate the stigma that comes with claiming benefits I'm claiming benefits because I have to not that I want to which for most on benefits is a lifestyle choice.[/p][/quote]Shut it sponger! Sitting there, sipping your bolinger, smoking your cuban cigars and eating your caviar on your 2000ft yacht at our expense! Living the life of riley on the £60 a week we break our backs to hand you on a silver platter! Anybody on benefits isnt allowed an opinion here mate LinfordsLunchbox
  • Score: -44

11:05am Tue 8 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

pembury53 wrote:
Howard Cháse wrote:
No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?
cameron's "we're all in together" was a subtle hint....
Or a Lie..more than likely the latter
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: No-one mentioned the massive increases in the proportion of rent and council tax that those on benefits have to pay nowadays compared to two years ago?[/p][/quote]cameron's "we're all in together" was a subtle hint....[/p][/quote]Or a Lie..more than likely the latter ThisYear
  • Score: -7

11:08am Tue 8 Apr 14

pembury53 says...

Happy Chickie wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
Happy Chickie wrote:
Ironman wrote: Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.
Their son is living there as well - surely he could contribute.
...... with his job seekers ?
Where does it say the son gets jobseekers? It doesn't.
it doesn't have to....
[quote][p][bold]Happy Chickie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Happy Chickie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ironman[/bold] wrote: Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.[/p][/quote]Their son is living there as well - surely he could contribute.[/p][/quote]...... with his job seekers ?[/p][/quote]Where does it say the son gets jobseekers? It doesn't.[/p][/quote]it doesn't have to.... pembury53
  • Score: -5

11:09am Tue 8 Apr 14

News Bunny says...

No name in the space where the name of the journalist normally goes, I see. (as of 11.08 on 08/04/14)
No name in the space where the name of the journalist normally goes, I see. (as of 11.08 on 08/04/14) News Bunny
  • Score: 5

11:15am Tue 8 Apr 14

compaq7500 says...

Lunchbox your intelligence just about sums you up sadly and just for the record its a free country and I am regardless of your views entitled to an opinion there's that stigma I was referring to earlier people who are actually in employment tar everyone that is in receipt of benefits with the same brush not knowing the individuals circumstances on why they are now claiming benefits tell you what let's swap lifestyles for a week and see how you get on I've 2 girls under 7 no luxuries,no holidays my house got repossessed do you honestly think I wanted that for my wife and children I'm applying for at least 10 jobs a week including minimum wage paid jobs.

You have no idea mate.
Lunchbox your intelligence just about sums you up sadly and just for the record its a free country and I am regardless of your views entitled to an opinion there's that stigma I was referring to earlier people who are actually in employment tar everyone that is in receipt of benefits with the same brush not knowing the individuals circumstances on why they are now claiming benefits tell you what let's swap lifestyles for a week and see how you get on I've 2 girls under 7 no luxuries,no holidays my house got repossessed do you honestly think I wanted that for my wife and children I'm applying for at least 10 jobs a week including minimum wage paid jobs. You have no idea mate. compaq7500
  • Score: 28

11:24am Tue 8 Apr 14

LinfordsLunchbox says...

compaq7500 wrote:
Lunchbox your intelligence just about sums you up sadly and just for the record its a free country and I am regardless of your views entitled to an opinion there's that stigma I was referring to earlier people who are actually in employment tar everyone that is in receipt of benefits with the same brush not knowing the individuals circumstances on why they are now claiming benefits tell you what let's swap lifestyles for a week and see how you get on I've 2 girls under 7 no luxuries,no holidays my house got repossessed do you honestly think I wanted that for my wife and children I'm applying for at least 10 jobs a week including minimum wage paid jobs.

You have no idea mate.
I was being sarcastic you clown
[quote][p][bold]compaq7500[/bold] wrote: Lunchbox your intelligence just about sums you up sadly and just for the record its a free country and I am regardless of your views entitled to an opinion there's that stigma I was referring to earlier people who are actually in employment tar everyone that is in receipt of benefits with the same brush not knowing the individuals circumstances on why they are now claiming benefits tell you what let's swap lifestyles for a week and see how you get on I've 2 girls under 7 no luxuries,no holidays my house got repossessed do you honestly think I wanted that for my wife and children I'm applying for at least 10 jobs a week including minimum wage paid jobs. You have no idea mate.[/p][/quote]I was being sarcastic you clown LinfordsLunchbox
  • Score: -5

11:27am Tue 8 Apr 14

pembury53 says...

LinfordsLunchbox wrote:
compaq7500 wrote: Lunchbox your intelligence just about sums you up sadly and just for the record its a free country and I am regardless of your views entitled to an opinion there's that stigma I was referring to earlier people who are actually in employment tar everyone that is in receipt of benefits with the same brush not knowing the individuals circumstances on why they are now claiming benefits tell you what let's swap lifestyles for a week and see how you get on I've 2 girls under 7 no luxuries,no holidays my house got repossessed do you honestly think I wanted that for my wife and children I'm applying for at least 10 jobs a week including minimum wage paid jobs. You have no idea mate.
I was being sarcastic you clown
and rather obviously i thought....
[quote][p][bold]LinfordsLunchbox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]compaq7500[/bold] wrote: Lunchbox your intelligence just about sums you up sadly and just for the record its a free country and I am regardless of your views entitled to an opinion there's that stigma I was referring to earlier people who are actually in employment tar everyone that is in receipt of benefits with the same brush not knowing the individuals circumstances on why they are now claiming benefits tell you what let's swap lifestyles for a week and see how you get on I've 2 girls under 7 no luxuries,no holidays my house got repossessed do you honestly think I wanted that for my wife and children I'm applying for at least 10 jobs a week including minimum wage paid jobs. You have no idea mate.[/p][/quote]I was being sarcastic you clown[/p][/quote]and rather obviously i thought.... pembury53
  • Score: 7

11:32am Tue 8 Apr 14

andy:) says...

Its worrying that many stories in the Echo receently especially about similar topics are often wholly worng or inaccurate, this story is missing so many facts as to make it pointless, there is no explanation of the figures, etc. JSA is nothing to do with housing costs.

Also see the Echo's recent story about Castle Point council doing away with bailiffs, that story was wrong in about every aspect.

Personally I believe the bedroom tax is unfair, it doesnt save any money and no doubt stories about evicated failies will grow, often the coumncil will end up having to house them elsewhere often costing more.
Its worrying that many stories in the Echo receently especially about similar topics are often wholly worng or inaccurate, this story is missing so many facts as to make it pointless, there is no explanation of the figures, etc. JSA is nothing to do with housing costs. Also see the Echo's recent story about Castle Point council doing away with bailiffs, that story was wrong in about every aspect. Personally I believe the bedroom tax is unfair, it doesnt save any money and no doubt stories about evicated failies will grow, often the coumncil will end up having to house them elsewhere often costing more. andy:)
  • Score: 11

11:46am Tue 8 Apr 14

boo beckett says...

This is an explanation for why this couple and many like them are in the position they are. They worked and paid taxes for 40 years, and then lost their jobs because the government put the country in debt. A debt that totals £14,000 to each individual in the country. It's not their fault that the economy was screwed up by the government, therefore, taking away their jobs and putting them in arrears. The whole point of social care is to help those most vulnerable. It's not people like this who put the country in such a state, it's the multi-national companies who pay no tax who are to blame. So, ask yourselves this: Is it this couple's fault that you now owe £14,000 to banks and foreign governments, or the government's and mulit-national companies who have profited by it?
This is an explanation for why this couple and many like them are in the position they are. They worked and paid taxes for 40 years, and then lost their jobs because the government put the country in debt. A debt that totals £14,000 to each individual in the country. It's not their fault that the economy was screwed up by the government, therefore, taking away their jobs and putting them in arrears. The whole point of social care is to help those most vulnerable. It's not people like this who put the country in such a state, it's the multi-national companies who pay no tax who are to blame. So, ask yourselves this: Is it this couple's fault that you now owe £14,000 to banks and foreign governments, or the government's and mulit-national companies who have profited by it? boo beckett
  • Score: 17

11:58am Tue 8 Apr 14

Happy Chickie says...

andy:) wrote:
Its worrying that many stories in the Echo receently especially about similar topics are often wholly worng or inaccurate, this story is missing so many facts as to make it pointless, there is no explanation of the figures, etc. JSA is nothing to do with housing costs.

Also see the Echo's recent story about Castle Point council doing away with bailiffs, that story was wrong in about every aspect.

Personally I believe the bedroom tax is unfair, it doesnt save any money and no doubt stories about evicated failies will grow, often the coumncil will end up having to house them elsewhere often costing more.
Benefit reduction, not a bedroom tax.
[quote][p][bold]andy:)[/bold] wrote: Its worrying that many stories in the Echo receently especially about similar topics are often wholly worng or inaccurate, this story is missing so many facts as to make it pointless, there is no explanation of the figures, etc. JSA is nothing to do with housing costs. Also see the Echo's recent story about Castle Point council doing away with bailiffs, that story was wrong in about every aspect. Personally I believe the bedroom tax is unfair, it doesnt save any money and no doubt stories about evicated failies will grow, often the coumncil will end up having to house them elsewhere often costing more.[/p][/quote]Benefit reduction, not a bedroom tax. Happy Chickie
  • Score: 18

12:01pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

carnmountyouknowitma
kessense
wrote:
This lazy oik needs to get off his ar5e and get a job, building labourer, 100 quid a day, high time they abolished the job seekers allowance, as nobody who gets our taxes, ever goes seeking work.
Bannish all state freebees let people work for their money
[quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: This lazy oik needs to get off his ar5e and get a job, building labourer, 100 quid a day, high time they abolished the job seekers allowance, as nobody who gets our taxes, ever goes seeking work.[/p][/quote]Bannish all state freebees let people work for their money Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: -6

12:09pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Devils Advocate says...

Just look at you lot! Talk about the have-nots attacking the have-nots! Will you never learn? the same scum bags who made this divisive law are laughing at the lot of you!
Only yesterday we read about a woman (Tory MP) who is far better off than every one of you, blatantly cheating the system of many thousands of pounds of your hard earned money, being told that it is fine, as long as she apologises and pays back a small fraction of her cheating gains!
And remember, there are Tory councillors writing under stupid names on here to direct your thoughts.
Wake up and smell the roses? for Gods sake!
Just look at you lot! Talk about the have-nots attacking the have-nots! Will you never learn? the same scum bags who made this divisive law are laughing at the lot of you! Only yesterday we read about a woman (Tory MP) who is far better off than every one of you, blatantly cheating the system of many thousands of pounds of your hard earned money, being told that it is fine, as long as she apologises and pays back a small fraction of her cheating gains! And remember, there are Tory councillors writing under stupid names on here to direct your thoughts. Wake up and smell the roses? for Gods sake! Devils Advocate
  • Score: 35

12:17pm Tue 8 Apr 14

boo beckett says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
Just look at you lot! Talk about the have-nots attacking the have-nots! Will you never learn? the same scum bags who made this divisive law are laughing at the lot of you!
Only yesterday we read about a woman (Tory MP) who is far better off than every one of you, blatantly cheating the system of many thousands of pounds of your hard earned money, being told that it is fine, as long as she apologises and pays back a small fraction of her cheating gains!
And remember, there are Tory councillors writing under stupid names on here to direct your thoughts.
Wake up and smell the roses? for Gods sake!
Well said!
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: Just look at you lot! Talk about the have-nots attacking the have-nots! Will you never learn? the same scum bags who made this divisive law are laughing at the lot of you! Only yesterday we read about a woman (Tory MP) who is far better off than every one of you, blatantly cheating the system of many thousands of pounds of your hard earned money, being told that it is fine, as long as she apologises and pays back a small fraction of her cheating gains! And remember, there are Tory councillors writing under stupid names on here to direct your thoughts. Wake up and smell the roses? for Gods sake![/p][/quote]Well said! boo beckett
  • Score: 12

12:46pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Ian P says...

boo beckett wrote:
Happy Chickie wrote: £9,000 in arrears? They should be evicted with those types of arrears. If my mortgage was in arrears but that much I would lose my home. No sympathy.
Read the article. They worked, paid taxes, and then lost their jobs because the government put the country in debt. It's not their fault that they are in arrears. The whole point of social care is to help those most vulnerable. It's not people like this who put the country in such a state, it's the multi-national companies who pay no tax who are to blame.
Unfortunately, while I in no way agree that multi-nationals should get away with not paying tax, that is only part of the picture. Many of these companies are major employers and without them we would have many more people without jobs, having to claim benefits, and not paying tax & national insurance. So the country would actually be considerably worse off if the government came down on them hard, and they shut up shop and left.
[quote][p][bold]boo beckett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Happy Chickie[/bold] wrote: £9,000 in arrears? They should be evicted with those types of arrears. If my mortgage was in arrears but that much I would lose my home. No sympathy.[/p][/quote]Read the article. They worked, paid taxes, and then lost their jobs because the government put the country in debt. It's not their fault that they are in arrears. The whole point of social care is to help those most vulnerable. It's not people like this who put the country in such a state, it's the multi-national companies who pay no tax who are to blame.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately, while I in no way agree that multi-nationals should get away with not paying tax, that is only part of the picture. Many of these companies are major employers and without them we would have many more people without jobs, having to claim benefits, and not paying tax & national insurance. So the country would actually be considerably worse off if the government came down on them hard, and they shut up shop and left. Ian P
  • Score: 7

1:07pm Tue 8 Apr 14

LostFaith.com says...

It is not just those out of work who are having their benefit reduced. I work part time, I pay FULL rent, I have 3 boys and when my oldest went to uni last year I lost the small amount of housing benefit I had been getting. It is totally unfair as I cannot afford to pay more, I have arrears of a couple of hundred pounds which carries over every month, I have been served with a notice seeking possession and I am constantly hounded via text, email and phone calls by the revenue team. Im a single parent just trying to make a better life for me and my sons, but Im just fighting the system all the way. Why are low income families who work also being punished?
It is not just those out of work who are having their benefit reduced. I work part time, I pay FULL rent, I have 3 boys and when my oldest went to uni last year I lost the small amount of housing benefit I had been getting. It is totally unfair as I cannot afford to pay more, I have arrears of a couple of hundred pounds which carries over every month, I have been served with a notice seeking possession and I am constantly hounded via text, email and phone calls by the revenue team. Im a single parent just trying to make a better life for me and my sons, but Im just fighting the system all the way. Why are low income families who work also being punished? LostFaith.com
  • Score: 16

1:13pm Tue 8 Apr 14

boo beckett says...

LostFaith.com wrote:
It is not just those out of work who are having their benefit reduced. I work part time, I pay FULL rent, I have 3 boys and when my oldest went to uni last year I lost the small amount of housing benefit I had been getting. It is totally unfair as I cannot afford to pay more, I have arrears of a couple of hundred pounds which carries over every month, I have been served with a notice seeking possession and I am constantly hounded via text, email and phone calls by the revenue team. Im a single parent just trying to make a better life for me and my sons, but Im just fighting the system all the way. Why are low income families who work also being punished?
I am right behind people like you. Those who work and care for their own should not be victimised.
[quote][p][bold]LostFaith.com[/bold] wrote: It is not just those out of work who are having their benefit reduced. I work part time, I pay FULL rent, I have 3 boys and when my oldest went to uni last year I lost the small amount of housing benefit I had been getting. It is totally unfair as I cannot afford to pay more, I have arrears of a couple of hundred pounds which carries over every month, I have been served with a notice seeking possession and I am constantly hounded via text, email and phone calls by the revenue team. Im a single parent just trying to make a better life for me and my sons, but Im just fighting the system all the way. Why are low income families who work also being punished?[/p][/quote]I am right behind people like you. Those who work and care for their own should not be victimised. boo beckett
  • Score: 15

1:28pm Tue 8 Apr 14

AbbiMay says...

To clarify an error on the echo's part. The arrears amount to 900 and not 9000 pounds as stated.

As a relative of the said family, I'm absolutely appalled that the local authorities would even consider taking this action against a family, who by the way have contributed in the best way they could to your society for the past 40 years. Recommendations made by the authority to downsize were complied with only to be told sorry, we cant accommodate you there so we're going to drag you through court proceedings and potentially make you homeless. Good one.

As an Irish citizen, I thought we had it bad with our selfish, sneaky governent but my god the tory government are a bad bunch. Jobseekers here receive 188e per week. That's double what this family are receiving per week and that's for one person! Is it any wonder they have found themselves in difficulty considering the ridiculous taxes imposed on council properties.

Can you imagine facing this situation at that stage in your life?(both near enough to pension age).
This is such an awful situation to be in for anyone, homeowner or council tenant.
I think some supportive words would be more justified in the comments section here.
To clarify an error on the echo's part. The arrears amount to 900 and not 9000 pounds as stated. As a relative of the said family, I'm absolutely appalled that the local authorities would even consider taking this action against a family, who by the way have contributed in the best way they could to your society for the past 40 years. Recommendations made by the authority to downsize were complied with only to be told sorry, we cant accommodate you there so we're going to drag you through court proceedings and potentially make you homeless. Good one. As an Irish citizen, I thought we had it bad with our selfish, sneaky governent but my god the tory government are a bad bunch. Jobseekers here receive 188e per week. That's double what this family are receiving per week and that's for one person! Is it any wonder they have found themselves in difficulty considering the ridiculous taxes imposed on council properties. Can you imagine facing this situation at that stage in your life?(both near enough to pension age). This is such an awful situation to be in for anyone, homeowner or council tenant. I think some supportive words would be more justified in the comments section here. AbbiMay
  • Score: 12

1:31pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Jezza14 says...

Meanwhile, the Echo quietly revises the arrears figure to £900 to correct their typo and hopes no one notices...

I assume all of the people who tore into this couple because of the mistated figure will now be offering their apologies?...
Meanwhile, the Echo quietly revises the arrears figure to £900 to correct their typo and hopes no one notices... I assume all of the people who tore into this couple because of the mistated figure will now be offering their apologies?... Jezza14
  • Score: 3

1:39pm Tue 8 Apr 14

poortaxpayer says...

Only half the arrears were caused by the Bedroom Tax so they would have been evicted anyway Bedroom Tax or not as they aren't paying all their rent anyway.

Their son could pay £15 from his income or they could move to a 2 bedroom property - the council pay a very generous sum to allow people to downsize.

No sympathy whatsoever.
Only half the arrears were caused by the Bedroom Tax so they would have been evicted anyway Bedroom Tax or not as they aren't paying all their rent anyway. Their son could pay £15 from his income or they could move to a 2 bedroom property - the council pay a very generous sum to allow people to downsize. No sympathy whatsoever. poortaxpayer
  • Score: -8

1:39pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Happy Chickie says...

Jezza14 wrote:
Meanwhile, the Echo quietly revises the arrears figure to £900 to correct their typo and hopes no one notices...

I assume all of the people who tore into this couple because of the mistated figure will now be offering their apologies?...
You assume wrong. Arrears are arrears.

However, seeing as the Echo made such a huge mistake in their sums, perhaps they could clear up the £900 pounds for this couple to clear their rent arrears.
[quote][p][bold]Jezza14[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile, the Echo quietly revises the arrears figure to £900 to correct their typo and hopes no one notices... I assume all of the people who tore into this couple because of the mistated figure will now be offering their apologies?...[/p][/quote]You assume wrong. Arrears are arrears. However, seeing as the Echo made such a huge mistake in their sums, perhaps they could clear up the £900 pounds for this couple to clear their rent arrears. Happy Chickie
  • Score: 5

1:46pm Tue 8 Apr 14

boo beckett says...

I'm quite happy for my taxes to go to a family like this to keep them housed. It's all about whether you care for people or you don't.
I'm quite happy for my taxes to go to a family like this to keep them housed. It's all about whether you care for people or you don't. boo beckett
  • Score: 6

1:47pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Jezza14 says...

p.s. if Mr Whitby is 62 then he will become exempt from under occupancy rules in a few months, so why bother evicting this family?

I have to agree with what 1 other poster has said, if they have an adult son living in the property then their arrears are likely to be due more as a result of a deduction for him being a non-dependent adult than the under occupancy deduction - if he is working then he should be contributing to the household bills.

This doesn't however detract from how barmy the under occupancy rules are. The Tories like to say that the rules are the same for people who rent privately, but that simply isn't true. Were they to find a 2 bedroom property in the private rented sector, they would get more benefit than they do currently - so where is the logic there?

No one should be forced out of their house when there isn't houses available that are suitable, and not after 40 years. The Tories exempted pensioners for this reason (and because they know pensioners vote), so there is no moral high ground to be taken here.

Telling someone who is 62 to go get a job shows how ignorant some peopl are on here.
p.s. if Mr Whitby is 62 then he will become exempt from under occupancy rules in a few months, so why bother evicting this family? I have to agree with what 1 other poster has said, if they have an adult son living in the property then their arrears are likely to be due more as a result of a deduction for him being a non-dependent adult than the under occupancy deduction - if he is working then he should be contributing to the household bills. This doesn't however detract from how barmy the under occupancy rules are. The Tories like to say that the rules are the same for people who rent privately, but that simply isn't true. Were they to find a 2 bedroom property in the private rented sector, they would get more benefit than they do currently - so where is the logic there? No one should be forced out of their house when there isn't houses available that are suitable, and not after 40 years. The Tories exempted pensioners for this reason (and because they know pensioners vote), so there is no moral high ground to be taken here. Telling someone who is 62 to go get a job shows how ignorant some peopl are on here. Jezza14
  • Score: 24

1:50pm Tue 8 Apr 14

angryofessex says...

Jezza14 wrote:
Meanwhile, the Echo quietly revises the arrears figure to £900 to correct their typo and hopes no one notices... I assume all of the people who tore into this couple because of the mistated figure will now be offering their apologies?...
People can only comment on the information given. Maybe the Echo should apologise.
[quote][p][bold]Jezza14[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile, the Echo quietly revises the arrears figure to £900 to correct their typo and hopes no one notices... I assume all of the people who tore into this couple because of the mistated figure will now be offering their apologies?...[/p][/quote]People can only comment on the information given. Maybe the Echo should apologise. angryofessex
  • Score: 10

3:17pm Tue 8 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

got spare bedroom? this family have worked all their lives, have lived in subsidised housing all their lives and have never put any money aside for contingencies or savings? if not they only have themselves to blame.
got spare bedroom? this family have worked all their lives, have lived in subsidised housing all their lives and have never put any money aside for contingencies or savings? if not they only have themselves to blame. profondo asbo
  • Score: -6

3:19pm Tue 8 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

got lodger?
got lodger? profondo asbo
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Tue 8 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

AbbiMay wrote:
To clarify an error on the echo's part. The arrears amount to 900 and not 9000 pounds as stated.

As a relative of the said family, I'm absolutely appalled that the local authorities would even consider taking this action against a family, who by the way have contributed in the best way they could to your society for the past 40 years. Recommendations made by the authority to downsize were complied with only to be told sorry, we cant accommodate you there so we're going to drag you through court proceedings and potentially make you homeless. Good one.

As an Irish citizen, I thought we had it bad with our selfish, sneaky governent but my god the tory government are a bad bunch. Jobseekers here receive 188e per week. That's double what this family are receiving per week and that's for one person! Is it any wonder they have found themselves in difficulty considering the ridiculous taxes imposed on council properties.

Can you imagine facing this situation at that stage in your life?(both near enough to pension age).
This is such an awful situation to be in for anyone, homeowner or council tenant.
I think some supportive words would be more justified in the comments section here.
private pensions can be taken from age 55
[quote][p][bold]AbbiMay[/bold] wrote: To clarify an error on the echo's part. The arrears amount to 900 and not 9000 pounds as stated. As a relative of the said family, I'm absolutely appalled that the local authorities would even consider taking this action against a family, who by the way have contributed in the best way they could to your society for the past 40 years. Recommendations made by the authority to downsize were complied with only to be told sorry, we cant accommodate you there so we're going to drag you through court proceedings and potentially make you homeless. Good one. As an Irish citizen, I thought we had it bad with our selfish, sneaky governent but my god the tory government are a bad bunch. Jobseekers here receive 188e per week. That's double what this family are receiving per week and that's for one person! Is it any wonder they have found themselves in difficulty considering the ridiculous taxes imposed on council properties. Can you imagine facing this situation at that stage in your life?(both near enough to pension age). This is such an awful situation to be in for anyone, homeowner or council tenant. I think some supportive words would be more justified in the comments section here.[/p][/quote]private pensions can be taken from age 55 profondo asbo
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Tue 8 Apr 14

FallenAngel66 says...

profondo asbo wrote:
AbbiMay wrote:
To clarify an error on the echo's part. The arrears amount to 900 and not 9000 pounds as stated.

As a relative of the said family, I'm absolutely appalled that the local authorities would even consider taking this action against a family, who by the way have contributed in the best way they could to your society for the past 40 years. Recommendations made by the authority to downsize were complied with only to be told sorry, we cant accommodate you there so we're going to drag you through court proceedings and potentially make you homeless. Good one.

As an Irish citizen, I thought we had it bad with our selfish, sneaky governent but my god the tory government are a bad bunch. Jobseekers here receive 188e per week. That's double what this family are receiving per week and that's for one person! Is it any wonder they have found themselves in difficulty considering the ridiculous taxes imposed on council properties.

Can you imagine facing this situation at that stage in your life?(both near enough to pension age).
This is such an awful situation to be in for anyone, homeowner or council tenant.
I think some supportive words would be more justified in the comments section here.
private pensions can be taken from age 55
I think this is just another scam so the government get more money off people and bleed people dry. They should sort out the housing better and move people into the right accommodations.
We will all be paying it soon you see weather you have too many rooms or not.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AbbiMay[/bold] wrote: To clarify an error on the echo's part. The arrears amount to 900 and not 9000 pounds as stated. As a relative of the said family, I'm absolutely appalled that the local authorities would even consider taking this action against a family, who by the way have contributed in the best way they could to your society for the past 40 years. Recommendations made by the authority to downsize were complied with only to be told sorry, we cant accommodate you there so we're going to drag you through court proceedings and potentially make you homeless. Good one. As an Irish citizen, I thought we had it bad with our selfish, sneaky governent but my god the tory government are a bad bunch. Jobseekers here receive 188e per week. That's double what this family are receiving per week and that's for one person! Is it any wonder they have found themselves in difficulty considering the ridiculous taxes imposed on council properties. Can you imagine facing this situation at that stage in your life?(both near enough to pension age). This is such an awful situation to be in for anyone, homeowner or council tenant. I think some supportive words would be more justified in the comments section here.[/p][/quote]private pensions can be taken from age 55[/p][/quote]I think this is just another scam so the government get more money off people and bleed people dry. They should sort out the housing better and move people into the right accommodations. We will all be paying it soon you see weather you have too many rooms or not. FallenAngel66
  • Score: 5

3:29pm Tue 8 Apr 14

FallenAngel66 says...

I think this is just another scam so the government get more money off people and bleed people even more dryer. They should sort out the housing better and move people into the right accommodations.
We will all be paying it soon you see wheather you have too many rooms or not.
I think this is just another scam so the government get more money off people and bleed people even more dryer. They should sort out the housing better and move people into the right accommodations. We will all be paying it soon you see wheather you have too many rooms or not. FallenAngel66
  • Score: -3

3:36pm Tue 8 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

FallenAngel66 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
AbbiMay wrote:
To clarify an error on the echo's part. The arrears amount to 900 and not 9000 pounds as stated.

As a relative of the said family, I'm absolutely appalled that the local authorities would even consider taking this action against a family, who by the way have contributed in the best way they could to your society for the past 40 years. Recommendations made by the authority to downsize were complied with only to be told sorry, we cant accommodate you there so we're going to drag you through court proceedings and potentially make you homeless. Good one.

As an Irish citizen, I thought we had it bad with our selfish, sneaky governent but my god the tory government are a bad bunch. Jobseekers here receive 188e per week. That's double what this family are receiving per week and that's for one person! Is it any wonder they have found themselves in difficulty considering the ridiculous taxes imposed on council properties.

Can you imagine facing this situation at that stage in your life?(both near enough to pension age).
This is such an awful situation to be in for anyone, homeowner or council tenant.
I think some supportive words would be more justified in the comments section here.
private pensions can be taken from age 55
I think this is just another scam so the government get more money off people and bleed people dry. They should sort out the housing better and move people into the right accommodations.
We will all be paying it soon you see weather you have too many rooms or not.
they have to bleed the taxpayers dry to pay for the benefit suckers that drain the system whatever the weather.
[quote][p][bold]FallenAngel66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AbbiMay[/bold] wrote: To clarify an error on the echo's part. The arrears amount to 900 and not 9000 pounds as stated. As a relative of the said family, I'm absolutely appalled that the local authorities would even consider taking this action against a family, who by the way have contributed in the best way they could to your society for the past 40 years. Recommendations made by the authority to downsize were complied with only to be told sorry, we cant accommodate you there so we're going to drag you through court proceedings and potentially make you homeless. Good one. As an Irish citizen, I thought we had it bad with our selfish, sneaky governent but my god the tory government are a bad bunch. Jobseekers here receive 188e per week. That's double what this family are receiving per week and that's for one person! Is it any wonder they have found themselves in difficulty considering the ridiculous taxes imposed on council properties. Can you imagine facing this situation at that stage in your life?(both near enough to pension age). This is such an awful situation to be in for anyone, homeowner or council tenant. I think some supportive words would be more justified in the comments section here.[/p][/quote]private pensions can be taken from age 55[/p][/quote]I think this is just another scam so the government get more money off people and bleed people dry. They should sort out the housing better and move people into the right accommodations. We will all be paying it soon you see weather you have too many rooms or not.[/p][/quote]they have to bleed the taxpayers dry to pay for the benefit suckers that drain the system whatever the weather. profondo asbo
  • Score: -1

3:37pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Devils Advocate says...

profondo asbo wrote:
got spare bedroom? this family have worked all their lives, have lived in subsidised housing all their lives and have never put any money aside for contingencies or savings? if not they only have themselves to blame.
Subsidised housing? If they have lived in this house all their lives and gone to work for the bulk of that time then they have paid the value of that house over and over and over again. They did not earn huge amounts of tax relief on the mortgage like those who bought their own did, and at the end of their lives they will give that property back to the council, hopefully in a far better condition than when they were allocated it!
Where do you get the idea that they would have savings? Have you absolutely no idea how little money the average manual worker had left to "Put away" at the end of the week? Are you really so ignorant of what life was like for poor Mr. average? And don't give out the rubbish about "He could have bettered himself!" Did you not know about folk getting their essential food etc. "On the book?"
You sir, have not one scubey about life at the "Working Class" end of the scale, Read a few books before making that kind of ignorant statement please!
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: got spare bedroom? this family have worked all their lives, have lived in subsidised housing all their lives and have never put any money aside for contingencies or savings? if not they only have themselves to blame.[/p][/quote]Subsidised housing? If they have lived in this house all their lives and gone to work for the bulk of that time then they have paid the value of that house over and over and over again. They did not earn huge amounts of tax relief on the mortgage like those who bought their own did, and at the end of their lives they will give that property back to the council, hopefully in a far better condition than when they were allocated it! Where do you get the idea that they would have savings? Have you absolutely no idea how little money the average manual worker had left to "Put away" at the end of the week? Are you really so ignorant of what life was like for poor Mr. average? And don't give out the rubbish about "He could have bettered himself!" Did you not know about folk getting their essential food etc. "On the book?" You sir, have not one scubey about life at the "Working Class" end of the scale, Read a few books before making that kind of ignorant statement please! Devils Advocate
  • Score: 13

3:45pm Tue 8 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
got spare bedroom? this family have worked all their lives, have lived in subsidised housing all their lives and have never put any money aside for contingencies or savings? if not they only have themselves to blame.
Subsidised housing? If they have lived in this house all their lives and gone to work for the bulk of that time then they have paid the value of that house over and over and over again. They did not earn huge amounts of tax relief on the mortgage like those who bought their own did, and at the end of their lives they will give that property back to the council, hopefully in a far better condition than when they were allocated it!
Where do you get the idea that they would have savings? Have you absolutely no idea how little money the average manual worker had left to "Put away" at the end of the week? Are you really so ignorant of what life was like for poor Mr. average? And don't give out the rubbish about "He could have bettered himself!" Did you not know about folk getting their essential food etc. "On the book?"
You sir, have not one scubey about life at the "Working Class" end of the scale, Read a few books before making that kind of ignorant statement please!
rubbish mortgage tax relief has not existed for years. as council tenants they paid a below market rent subsidised by the taxpayer. there are 3 adults of working age in that household - the key word is working. before you spout off about the working class dream let's have an itemised list of their incomings and outgoings over the last 40 years so we can understand exactly why they have put no money aside for a rainy day.

anyway is it really too much to ask to get a lodger in paying 60 quid a week? how about a bit of entrepreneurial spirit rather than the tireless sob story.
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: got spare bedroom? this family have worked all their lives, have lived in subsidised housing all their lives and have never put any money aside for contingencies or savings? if not they only have themselves to blame.[/p][/quote]Subsidised housing? If they have lived in this house all their lives and gone to work for the bulk of that time then they have paid the value of that house over and over and over again. They did not earn huge amounts of tax relief on the mortgage like those who bought their own did, and at the end of their lives they will give that property back to the council, hopefully in a far better condition than when they were allocated it! Where do you get the idea that they would have savings? Have you absolutely no idea how little money the average manual worker had left to "Put away" at the end of the week? Are you really so ignorant of what life was like for poor Mr. average? And don't give out the rubbish about "He could have bettered himself!" Did you not know about folk getting their essential food etc. "On the book?" You sir, have not one scubey about life at the "Working Class" end of the scale, Read a few books before making that kind of ignorant statement please![/p][/quote]rubbish mortgage tax relief has not existed for years. as council tenants they paid a below market rent subsidised by the taxpayer. there are 3 adults of working age in that household - the key word is working. before you spout off about the working class dream let's have an itemised list of their incomings and outgoings over the last 40 years so we can understand exactly why they have put no money aside for a rainy day. anyway is it really too much to ask to get a lodger in paying 60 quid a week? how about a bit of entrepreneurial spirit rather than the tireless sob story. profondo asbo
  • Score: -3

3:50pm Tue 8 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

do they not have to be working to be considered working class?
do they not have to be working to be considered working class? profondo asbo
  • Score: 3

4:03pm Tue 8 Apr 14

FallenAngel66 says...

I wasn't getting at the family, I am angry that yet another tax has come out, as if we all don't pay out enough tax as it is? We all have to pay a rent or mortgage to which ever property you live in and that covers the rooms in that property! I am just saying many people have been hit hard with this "Bedroom Tax" and if you cannot afford to pay it you are then faced with a court order to become evicted from your own home. I was making a point that it's another way to get more money off of people but the majority that are being hit with it don't have that kind of income to pay that tax.
I wasn't getting at the family, I am angry that yet another tax has come out, as if we all don't pay out enough tax as it is? We all have to pay a rent or mortgage to which ever property you live in and that covers the rooms in that property! I am just saying many people have been hit hard with this "Bedroom Tax" and if you cannot afford to pay it you are then faced with a court order to become evicted from your own home. I was making a point that it's another way to get more money off of people but the majority that are being hit with it don't have that kind of income to pay that tax. FallenAngel66
  • Score: -5

5:48pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Devils Advocate says...

profondo asbo says...
rubbish mortgage tax relief has not existed for years. as council tenants they paid a below market rent subsidised by the taxpayer. there are 3 adults of working age in that household - the key word is working. before you spout off about the working class dream let's have an itemised list of their incomings and outgoings over the last 40 years so we can understand exactly why they have put no money aside for a rainy day.

anyway is it really too much to ask to get a lodger in paying 60 quid a week? how about a bit of entrepreneurial spirit rather than the tireless sob story.

Please Mr Tory profundo,
Drop the right-wing chants and do your research.
Firstly "For years" is about as vague as Hague. what you class as "Below market rate subsidised by the tax payer" is utter rubbish as you well know.
I am sure you are a little cuter than you make out. This is the UK not across the pond where "Social housing" is a reality.
Stop your chanting and learn. The workers of "Years ago" (of which I am one) would never have been able to afford to buy a house, even Thatcher understood that, and they paid rent which was fair for their circumstances. It was never designed to appease the Rachmans' of your society but it did return a profit to the councils coffers. If you consider me to be "Spouting off about the working class dream" take a look at yourself. You delight in getting the have-nots fighting the have-nots because it covers the sick society of right wingers you pertain to be the "creators of wealth," always missing the "for themselves" off the sentence. You instigate a lynch mob then stand back and watch as they rip each other to shreds. Do as I do. Share a bus with the workers, sit on a train with your lot and see for yourselves who is putting in the effort for this country before you talk about "entrepeneurs." Also, if I were robbing "you, the taxpayer" of say, £45,000 and, when you caught me I said "If I paid you back £5000 and said I was sorry, would it all be fixed?" How would you reply? Back to you lady of wealth and her reality in cheating the tax payer. The very lady responsible for the kind of government vengeance we are witnessing here!
Yet we socialists are the cheats and fiddlers? The only thing that makes me sob is the poetic lilt of your public school mates, as they take our money for their next war we will have to fight and tell us "We are all in this together!"
profondo asbo says... rubbish mortgage tax relief has not existed for years. as council tenants they paid a below market rent subsidised by the taxpayer. there are 3 adults of working age in that household - the key word is working. before you spout off about the working class dream let's have an itemised list of their incomings and outgoings over the last 40 years so we can understand exactly why they have put no money aside for a rainy day. anyway is it really too much to ask to get a lodger in paying 60 quid a week? how about a bit of entrepreneurial spirit rather than the tireless sob story. Please Mr Tory profundo, Drop the right-wing chants and do your research. Firstly "For years" is about as vague as Hague. what you class as "Below market rate subsidised by the tax payer" is utter rubbish as you well know. I am sure you are a little cuter than you make out. This is the UK not across the pond where "Social housing" is a reality. Stop your chanting and learn. The workers of "Years ago" (of which I am one) would never have been able to afford to buy a house, even Thatcher understood that, and they paid rent which was fair for their circumstances. It was never designed to appease the Rachmans' of your society but it did return a profit to the councils coffers. If you consider me to be "Spouting off about the working class dream" take a look at yourself. You delight in getting the have-nots fighting the have-nots because it covers the sick society of right wingers you pertain to be the "creators of wealth," always missing the "for themselves" off the sentence. You instigate a lynch mob then stand back and watch as they rip each other to shreds. Do as I do. Share a bus with the workers, sit on a train with your lot and see for yourselves who is putting in the effort for this country before you talk about "entrepeneurs." Also, if I were robbing "you, the taxpayer" of say, £45,000 and, when you caught me I said "If I paid you back £5000 and said I was sorry, would it all be fixed?" How would you reply? Back to you lady of wealth and her reality in cheating the tax payer. The very lady responsible for the kind of government vengeance we are witnessing here! Yet we socialists are the cheats and fiddlers? The only thing that makes me sob is the poetic lilt of your public school mates, as they take our money for their next war we will have to fight and tell us "We are all in this together!" Devils Advocate
  • Score: 6

5:51pm Tue 8 Apr 14

catalonia13 says...

the whole story is a load of rubbish, if her husband is 62 they are EXEMPT from paying the Bedroom Tax!
"The Government states that if you or your partner were born before 5 October 1951 (the qualifying age for pension credit in April 2013) you will not be affected."
the whole story is a load of rubbish, if her husband is 62 they are EXEMPT from paying the Bedroom Tax! "The Government states that if you or your partner were born before 5 October 1951 (the qualifying age for pension credit in April 2013) you will not be affected." catalonia13
  • Score: 8

6:01pm Tue 8 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo says...
rubbish mortgage tax relief has not existed for years. as council tenants they paid a below market rent subsidised by the taxpayer. there are 3 adults of working age in that household - the key word is working. before you spout off about the working class dream let's have an itemised list of their incomings and outgoings over the last 40 years so we can understand exactly why they have put no money aside for a rainy day.

anyway is it really too much to ask to get a lodger in paying 60 quid a week? how about a bit of entrepreneurial spirit rather than the tireless sob story.

Please Mr Tory profundo,
Drop the right-wing chants and do your research.
Firstly "For years" is about as vague as Hague. what you class as "Below market rate subsidised by the tax payer" is utter rubbish as you well know.
I am sure you are a little cuter than you make out. This is the UK not across the pond where "Social housing" is a reality.
Stop your chanting and learn. The workers of "Years ago" (of which I am one) would never have been able to afford to buy a house, even Thatcher understood that, and they paid rent which was fair for their circumstances. It was never designed to appease the Rachmans' of your society but it did return a profit to the councils coffers. If you consider me to be "Spouting off about the working class dream" take a look at yourself. You delight in getting the have-nots fighting the have-nots because it covers the sick society of right wingers you pertain to be the "creators of wealth," always missing the "for themselves" off the sentence. You instigate a lynch mob then stand back and watch as they rip each other to shreds. Do as I do. Share a bus with the workers, sit on a train with your lot and see for yourselves who is putting in the effort for this country before you talk about "entrepeneurs." Also, if I were robbing "you, the taxpayer" of say, £45,000 and, when you caught me I said "If I paid you back £5000 and said I was sorry, would it all be fixed?" How would you reply? Back to you lady of wealth and her reality in cheating the tax payer. The very lady responsible for the kind of government vengeance we are witnessing here!
Yet we socialists are the cheats and fiddlers? The only thing that makes me sob is the poetic lilt of your public school mates, as they take our money for their next war we will have to fight and tell us "We are all in this together!"
MIRAS went 14 years ago.

the average social housing rent across england and wales is £78.78 per week.

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/statistica
l-data-sets/live-tab
les-on-rents-letting
s-and-tenancies

the average private sector rent is £174.69 per week (£757 per month)

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/business-24566
849

looks like a hefty taxpayer subsidy to me.

try to remain objective at all times - you'll see things more clearly.
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo says... rubbish mortgage tax relief has not existed for years. as council tenants they paid a below market rent subsidised by the taxpayer. there are 3 adults of working age in that household - the key word is working. before you spout off about the working class dream let's have an itemised list of their incomings and outgoings over the last 40 years so we can understand exactly why they have put no money aside for a rainy day. anyway is it really too much to ask to get a lodger in paying 60 quid a week? how about a bit of entrepreneurial spirit rather than the tireless sob story. Please Mr Tory profundo, Drop the right-wing chants and do your research. Firstly "For years" is about as vague as Hague. what you class as "Below market rate subsidised by the tax payer" is utter rubbish as you well know. I am sure you are a little cuter than you make out. This is the UK not across the pond where "Social housing" is a reality. Stop your chanting and learn. The workers of "Years ago" (of which I am one) would never have been able to afford to buy a house, even Thatcher understood that, and they paid rent which was fair for their circumstances. It was never designed to appease the Rachmans' of your society but it did return a profit to the councils coffers. If you consider me to be "Spouting off about the working class dream" take a look at yourself. You delight in getting the have-nots fighting the have-nots because it covers the sick society of right wingers you pertain to be the "creators of wealth," always missing the "for themselves" off the sentence. You instigate a lynch mob then stand back and watch as they rip each other to shreds. Do as I do. Share a bus with the workers, sit on a train with your lot and see for yourselves who is putting in the effort for this country before you talk about "entrepeneurs." Also, if I were robbing "you, the taxpayer" of say, £45,000 and, when you caught me I said "If I paid you back £5000 and said I was sorry, would it all be fixed?" How would you reply? Back to you lady of wealth and her reality in cheating the tax payer. The very lady responsible for the kind of government vengeance we are witnessing here! Yet we socialists are the cheats and fiddlers? The only thing that makes me sob is the poetic lilt of your public school mates, as they take our money for their next war we will have to fight and tell us "We are all in this together!"[/p][/quote]MIRAS went 14 years ago. the average social housing rent across england and wales is £78.78 per week. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/statistica l-data-sets/live-tab les-on-rents-letting s-and-tenancies the average private sector rent is £174.69 per week (£757 per month) http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24566 849 looks like a hefty taxpayer subsidy to me. try to remain objective at all times - you'll see things more clearly. profondo asbo
  • Score: 6

6:35pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Devils Advocate says...

It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now?
You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class!
You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay.
I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it!
It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now? You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class! You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay. I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it! Devils Advocate
  • Score: 10

6:52pm Tue 8 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now?
You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class!
You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay.
I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it!
you have to do better than that i'm afraid.

rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy.

is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now? You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class! You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay. I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it![/p][/quote]you have to do better than that i'm afraid. rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy. is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in? profondo asbo
  • Score: 3

7:36pm Tue 8 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

does dave murray have a real job or is this as productive as he gets?
does dave murray have a real job or is this as productive as he gets? profondo asbo
  • Score: 1

7:36pm Tue 8 Apr 14

catalonia13 says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now?
You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class!
You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay.
I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it!
you have to do better than that i'm afraid.

rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy.

is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?
profondo asbo wrote "rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy."
Rubbish! the council rents are just lower, there is no 'subsidy'
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now? You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class! You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay. I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it![/p][/quote]you have to do better than that i'm afraid. rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy. is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?[/p][/quote]profondo asbo wrote "rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy." Rubbish! the council rents are just lower, there is no 'subsidy' catalonia13
  • Score: -3

7:40pm Tue 8 Apr 14

poortaxpayer says...

catalonia13 wrote:
the whole story is a load of rubbish, if her husband is 62 they are EXEMPT from paying the Bedroom Tax!
"The Government states that if you or your partner were born before 5 October 1951 (the qualifying age for pension credit in April 2013) you will not be affected."
I have checked the rules and you are indeed correct. Therefore these arrears are not caused by the Bedroom Tax but perhaps what is called a non dependent deduction due to their sons income?
[quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: the whole story is a load of rubbish, if her husband is 62 they are EXEMPT from paying the Bedroom Tax! "The Government states that if you or your partner were born before 5 October 1951 (the qualifying age for pension credit in April 2013) you will not be affected."[/p][/quote]I have checked the rules and you are indeed correct. Therefore these arrears are not caused by the Bedroom Tax but perhaps what is called a non dependent deduction due to their sons income? poortaxpayer
  • Score: 13

7:48pm Tue 8 Apr 14

catalonia13 says...

and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong catalonia13
  • Score: -2

7:52pm Tue 8 Apr 14

catalonia13 says...

poortaxpayer wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
the whole story is a load of rubbish, if her husband is 62 they are EXEMPT from paying the Bedroom Tax!
"The Government states that if you or your partner were born before 5 October 1951 (the qualifying age for pension credit in April 2013) you will not be affected."
I have checked the rules and you are indeed correct. Therefore these arrears are not caused by the Bedroom Tax but perhaps what is called a non dependent deduction due to their sons income?
I think you are probably right poortaxpayer, seems a more logical explanation to me!
[quote][p][bold]poortaxpayer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: the whole story is a load of rubbish, if her husband is 62 they are EXEMPT from paying the Bedroom Tax! "The Government states that if you or your partner were born before 5 October 1951 (the qualifying age for pension credit in April 2013) you will not be affected."[/p][/quote]I have checked the rules and you are indeed correct. Therefore these arrears are not caused by the Bedroom Tax but perhaps what is called a non dependent deduction due to their sons income?[/p][/quote]I think you are probably right poortaxpayer, seems a more logical explanation to me! catalonia13
  • Score: 3

7:54pm Tue 8 Apr 14

catalonia13 says...

Ironman wrote:
Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.
"flip one of their bedrooms..." what does 'flip' mean?!
[quote][p][bold]Ironman[/bold] wrote: Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.[/p][/quote]"flip one of their bedrooms..." what does 'flip' mean?! catalonia13
  • Score: -5

8:18pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Ironman says...

catalonia13 wrote:
Ironman wrote:
Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.
"flip one of their bedrooms..." what does 'flip' mean?!
Where have you been for a the last few years? It's a whimsical statement re MP's expenses. When they 'flip' the designation of their homes, any debts, wrongdoing, or actual fraud seems to disappear.
[quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ironman[/bold] wrote: Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.[/p][/quote]"flip one of their bedrooms..." what does 'flip' mean?![/p][/quote]Where have you been for a the last few years? It's a whimsical statement re MP's expenses. When they 'flip' the designation of their homes, any debts, wrongdoing, or actual fraud seems to disappear. Ironman
  • Score: 1

8:27pm Tue 8 Apr 14

gumbley says...

All of this ignores the principal problem in our society that of massive inequality, in terms of wealth, income and power in the UK. As long as the people who own and control wealth can divide working class people against themselves so will they prosper! Alternatively, the workers united can never be defeated!
All of this ignores the principal problem in our society that of massive inequality, in terms of wealth, income and power in the UK. As long as the people who own and control wealth can divide working class people against themselves so will they prosper! Alternatively, the workers united can never be defeated! gumbley
  • Score: -2

8:55pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Ironman says...

gumbley wrote:
All of this ignores the principal problem in our society that of massive inequality, in terms of wealth, income and power in the UK. As long as the people who own and control wealth can divide working class people against themselves so will they prosper! Alternatively, the workers united can never be defeated!
Well put, it all changed when they pursuaded us that working people were not working class, but were middle class. That was the day we sold out and became ****holes.
[quote][p][bold]gumbley[/bold] wrote: All of this ignores the principal problem in our society that of massive inequality, in terms of wealth, income and power in the UK. As long as the people who own and control wealth can divide working class people against themselves so will they prosper! Alternatively, the workers united can never be defeated![/p][/quote]Well put, it all changed when they pursuaded us that working people were not working class, but were middle class. That was the day we sold out and became ****holes. Ironman
  • Score: -2

8:57pm Tue 8 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now?
You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class!
You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay.
I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it!
you have to do better than that i'm afraid.

rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy.

is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?
profondo asbo wrote "rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy."
Rubbish! the council rents are just lower, there is no 'subsidy'
it is an implicit subsidy you clown. there is no physical subsidy. got jim henson's arm up your backside?
[quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now? You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class! You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay. I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it![/p][/quote]you have to do better than that i'm afraid. rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy. is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?[/p][/quote]profondo asbo wrote "rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy." Rubbish! the council rents are just lower, there is no 'subsidy'[/p][/quote]it is an implicit subsidy you clown. there is no physical subsidy. got jim henson's arm up your backside? profondo asbo
  • Score: 1

8:59pm Tue 8 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
[quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no. profondo asbo
  • Score: 3

9:01pm Tue 8 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

Ironman wrote:
gumbley wrote:
All of this ignores the principal problem in our society that of massive inequality, in terms of wealth, income and power in the UK. As long as the people who own and control wealth can divide working class people against themselves so will they prosper! Alternatively, the workers united can never be defeated!
Well put, it all changed when they pursuaded us that working people were not working class, but were middle class. That was the day we sold out and became ****holes.
speak for yourself
[quote][p][bold]Ironman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gumbley[/bold] wrote: All of this ignores the principal problem in our society that of massive inequality, in terms of wealth, income and power in the UK. As long as the people who own and control wealth can divide working class people against themselves so will they prosper! Alternatively, the workers united can never be defeated![/p][/quote]Well put, it all changed when they pursuaded us that working people were not working class, but were middle class. That was the day we sold out and became ****holes.[/p][/quote]speak for yourself profondo asbo
  • Score: -2

12:29am Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

AbbiMay wrote:
To clarify an error on the echo's part. The arrears amount to 900 and not 9000 pounds as stated.

As a relative of the said family, I'm absolutely appalled that the local authorities would even consider taking this action against a family, who by the way have contributed in the best way they could to your society for the past 40 years. Recommendations made by the authority to downsize were complied with only to be told sorry, we cant accommodate you there so we're going to drag you through court proceedings and potentially make you homeless. Good one.

As an Irish citizen, I thought we had it bad with our selfish, sneaky governent but my god the tory government are a bad bunch. Jobseekers here receive 188e per week. That's double what this family are receiving per week and that's for one person! Is it any wonder they have found themselves in difficulty considering the ridiculous taxes imposed on council properties.

Can you imagine facing this situation at that stage in your life?(both near enough to pension age).
This is such an awful situation to be in for anyone, homeowner or council tenant.
I think some supportive words would be more justified in the comments section here.
Have you read the comments?

Some people here in England are like wolves to the most vulnerable....
[quote][p][bold]AbbiMay[/bold] wrote: To clarify an error on the echo's part. The arrears amount to 900 and not 9000 pounds as stated. As a relative of the said family, I'm absolutely appalled that the local authorities would even consider taking this action against a family, who by the way have contributed in the best way they could to your society for the past 40 years. Recommendations made by the authority to downsize were complied with only to be told sorry, we cant accommodate you there so we're going to drag you through court proceedings and potentially make you homeless. Good one. As an Irish citizen, I thought we had it bad with our selfish, sneaky governent but my god the tory government are a bad bunch. Jobseekers here receive 188e per week. That's double what this family are receiving per week and that's for one person! Is it any wonder they have found themselves in difficulty considering the ridiculous taxes imposed on council properties. Can you imagine facing this situation at that stage in your life?(both near enough to pension age). This is such an awful situation to be in for anyone, homeowner or council tenant. I think some supportive words would be more justified in the comments section here.[/p][/quote]Have you read the comments? Some people here in England are like wolves to the most vulnerable.... ThisYear
  • Score: -5

12:44am Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo says...
rubbish mortgage tax relief has not existed for years. as council tenants they paid a below market rent subsidised by the taxpayer. there are 3 adults of working age in that household - the key word is working. before you spout off about the working class dream let's have an itemised list of their incomings and outgoings over the last 40 years so we can understand exactly why they have put no money aside for a rainy day.

anyway is it really too much to ask to get a lodger in paying 60 quid a week? how about a bit of entrepreneurial spirit rather than the tireless sob story.

Please Mr Tory profundo,
Drop the right-wing chants and do your research.
Firstly "For years" is about as vague as Hague. what you class as "Below market rate subsidised by the tax payer" is utter rubbish as you well know.
I am sure you are a little cuter than you make out. This is the UK not across the pond where "Social housing" is a reality.
Stop your chanting and learn. The workers of "Years ago" (of which I am one) would never have been able to afford to buy a house, even Thatcher understood that, and they paid rent which was fair for their circumstances. It was never designed to appease the Rachmans' of your society but it did return a profit to the councils coffers. If you consider me to be "Spouting off about the working class dream" take a look at yourself. You delight in getting the have-nots fighting the have-nots because it covers the sick society of right wingers you pertain to be the "creators of wealth," always missing the "for themselves" off the sentence. You instigate a lynch mob then stand back and watch as they rip each other to shreds. Do as I do. Share a bus with the workers, sit on a train with your lot and see for yourselves who is putting in the effort for this country before you talk about "entrepeneurs." Also, if I were robbing "you, the taxpayer" of say, £45,000 and, when you caught me I said "If I paid you back £5000 and said I was sorry, would it all be fixed?" How would you reply? Back to you lady of wealth and her reality in cheating the tax payer. The very lady responsible for the kind of government vengeance we are witnessing here!
Yet we socialists are the cheats and fiddlers? The only thing that makes me sob is the poetic lilt of your public school mates, as they take our money for their next war we will have to fight and tell us "We are all in this together!"
"asbo" is even much more perverse than the name he picks..
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo says... rubbish mortgage tax relief has not existed for years. as council tenants they paid a below market rent subsidised by the taxpayer. there are 3 adults of working age in that household - the key word is working. before you spout off about the working class dream let's have an itemised list of their incomings and outgoings over the last 40 years so we can understand exactly why they have put no money aside for a rainy day. anyway is it really too much to ask to get a lodger in paying 60 quid a week? how about a bit of entrepreneurial spirit rather than the tireless sob story. Please Mr Tory profundo, Drop the right-wing chants and do your research. Firstly "For years" is about as vague as Hague. what you class as "Below market rate subsidised by the tax payer" is utter rubbish as you well know. I am sure you are a little cuter than you make out. This is the UK not across the pond where "Social housing" is a reality. Stop your chanting and learn. The workers of "Years ago" (of which I am one) would never have been able to afford to buy a house, even Thatcher understood that, and they paid rent which was fair for their circumstances. It was never designed to appease the Rachmans' of your society but it did return a profit to the councils coffers. If you consider me to be "Spouting off about the working class dream" take a look at yourself. You delight in getting the have-nots fighting the have-nots because it covers the sick society of right wingers you pertain to be the "creators of wealth," always missing the "for themselves" off the sentence. You instigate a lynch mob then stand back and watch as they rip each other to shreds. Do as I do. Share a bus with the workers, sit on a train with your lot and see for yourselves who is putting in the effort for this country before you talk about "entrepeneurs." Also, if I were robbing "you, the taxpayer" of say, £45,000 and, when you caught me I said "If I paid you back £5000 and said I was sorry, would it all be fixed?" How would you reply? Back to you lady of wealth and her reality in cheating the tax payer. The very lady responsible for the kind of government vengeance we are witnessing here! Yet we socialists are the cheats and fiddlers? The only thing that makes me sob is the poetic lilt of your public school mates, as they take our money for their next war we will have to fight and tell us "We are all in this together!"[/p][/quote]"asbo" is even much more perverse than the name he picks.. ThisYear
  • Score: 4

12:49am Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo says...
rubbish mortgage tax relief has not existed for years. as council tenants they paid a below market rent subsidised by the taxpayer. there are 3 adults of working age in that household - the key word is working. before you spout off about the working class dream let's have an itemised list of their incomings and outgoings over the last 40 years so we can understand exactly why they have put no money aside for a rainy day.

anyway is it really too much to ask to get a lodger in paying 60 quid a week? how about a bit of entrepreneurial spirit rather than the tireless sob story.

Please Mr Tory profundo,
Drop the right-wing chants and do your research.
Firstly "For years" is about as vague as Hague. what you class as "Below market rate subsidised by the tax payer" is utter rubbish as you well know.
I am sure you are a little cuter than you make out. This is the UK not across the pond where "Social housing" is a reality.
Stop your chanting and learn. The workers of "Years ago" (of which I am one) would never have been able to afford to buy a house, even Thatcher understood that, and they paid rent which was fair for their circumstances. It was never designed to appease the Rachmans' of your society but it did return a profit to the councils coffers. If you consider me to be "Spouting off about the working class dream" take a look at yourself. You delight in getting the have-nots fighting the have-nots because it covers the sick society of right wingers you pertain to be the "creators of wealth," always missing the "for themselves" off the sentence. You instigate a lynch mob then stand back and watch as they rip each other to shreds. Do as I do. Share a bus with the workers, sit on a train with your lot and see for yourselves who is putting in the effort for this country before you talk about "entrepeneurs." Also, if I were robbing "you, the taxpayer" of say, £45,000 and, when you caught me I said "If I paid you back £5000 and said I was sorry, would it all be fixed?" How would you reply? Back to you lady of wealth and her reality in cheating the tax payer. The very lady responsible for the kind of government vengeance we are witnessing here!
Yet we socialists are the cheats and fiddlers? The only thing that makes me sob is the poetic lilt of your public school mates, as they take our money for their next war we will have to fight and tell us "We are all in this together!"
MIRAS went 14 years ago.

the average social housing rent across england and wales is £78.78 per week.

https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/statistica

l-data-sets/live-tab

les-on-rents-letting

s-and-tenancies

the average private sector rent is £174.69 per week (£757 per month)

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/business-24566

849

looks like a hefty taxpayer subsidy to me.

try to remain objective at all times - you'll see things more clearly.
The people in question are also taxpayers are they not?
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo says... rubbish mortgage tax relief has not existed for years. as council tenants they paid a below market rent subsidised by the taxpayer. there are 3 adults of working age in that household - the key word is working. before you spout off about the working class dream let's have an itemised list of their incomings and outgoings over the last 40 years so we can understand exactly why they have put no money aside for a rainy day. anyway is it really too much to ask to get a lodger in paying 60 quid a week? how about a bit of entrepreneurial spirit rather than the tireless sob story. Please Mr Tory profundo, Drop the right-wing chants and do your research. Firstly "For years" is about as vague as Hague. what you class as "Below market rate subsidised by the tax payer" is utter rubbish as you well know. I am sure you are a little cuter than you make out. This is the UK not across the pond where "Social housing" is a reality. Stop your chanting and learn. The workers of "Years ago" (of which I am one) would never have been able to afford to buy a house, even Thatcher understood that, and they paid rent which was fair for their circumstances. It was never designed to appease the Rachmans' of your society but it did return a profit to the councils coffers. If you consider me to be "Spouting off about the working class dream" take a look at yourself. You delight in getting the have-nots fighting the have-nots because it covers the sick society of right wingers you pertain to be the "creators of wealth," always missing the "for themselves" off the sentence. You instigate a lynch mob then stand back and watch as they rip each other to shreds. Do as I do. Share a bus with the workers, sit on a train with your lot and see for yourselves who is putting in the effort for this country before you talk about "entrepeneurs." Also, if I were robbing "you, the taxpayer" of say, £45,000 and, when you caught me I said "If I paid you back £5000 and said I was sorry, would it all be fixed?" How would you reply? Back to you lady of wealth and her reality in cheating the tax payer. The very lady responsible for the kind of government vengeance we are witnessing here! Yet we socialists are the cheats and fiddlers? The only thing that makes me sob is the poetic lilt of your public school mates, as they take our money for their next war we will have to fight and tell us "We are all in this together!"[/p][/quote]MIRAS went 14 years ago. the average social housing rent across england and wales is £78.78 per week. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/statistica l-data-sets/live-tab les-on-rents-letting s-and-tenancies the average private sector rent is £174.69 per week (£757 per month) http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24566 849 looks like a hefty taxpayer subsidy to me. try to remain objective at all times - you'll see things more clearly.[/p][/quote]The people in question are also taxpayers are they not? ThisYear
  • Score: -3

12:56am Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

catalonia13 wrote:
Ironman wrote:
Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.
"flip one of their bedrooms..." what does 'flip' mean?!
Ask any tory politicians and although they know the answer from personal experience of flipping, they wouldn't give you a straight answer
[quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ironman[/bold] wrote: Why didn't they flip one of their bedrooms? That seems to work. then they could be made to pay back only a fraction of what they owed. Simples.[/p][/quote]"flip one of their bedrooms..." what does 'flip' mean?![/p][/quote]Ask any tory politicians and although they know the answer from personal experience of flipping, they wouldn't give you a straight answer ThisYear
  • Score: -4

1:02am Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now?
You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class!
You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay.
I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it!
you have to do better than that i'm afraid.

rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy.

is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?
profondo asbo wrote "rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy."
Rubbish! the council rents are just lower, there is no 'subsidy'
it is an implicit subsidy you clown. there is no physical subsidy. got jim henson's arm up your backside?
Sort your grammar out muppet!
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now? You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class! You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay. I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it![/p][/quote]you have to do better than that i'm afraid. rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy. is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?[/p][/quote]profondo asbo wrote "rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy." Rubbish! the council rents are just lower, there is no 'subsidy'[/p][/quote]it is an implicit subsidy you clown. there is no physical subsidy. got jim henson's arm up your backside?[/p][/quote]Sort your grammar out muppet! ThisYear
  • Score: -1

6:45am Wed 9 Apr 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

Isn't it funny, how due to bloody councils housing, there are so many moans, if you dont like it , do all of us a big favour, and pi55 off
Isn't it funny, how due to bloody councils housing, there are so many moans, if you dont like it , do all of us a big favour, and pi55 off Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: 8

8:29am Wed 9 Apr 14

Bigmama1 says...

Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
Isn't it funny, how due to bloody councils housing, there are so many moans, if you dont like it , do all of us a big favour, and pi55 off
There is something not quite right in this report? "the couple only get £118 a week"? What about their son's contribution? I hardly think that would be their only benefit claims?
[quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: Isn't it funny, how due to bloody councils housing, there are so many moans, if you dont like it , do all of us a big favour, and pi55 off[/p][/quote]There is something not quite right in this report? "the couple only get £118 a week"? What about their son's contribution? I hardly think that would be their only benefit claims? Bigmama1
  • Score: 6

8:33am Wed 9 Apr 14

catalonia13 says...

profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now?
You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class!
You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay.
I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it!
you have to do better than that i'm afraid.

rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy.

is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?
profondo asbo wrote "rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy."
Rubbish! the council rents are just lower, there is no 'subsidy'
it is an implicit subsidy you clown. there is no physical subsidy. got jim henson's arm up your backside?
well....if it is as you now say an "implicit subsidy" then clearly it is not as you previously said a "state subsidy", you can't have it both ways; and there is no need to be so rude, can you not hold a discussion without giving out insults?
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now? You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class! You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay. I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it![/p][/quote]you have to do better than that i'm afraid. rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy. is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?[/p][/quote]profondo asbo wrote "rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy." Rubbish! the council rents are just lower, there is no 'subsidy'[/p][/quote]it is an implicit subsidy you clown. there is no physical subsidy. got jim henson's arm up your backside?[/p][/quote]well....if it is as you now say an "implicit subsidy" then clearly it is not as you previously said a "state subsidy", you can't have it both ways; and there is no need to be so rude, can you not hold a discussion without giving out insults? catalonia13
  • Score: -1

8:38am Wed 9 Apr 14

catalonia13 says...

profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same catalonia13
  • Score: -3

9:05am Wed 9 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.
[quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy. profondo asbo
  • Score: 4

9:08am Wed 9 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now?
You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class!
You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay.
I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it!
you have to do better than that i'm afraid.

rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy.

is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?
profondo asbo wrote "rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy."
Rubbish! the council rents are just lower, there is no 'subsidy'
it is an implicit subsidy you clown. there is no physical subsidy. got jim henson's arm up your backside?
well....if it is as you now say an "implicit subsidy" then clearly it is not as you previously said a "state subsidy", you can't have it both ways; and there is no need to be so rude, can you not hold a discussion without giving out insults?
it is an implicit subsidy given by the state. if the properties were private houses they could be let at a "market rent"
[quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now? You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class! You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay. I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it![/p][/quote]you have to do better than that i'm afraid. rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy. is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?[/p][/quote]profondo asbo wrote "rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy." Rubbish! the council rents are just lower, there is no 'subsidy'[/p][/quote]it is an implicit subsidy you clown. there is no physical subsidy. got jim henson's arm up your backside?[/p][/quote]well....if it is as you now say an "implicit subsidy" then clearly it is not as you previously said a "state subsidy", you can't have it both ways; and there is no need to be so rude, can you not hold a discussion without giving out insults?[/p][/quote]it is an implicit subsidy given by the state. if the properties were private houses they could be let at a "market rent" profondo asbo
  • Score: 1

9:11am Wed 9 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger? if they weren't being wet nursed by the state survival might be a higher priority in their minds.
[quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger? if they weren't being wet nursed by the state survival might be a higher priority in their minds. profondo asbo
  • Score: 4

9:27am Wed 9 Apr 14

catalonia13 says...

profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.
I wasn't aware this discussion was about what you call it! the 'poll tax' was not actually a 'tax'!
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.[/p][/quote]I wasn't aware this discussion was about what you call it! the 'poll tax' was not actually a 'tax'! catalonia13
  • Score: 2

10:22am Wed 9 Apr 14

yagetme says...

profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.
It's an implicit tax, not a physical tax.

If costs are an issue, then how does evicting this family and forcing them into a much more expensive private rental save the taxpayer anything?
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.[/p][/quote]It's an implicit tax, not a physical tax. If costs are an issue, then how does evicting this family and forcing them into a much more expensive private rental save the taxpayer anything? yagetme
  • Score: 0

10:36am Wed 9 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

yagetme wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.
It's an implicit tax, not a physical tax.

If costs are an issue, then how does evicting this family and forcing them into a much more expensive private rental save the taxpayer anything?
if even down the barrel of a gun they won't help themselves should it be beholden on the state to do so?
[quote][p][bold]yagetme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.[/p][/quote]It's an implicit tax, not a physical tax. If costs are an issue, then how does evicting this family and forcing them into a much more expensive private rental save the taxpayer anything?[/p][/quote]if even down the barrel of a gun they won't help themselves should it be beholden on the state to do so? profondo asbo
  • Score: 5

10:48am Wed 9 Apr 14

Happy Chickie says...

catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
If I was facing eviction or having to get a lodger for a few months to clear arrears, I wouldn't be too proud to get a lodger. Beats the alternative.

Why do you think it is inappropriate?
[quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]If I was facing eviction or having to get a lodger for a few months to clear arrears, I wouldn't be too proud to get a lodger. Beats the alternative. Why do you think it is inappropriate? Happy Chickie
  • Score: 7

12:01pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
yagetme wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.
It's an implicit tax, not a physical tax.

If costs are an issue, then how does evicting this family and forcing them into a much more expensive private rental save the taxpayer anything?
if even down the barrel of a gun they won't help themselves should it be beholden on the state to do so?
The answer is yes..The populace has a contract with the state..which the state tries hard not to adhere to while demanding its is adhered to by the populace..
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yagetme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.[/p][/quote]It's an implicit tax, not a physical tax. If costs are an issue, then how does evicting this family and forcing them into a much more expensive private rental save the taxpayer anything?[/p][/quote]if even down the barrel of a gun they won't help themselves should it be beholden on the state to do so?[/p][/quote]The answer is yes..The populace has a contract with the state..which the state tries hard not to adhere to while demanding its is adhered to by the populace.. ThisYear
  • Score: -7

12:04pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now?
You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class!
You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay.
I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it!
you have to do better than that i'm afraid.

rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy.

is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?
profondo asbo wrote "rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy."
Rubbish! the council rents are just lower, there is no 'subsidy'
it is an implicit subsidy you clown. there is no physical subsidy. got jim henson's arm up your backside?
well....if it is as you now say an "implicit subsidy" then clearly it is not as you previously said a "state subsidy", you can't have it both ways; and there is no need to be so rude, can you not hold a discussion without giving out insults?
it is an implicit subsidy given by the state. if the properties were private houses they could be let at a "market rent"
The operative word is "If"

If a frog had longer straighter legs it wouldn't have such a sore @rse from all the hopping it does.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: It looks that way, but you are taking two disparate figures. What makes you believe there is any tax subsidy on council house rents? Did you miss what I said just now? You know why MIRAS was scrapped, you know by who and you will not deny his reasons. Even if you are middle class! You also know the differentials between low pay and top pay. I have asked you before on here, do you believe a person who works full-time should be paid enough to afford to buy his own privately built house on a 25 year mortgage? It's not rocket science. But it is basic human needs. You think your tax pays for everybody elses life. Well, make sure the others get paid for what they do before you start carping about your taxes! Paying your friends lifestyle takes away the kitty for the rest of the population and you know it![/p][/quote]you have to do better than that i'm afraid. rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy. is it too much to ask them to get a lodger in?[/p][/quote]profondo asbo wrote "rents set by the state vs rent set by the market. the difference is state subsidy." Rubbish! the council rents are just lower, there is no 'subsidy'[/p][/quote]it is an implicit subsidy you clown. there is no physical subsidy. got jim henson's arm up your backside?[/p][/quote]well....if it is as you now say an "implicit subsidy" then clearly it is not as you previously said a "state subsidy", you can't have it both ways; and there is no need to be so rude, can you not hold a discussion without giving out insults?[/p][/quote]it is an implicit subsidy given by the state. if the properties were private houses they could be let at a "market rent"[/p][/quote]The operative word is "If" If a frog had longer straighter legs it wouldn't have such a sore @rse from all the hopping it does. ThisYear
  • Score: -6

12:12pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
Well done..asbo needs to be made to understand he does not have the mandate to offer his bs as being the thoughts of the masses on the matter..
[quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]Well done..asbo needs to be made to understand he does not have the mandate to offer his bs as being the thoughts of the masses on the matter.. ThisYear
  • Score: -8

12:28pm Wed 9 Apr 14

angryofessex says...

LL is out of bed early today
LL is out of bed early today angryofessex
  • Score: 4

12:53pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Bigmama1 says...

catalonia13 wrote:
the whole story is a load of rubbish, if her husband is 62 they are EXEMPT from paying the Bedroom Tax!
"The Government states that if you or your partner were born before 5 October 1951 (the qualifying age for pension credit in April 2013) you will not be affected."
I didn't know that. This makes their story a load of BS now.
[quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: the whole story is a load of rubbish, if her husband is 62 they are EXEMPT from paying the Bedroom Tax! "The Government states that if you or your partner were born before 5 October 1951 (the qualifying age for pension credit in April 2013) you will not be affected."[/p][/quote]I didn't know that. This makes their story a load of BS now. Bigmama1
  • Score: 8

1:49pm Wed 9 Apr 14

catalonia13 says...

yagetme wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.
It's an implicit tax, not a physical tax.

If costs are an issue, then how does evicting this family and forcing them into a much more expensive private rental save the taxpayer anything?
it doesn't save the tax pay anything, If I downsized to a 2 bed the rent would be between £7 - £12 MORE a week, hence my small bit of housing benefit would increase,how stupid is that, all those winging about how much "their" taxes subsidise benefits should be winging more against it! :)
[quote][p][bold]yagetme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.[/p][/quote]It's an implicit tax, not a physical tax. If costs are an issue, then how does evicting this family and forcing them into a much more expensive private rental save the taxpayer anything?[/p][/quote]it doesn't save the tax pay anything, If I downsized to a 2 bed the rent would be between £7 - £12 MORE a week, hence my small bit of housing benefit would increase,how stupid is that, all those winging about how much "their" taxes subsidise benefits should be winging more against it! :) catalonia13
  • Score: -4

1:54pm Wed 9 Apr 14

catalonia13 says...

profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger? if they weren't being wet nursed by the state survival might be a higher priority in their minds.
"why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger?"
If you have to ask that question then I'm afraid you have a problem!
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger? if they weren't being wet nursed by the state survival might be a higher priority in their minds.[/p][/quote]"why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger?" If you have to ask that question then I'm afraid you have a problem! catalonia13
  • Score: -8

2:29pm Wed 9 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger? if they weren't being wet nursed by the state survival might be a higher priority in their minds.
"why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger?"
If you have to ask that question then I'm afraid you have a problem!
your answer to the above question sums up why so many are saying enough is enough. break it down for us if you will. justify why they deserve state handouts when they refuse to help themselves. when you throw yourself on the state you must take what the state provides.
[quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger? if they weren't being wet nursed by the state survival might be a higher priority in their minds.[/p][/quote]"why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger?" If you have to ask that question then I'm afraid you have a problem![/p][/quote]your answer to the above question sums up why so many are saying enough is enough. break it down for us if you will. justify why they deserve state handouts when they refuse to help themselves. when you throw yourself on the state you must take what the state provides. profondo asbo
  • Score: 6

2:39pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Happy Chickie says...

profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger? if they weren't being wet nursed by the state survival might be a higher priority in their minds.
"why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger?"
If you have to ask that question then I'm afraid you have a problem!
your answer to the above question sums up why so many are saying enough is enough. break it down for us if you will. justify why they deserve state handouts when they refuse to help themselves. when you throw yourself on the state you must take what the state provides.
"when you throw yourself on the state you must take what the state provides"

How very, very true.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger? if they weren't being wet nursed by the state survival might be a higher priority in their minds.[/p][/quote]"why is it wrong to expect a couple of 60 year olds to get a lodger?" If you have to ask that question then I'm afraid you have a problem![/p][/quote]your answer to the above question sums up why so many are saying enough is enough. break it down for us if you will. justify why they deserve state handouts when they refuse to help themselves. when you throw yourself on the state you must take what the state provides.[/p][/quote]"when you throw yourself on the state you must take what the state provides" How very, very true. Happy Chickie
  • Score: 5

3:53pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

angryofessex wrote:
LL is out of bed early today
And you are out of it late..too much indulgence?
[quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: LL is out of bed early today[/p][/quote]And you are out of it late..too much indulgence? ThisYear
  • Score: -4

3:57pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
yagetme wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
catalonia13 wrote:
and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong
the taxpayer says no.
you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same
it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.
It's an implicit tax, not a physical tax.

If costs are an issue, then how does evicting this family and forcing them into a much more expensive private rental save the taxpayer anything?
if even down the barrel of a gun they won't help themselves should it be beholden on the state to do so?
The answer is yes..The populace has a contract with the state..which the state tries hard not to adhere to while demanding its is adhered to by the populace..
For those who voted this down...would you like to say what you disagree with in the post?

Wont hold my breath, because sheep eat grass most of the day..
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yagetme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: and yes it is too much to ask them to get a lodger in, they are a couple in their 60's, it would be totally inappropriate and very wrong[/p][/quote]the taxpayer says no.[/p][/quote]you speak only for yourself, I too am a taypayer (who also has to pay the bedroom tax) and I say it is wrong to expect an elderly couple to get a lodger, I suspect most decent folk would say the same[/p][/quote]it is not a tax it is a spare room subsidy.[/p][/quote]It's an implicit tax, not a physical tax. If costs are an issue, then how does evicting this family and forcing them into a much more expensive private rental save the taxpayer anything?[/p][/quote]if even down the barrel of a gun they won't help themselves should it be beholden on the state to do so?[/p][/quote]The answer is yes..The populace has a contract with the state..which the state tries hard not to adhere to while demanding its is adhered to by the populace..[/p][/quote]For those who voted this down...would you like to say what you disagree with in the post? Wont hold my breath, because sheep eat grass most of the day.. ThisYear
  • Score: -8

4:07pm Wed 9 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

got thumbs down?
got thumbs down? profondo asbo
  • Score: 3

5:23pm Wed 9 Apr 14

kgustavson says...

As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this.

What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background:

My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact!

My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do.

The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900.

Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not.

My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win!

Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!! kgustavson
  • Score: -5

5:29pm Wed 9 Apr 14

kgustavson says...

I would also like to add that they have been told by a number of 'professional' people, including the council, that they should pay their rent and forget about electricity, heating and food and no I am NOT making this up. How can you expect someone to give up the essential things needed to have a comfortable, basic existance?!
I would also like to add that they have been told by a number of 'professional' people, including the council, that they should pay their rent and forget about electricity, heating and food and no I am NOT making this up. How can you expect someone to give up the essential things needed to have a comfortable, basic existance?! kgustavson
  • Score: 2

7:14pm Wed 9 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

angryofessex wrote:
LL is out of bed early today
up at the crack of noon
[quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: LL is out of bed early today[/p][/quote]up at the crack of noon profondo asbo
  • Score: 2

7:24pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
got thumbs down?
Poor soul...keep your chin up.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: got thumbs down?[/p][/quote]Poor soul...keep your chin up. ThisYear
  • Score: -1

7:28pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

kgustavson wrote:
As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this.

What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background:

My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact!

My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do.

The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900.

Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not.

My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win!

Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
I hope they have representation at the court or the council and the court will use jargon and procedures that will take away any chance of your parents getting a fair hearing..while the council will not inform them of avenues they can explore to fight them the court will only consider what is presented before them..get legal or some sort of representation..
[quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]I hope they have representation at the court or the council and the court will use jargon and procedures that will take away any chance of your parents getting a fair hearing..while the council will not inform them of avenues they can explore to fight them the court will only consider what is presented before them..get legal or some sort of representation.. ThisYear
  • Score: -3

7:31pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
angryofessex wrote:
LL is out of bed early today
up at the crack of noon
I think he posted more around 12.30..which is probably early for him..
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryofessex[/bold] wrote: LL is out of bed early today[/p][/quote]up at the crack of noon[/p][/quote]I think he posted more around 12.30..which is probably early for him.. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Wed 9 Apr 14

kgustavson says...

Bigmama1 wrote:
catalonia13 wrote: the whole story is a load of rubbish, if her husband is 62 they are EXEMPT from paying the Bedroom Tax! "The Government states that if you or your partner were born before 5 October 1951 (the qualifying age for pension credit in April 2013) you will not be affected."
I didn't know that. This makes their story a load of BS now.
Actually my dad isn't 62 till June, so no they're not exempt and I can assure you the story is not bull sh*t
[quote][p][bold]Bigmama1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catalonia13[/bold] wrote: the whole story is a load of rubbish, if her husband is 62 they are EXEMPT from paying the Bedroom Tax! "The Government states that if you or your partner were born before 5 October 1951 (the qualifying age for pension credit in April 2013) you will not be affected."[/p][/quote]I didn't know that. This makes their story a load of BS now.[/p][/quote]Actually my dad isn't 62 till June, so no they're not exempt and I can assure you the story is not bull sh*t kgustavson
  • Score: -3

7:34pm Wed 9 Apr 14

kgustavson says...

ThisYear wrote:
kgustavson wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
I hope they have representation at the court or the council and the court will use jargon and procedures that will take away any chance of your parents getting a fair hearing..while the council will not inform them of avenues they can explore to fight them the court will only consider what is presented before them..get legal or some sort of representation..
They had a solicitor provided through legal aid as obviously they can't afford one privately. But she was useless and unfortunately made it clear she wasn't going to work in their favour, she was just worried about whether shed get paid or not. They will be representing themselves unfortunately.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]I hope they have representation at the court or the council and the court will use jargon and procedures that will take away any chance of your parents getting a fair hearing..while the council will not inform them of avenues they can explore to fight them the court will only consider what is presented before them..get legal or some sort of representation..[/p][/quote]They had a solicitor provided through legal aid as obviously they can't afford one privately. But she was useless and unfortunately made it clear she wasn't going to work in their favour, she was just worried about whether shed get paid or not. They will be representing themselves unfortunately. kgustavson
  • Score: -3

7:50pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

kgustavson wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
kgustavson wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
I hope they have representation at the court or the council and the court will use jargon and procedures that will take away any chance of your parents getting a fair hearing..while the council will not inform them of avenues they can explore to fight them the court will only consider what is presented before them..get legal or some sort of representation..
They had a solicitor provided through legal aid as obviously they can't afford one privately. But she was useless and unfortunately made it clear she wasn't going to work in their favour, she was just worried about whether shed get paid or not. They will be representing themselves unfortunately.
If the relationship between them and the solicitor has broken down they should be able to apply for another because of that..they could ask the judge to delay the hearing while they got representation.
[quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]I hope they have representation at the court or the council and the court will use jargon and procedures that will take away any chance of your parents getting a fair hearing..while the council will not inform them of avenues they can explore to fight them the court will only consider what is presented before them..get legal or some sort of representation..[/p][/quote]They had a solicitor provided through legal aid as obviously they can't afford one privately. But she was useless and unfortunately made it clear she wasn't going to work in their favour, she was just worried about whether shed get paid or not. They will be representing themselves unfortunately.[/p][/quote]If the relationship between them and the solicitor has broken down they should be able to apply for another because of that..they could ask the judge to delay the hearing while they got representation. ThisYear
  • Score: -1

8:01pm Wed 9 Apr 14

maria angela says...

Firstly, for my niece who left the above comment you have said all that needs to be said.
Secondly I am appalled by the lack of empathy from a lot of people who have wrote comments, how dare you make assumptions about people and let me add decent people that you know nothing about!
All I can say to some of you is there for the grace of god go i.
Firstly, for my niece who left the above comment you have said all that needs to be said. Secondly I am appalled by the lack of empathy from a lot of people who have wrote comments, how dare you make assumptions about people and let me add decent people that you know nothing about! All I can say to some of you is there for the grace of god go i. maria angela
  • Score: -6

8:20pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

maria angela wrote:
Firstly, for my niece who left the above comment you have said all that needs to be said.
Secondly I am appalled by the lack of empathy from a lot of people who have wrote comments, how dare you make assumptions about people and let me add decent people that you know nothing about!
All I can say to some of you is there for the grace of god go i.
Im afraid you will find the majority of posters on these threads do not have a semblance of empathy in their entire bodies..they are a flawed unfeeling shower of inadequates you could ever imagine..ignore there bile they are indeed not worth it..
[quote][p][bold]maria angela[/bold] wrote: Firstly, for my niece who left the above comment you have said all that needs to be said. Secondly I am appalled by the lack of empathy from a lot of people who have wrote comments, how dare you make assumptions about people and let me add decent people that you know nothing about! All I can say to some of you is there for the grace of god go i.[/p][/quote]Im afraid you will find the majority of posters on these threads do not have a semblance of empathy in their entire bodies..they are a flawed unfeeling shower of inadequates you could ever imagine..ignore there bile they are indeed not worth it.. ThisYear
  • Score: -8

8:47pm Wed 9 Apr 14

poortaxpayer says...

kgustavson wrote:
I would also like to add that they have been told by a number of 'professional' people, including the council, that they should pay their rent and forget about electricity, heating and food and no I am NOT making this up. How can you expect someone to give up the essential things needed to have a comfortable, basic existance?!
Keeping a roof over your head would be pretty essential.

Due to their age they should be exempt from the Bedroom Tax so the debt has nothing to do with the Bedroom Tax and probably due to a non dependent deduction from their benefit because they have another adult residing in the property.
[quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: I would also like to add that they have been told by a number of 'professional' people, including the council, that they should pay their rent and forget about electricity, heating and food and no I am NOT making this up. How can you expect someone to give up the essential things needed to have a comfortable, basic existance?![/p][/quote]Keeping a roof over your head would be pretty essential. Due to their age they should be exempt from the Bedroom Tax so the debt has nothing to do with the Bedroom Tax and probably due to a non dependent deduction from their benefit because they have another adult residing in the property. poortaxpayer
  • Score: 7

8:51pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Nebs says...

kgustavson wrote:
As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this.

What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background:

My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact!

My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do.

The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900.

Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not.

My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win!

Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
If your brother is the one who lives with them, surely he could use some of his savings to pay the bill, even if it means a few extra months before he can buy a place himself.
[quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]If your brother is the one who lives with them, surely he could use some of his savings to pay the bill, even if it means a few extra months before he can buy a place himself. Nebs
  • Score: 11

9:00pm Wed 9 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

Nebs wrote:
kgustavson wrote:
As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this.

What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background:

My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact!

My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do.

The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900.

Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not.

My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win!

Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
If your brother is the one who lives with them, surely he could use some of his savings to pay the bill, even if it means a few extra months before he can buy a place himself.
better still as he appears not to be contributing, move into the "laundry" room and sublet the second bedroom. not exactly particle physics is it...
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]If your brother is the one who lives with them, surely he could use some of his savings to pay the bill, even if it means a few extra months before he can buy a place himself.[/p][/quote]better still as he appears not to be contributing, move into the "laundry" room and sublet the second bedroom. not exactly particle physics is it... profondo asbo
  • Score: 8

9:06pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Nebs wrote:
kgustavson wrote:
As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this.

What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background:

My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact!

My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do.

The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900.

Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not.

My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win!

Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
If your brother is the one who lives with them, surely he could use some of his savings to pay the bill, even if it means a few extra months before he can buy a place himself.
better still as he appears not to be contributing, move into the "laundry" room and sublet the second bedroom. not exactly particle physics is it...
Except that can't be done....you really have no idea do you..floating about on your yacht
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]If your brother is the one who lives with them, surely he could use some of his savings to pay the bill, even if it means a few extra months before he can buy a place himself.[/p][/quote]better still as he appears not to be contributing, move into the "laundry" room and sublet the second bedroom. not exactly particle physics is it...[/p][/quote]Except that can't be done....you really have no idea do you..floating about on your yacht ThisYear
  • Score: -7

9:14pm Wed 9 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

got laundry room?
got laundry room? profondo asbo
  • Score: 5

7:55am Thu 10 Apr 14

kgustavson says...

Nebs wrote:
kgustavson wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
If your brother is the one who lives with them, surely he could use some of his savings to pay the bill, even if it means a few extra months before he can buy a place himself.
He could never afford to buy a place, on his own, are you kidding?! He has no savings as far as I know, you would have to ask him, I'm not his keeper and his money is his own moving to do with me!
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]If your brother is the one who lives with them, surely he could use some of his savings to pay the bill, even if it means a few extra months before he can buy a place himself.[/p][/quote]He could never afford to buy a place, on his own, are you kidding?! He has no savings as far as I know, you would have to ask him, I'm not his keeper and his money is his own moving to do with me! kgustavson
  • Score: -8

8:08am Thu 10 Apr 14

kgustavson says...

profondo asbo wrote:
got laundry room?
Yes they've got a laundry room and a boot room, oh and don't forget about the billiards room and the room they use for champagne and canapé receptions. That bedroom is barely big enough for a single bed let alone anything else, you really think someone would pay rent for something like that?! There's no way on goes earth I'd let my parents have a lodger, in Basildon?! They'd probably end up with some degenerate, sh*t stain like you and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: got laundry room?[/p][/quote]Yes they've got a laundry room and a boot room, oh and don't forget about the billiards room and the room they use for champagne and canapé receptions. That bedroom is barely big enough for a single bed let alone anything else, you really think someone would pay rent for something like that?! There's no way on goes earth I'd let my parents have a lodger, in Basildon?! They'd probably end up with some degenerate, sh*t stain like you and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. kgustavson
  • Score: 1

8:17am Thu 10 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

kgustavson wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
got laundry room?
Yes they've got a laundry room and a boot room, oh and don't forget about the billiards room and the room they use for champagne and canapé receptions. That bedroom is barely big enough for a single bed let alone anything else, you really think someone would pay rent for something like that?! There's no way on goes earth I'd let my parents have a lodger, in Basildon?! They'd probably end up with some degenerate, sh*t stain like you and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
then your brother should muck down in the laundry room whilst he is saving for his own place at the taxpayer's expense.

my condolences on your parents' lost court case.
[quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: got laundry room?[/p][/quote]Yes they've got a laundry room and a boot room, oh and don't forget about the billiards room and the room they use for champagne and canapé receptions. That bedroom is barely big enough for a single bed let alone anything else, you really think someone would pay rent for something like that?! There's no way on goes earth I'd let my parents have a lodger, in Basildon?! They'd probably end up with some degenerate, sh*t stain like you and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.[/p][/quote]then your brother should muck down in the laundry room whilst he is saving for his own place at the taxpayer's expense. my condolences on your parents' lost court case. profondo asbo
  • Score: 5

8:55am Thu 10 Apr 14

cg1blue says...

kgustavson wrote:
As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
Sounds like they've had it really tough for a while. I hope the court shows some leniency. When you consider how some people play the system and milk it for all they can, and get away with it, it's sad that your (decent sounding) parents are being put through this pain.
Did they end up in a council property as a result of the redundancies? That must also have been hard for a proud man like your father.
One more thing - how can the Echo get it so wrong - £9000 vs £900??? That could be deemed slanderous if you ask me!
[quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]Sounds like they've had it really tough for a while. I hope the court shows some leniency. When you consider how some people play the system and milk it for all they can, and get away with it, it's sad that your (decent sounding) parents are being put through this pain. Did they end up in a council property as a result of the redundancies? That must also have been hard for a proud man like your father. One more thing - how can the Echo get it so wrong - £9000 vs £900??? That could be deemed slanderous if you ask me! cg1blue
  • Score: 2

10:21am Thu 10 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

kgustavson wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
got laundry room?
Yes they've got a laundry room and a boot room, oh and don't forget about the billiards room and the room they use for champagne and canapé receptions. That bedroom is barely big enough for a single bed let alone anything else, you really think someone would pay rent for something like that?! There's no way on goes earth I'd let my parents have a lodger, in Basildon?! They'd probably end up with some degenerate, sh*t stain like you and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
Ignore the rat...has the 'spare' room been measured to see if it fits the designated size as a bedroom...is the room upstairs or down..if its down then it could be constituted as a dining room..don't give up, fight them, try the internet for groups and blogs dealing with this disgusting tax on vulnerable people and as stated, ignore those who support this tax as they are just as disgusting, in the smugness that it doesn't affect them, as the tax itself..
[quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: got laundry room?[/p][/quote]Yes they've got a laundry room and a boot room, oh and don't forget about the billiards room and the room they use for champagne and canapé receptions. That bedroom is barely big enough for a single bed let alone anything else, you really think someone would pay rent for something like that?! There's no way on goes earth I'd let my parents have a lodger, in Basildon?! They'd probably end up with some degenerate, sh*t stain like you and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.[/p][/quote]Ignore the rat...has the 'spare' room been measured to see if it fits the designated size as a bedroom...is the room upstairs or down..if its down then it could be constituted as a dining room..don't give up, fight them, try the internet for groups and blogs dealing with this disgusting tax on vulnerable people and as stated, ignore those who support this tax as they are just as disgusting, in the smugness that it doesn't affect them, as the tax itself.. ThisYear
  • Score: -13

2:41pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Sensible Man says...

Is it not possible for the younger members of the family to pool their resources and come up with the £900? It is not a huge sum if split many ways and I am sure if all the family members / friends donated or loaned small amounts the target could be reached and the arrears paid off. Hopefully then the lady and gentleman will soon be successful in finding new employment (not easy I know) and - together with their resident son's wage - they could over time repay the £900 and get back on track?
Is it not possible for the younger members of the family to pool their resources and come up with the £900? It is not a huge sum if split many ways and I am sure if all the family members / friends donated or loaned small amounts the target could be reached and the arrears paid off. Hopefully then the lady and gentleman will soon be successful in finding new employment (not easy I know) and - together with their resident son's wage - they could over time repay the £900 and get back on track? Sensible Man
  • Score: 6

3:48pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Nebs says...

kgustavson wrote:
Nebs wrote:
kgustavson wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
If your brother is the one who lives with them, surely he could use some of his savings to pay the bill, even if it means a few extra months before he can buy a place himself.
He could never afford to buy a place, on his own, are you kidding?! He has no savings as far as I know, you would have to ask him, I'm not his keeper and his money is his own moving to do with me!
Fair enough, I thought you knew, as you stated.....
My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do.

It was that statement of yours that led me to make the suggestion. Strange that you would post that he is saving, and then say he has no savings, and then say his money is nothing to do with me. So you have made three claims, that he is saving, that he has no savings, and that you don't know about his money. Whatever the case, if he is working then getting hold of £900 to keep a roof over his and his parents head should be the number 1 priority.
[quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]If your brother is the one who lives with them, surely he could use some of his savings to pay the bill, even if it means a few extra months before he can buy a place himself.[/p][/quote]He could never afford to buy a place, on his own, are you kidding?! He has no savings as far as I know, you would have to ask him, I'm not his keeper and his money is his own moving to do with me![/p][/quote]Fair enough, I thought you knew, as you stated..... My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. It was that statement of yours that led me to make the suggestion. Strange that you would post that he is saving, and then say he has no savings, and then say his money is nothing to do with me. So you have made three claims, that he is saving, that he has no savings, and that you don't know about his money. Whatever the case, if he is working then getting hold of £900 to keep a roof over his and his parents head should be the number 1 priority. Nebs
  • Score: 8

10:43pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Devils Advocate says...

Profundo asbo,
You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life.
Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?
Profundo asbo, You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life. Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you? Devils Advocate
  • Score: -2

11:16pm Thu 10 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
Profundo asbo,
You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life.
Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?
He is also an ***hole.
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: Profundo asbo, You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life. Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?[/p][/quote]He is also an ***hole. ThisYear
  • Score: -6

11:16pm Thu 10 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
Profundo asbo,
You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life.
Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?
He is also an ***hole.
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: Profundo asbo, You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life. Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?[/p][/quote]He is also an ***hole. ThisYear
  • Score: -7

8:20am Fri 11 Apr 14

Bigmama1 says...

cg1blue wrote:
kgustavson wrote:
As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
Sounds like they've had it really tough for a while. I hope the court shows some leniency. When you consider how some people play the system and milk it for all they can, and get away with it, it's sad that your (decent sounding) parents are being put through this pain.
Did they end up in a council property as a result of the redundancies? That must also have been hard for a proud man like your father.
One more thing - how can the Echo get it so wrong - £9000 vs £900??? That could be deemed slanderous if you ask me!
Why didn't you and possibly other family, help out with a small contribution each? This whole thing would now not be boring us.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]Sounds like they've had it really tough for a while. I hope the court shows some leniency. When you consider how some people play the system and milk it for all they can, and get away with it, it's sad that your (decent sounding) parents are being put through this pain. Did they end up in a council property as a result of the redundancies? That must also have been hard for a proud man like your father. One more thing - how can the Echo get it so wrong - £9000 vs £900??? That could be deemed slanderous if you ask me![/p][/quote]Why didn't you and possibly other family, help out with a small contribution each? This whole thing would now not be boring us. Bigmama1
  • Score: 0

9:01am Fri 11 Apr 14

InTheKnowOk says...

ThisYear wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
Profundo asbo,
You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life.
Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?
He is also an ***hole.
Comment noted in that big fat dossier ...
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: Profundo asbo, You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life. Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?[/p][/quote]He is also an ***hole.[/p][/quote]Comment noted in that big fat dossier ... InTheKnowOk
  • Score: 0

9:06am Fri 11 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
Profundo asbo,
You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life.
Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?
where is the lie? I published the links to the latest numbers - the official government statistics. you had no answer other than to say "it looks that way but the numbers are disparate". home ownership is irrelevant, the family in question are in subsidised accommodation.

you are incorrect to assume i am affiliated with any political party but you are correct in your assessment of my loathing of of TB. his premiership singlehandedly did more to dismantle the democratic process in this country than any other.
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: Profundo asbo, You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life. Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?[/p][/quote]where is the lie? I published the links to the latest numbers - the official government statistics. you had no answer other than to say "it looks that way but the numbers are disparate". home ownership is irrelevant, the family in question are in subsidised accommodation. you are incorrect to assume i am affiliated with any political party but you are correct in your assessment of my loathing of of TB. his premiership singlehandedly did more to dismantle the democratic process in this country than any other. profondo asbo
  • Score: 3

11:41am Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

InTheKnowOk wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
Profundo asbo,
You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life.
Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?
He is also an ***hole.
Comment noted in that big fat dossier ...
I wouldn't go as far as to call him that!
[quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: Profundo asbo, You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life. Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?[/p][/quote]He is also an ***hole.[/p][/quote]Comment noted in that big fat dossier ...[/p][/quote]I wouldn't go as far as to call him that! ThisYear
  • Score: -7

11:44am Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

Bigmama1 wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
kgustavson wrote:
As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
Sounds like they've had it really tough for a while. I hope the court shows some leniency. When you consider how some people play the system and milk it for all they can, and get away with it, it's sad that your (decent sounding) parents are being put through this pain.
Did they end up in a council property as a result of the redundancies? That must also have been hard for a proud man like your father.
One more thing - how can the Echo get it so wrong - £9000 vs £900??? That could be deemed slanderous if you ask me!
Why didn't you and possibly other family, help out with a small contribution each? This whole thing would now not be boring us.
Why do you read something that bores you? Have you no willpower..I bet you watch every soap religiously too..."Ricky Ricky tell Bet lynch there's trouble t'at woolpack" (I researched to make that comment)
[quote][p][bold]Bigmama1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]Sounds like they've had it really tough for a while. I hope the court shows some leniency. When you consider how some people play the system and milk it for all they can, and get away with it, it's sad that your (decent sounding) parents are being put through this pain. Did they end up in a council property as a result of the redundancies? That must also have been hard for a proud man like your father. One more thing - how can the Echo get it so wrong - £9000 vs £900??? That could be deemed slanderous if you ask me![/p][/quote]Why didn't you and possibly other family, help out with a small contribution each? This whole thing would now not be boring us.[/p][/quote]Why do you read something that bores you? Have you no willpower..I bet you watch every soap religiously too..."Ricky Ricky tell Bet lynch there's trouble t'at woolpack" (I researched to make that comment) ThisYear
  • Score: -7

11:45am Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
Profundo asbo,
You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life.
Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?
where is the lie? I published the links to the latest numbers - the official government statistics. you had no answer other than to say "it looks that way but the numbers are disparate". home ownership is irrelevant, the family in question are in subsidised accommodation.

you are incorrect to assume i am affiliated with any political party but you are correct in your assessment of my loathing of of TB. his premiership singlehandedly did more to dismantle the democratic process in this country than any other.
Subsidised by whom?

Shows us the evidence of what you claim..
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: Profundo asbo, You are stereo typical or todays right-wing. Doing your best to keep the hard up hard up. Lying about the council houses being tax subsidised, expecting the lowest paid to support themselves and pay their way in society which you know full well (because your side is making them poorer and poorer every day) that they simply cannot do without selling drugs or thieving their way through life. Yet, when I ask you a simple question like: "Do you think a person who does a full-time job should earn enough money to eventually buy a house?" You spin onto something entirely different. Like your leader, you cannot enter a debate unless the questions are framed to your answers. You're partie's spin doctors, with the aid of "The Sun" managed to besmirch the character of Tony Blair, but he was the Prime Minister who answered Questions as they were raised, without the rehearsal all of your PM's had to have. You have selective answers too don't you?[/p][/quote]where is the lie? I published the links to the latest numbers - the official government statistics. you had no answer other than to say "it looks that way but the numbers are disparate". home ownership is irrelevant, the family in question are in subsidised accommodation. you are incorrect to assume i am affiliated with any political party but you are correct in your assessment of my loathing of of TB. his premiership singlehandedly did more to dismantle the democratic process in this country than any other.[/p][/quote]Subsidised by whom? Shows us the evidence of what you claim.. ThisYear
  • Score: -8

12:00pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Bigmama1 wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
kgustavson wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
Sounds like they've had it really tough for a while. I hope the court shows some leniency. When you consider how some people play the system and milk it for all they can, and get away with it, it's sad that your (decent sounding) parents are being put through this pain. Did they end up in a council property as a result of the redundancies? That must also have been hard for a proud man like your father. One more thing - how can the Echo get it so wrong - £9000 vs £900??? That could be deemed slanderous if you ask me!
Why didn't you and possibly other family, help out with a small contribution each? This whole thing would now not be boring us.
Why do you read something that bores you? Have you no willpower..I bet you watch every soap religiously too..."Ricky Ricky tell Bet lynch there's trouble t'at woolpack" (I researched to make that comment)
That is about your level of research accuracy.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bigmama1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]Sounds like they've had it really tough for a while. I hope the court shows some leniency. When you consider how some people play the system and milk it for all they can, and get away with it, it's sad that your (decent sounding) parents are being put through this pain. Did they end up in a council property as a result of the redundancies? That must also have been hard for a proud man like your father. One more thing - how can the Echo get it so wrong - £9000 vs £900??? That could be deemed slanderous if you ask me![/p][/quote]Why didn't you and possibly other family, help out with a small contribution each? This whole thing would now not be boring us.[/p][/quote]Why do you read something that bores you? Have you no willpower..I bet you watch every soap religiously too..."Ricky Ricky tell Bet lynch there's trouble t'at woolpack" (I researched to make that comment)[/p][/quote]That is about your level of research accuracy. Alekhine
  • Score: 2

12:57pm Fri 11 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Bigmama1 wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
kgustavson wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!!
Sounds like they've had it really tough for a while. I hope the court shows some leniency. When you consider how some people play the system and milk it for all they can, and get away with it, it's sad that your (decent sounding) parents are being put through this pain. Did they end up in a council property as a result of the redundancies? That must also have been hard for a proud man like your father. One more thing - how can the Echo get it so wrong - £9000 vs £900??? That could be deemed slanderous if you ask me!
Why didn't you and possibly other family, help out with a small contribution each? This whole thing would now not be boring us.
Why do you read something that bores you? Have you no willpower..I bet you watch every soap religiously too..."Ricky Ricky tell Bet lynch there's trouble t'at woolpack" (I researched to make that comment)
That is about your level of research accuracy.
got bedroom tax, tax?

got jim henson?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bigmama1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kgustavson[/bold] wrote: As the people in this story are my parents I thought it was only fair that I comment and voice my opinion on this. What the journalist has failed to mention are some important key facts about my parents situation and background: My father got made redundant some months back, maybe 6-8 months now through no fault of his own, my mother also got made redundant shortly before that from her temporary job. Therefore the struggle to pay the bills and rent began some time ago, the bedroom tax was an added blow and contributed to their situation. My father has worked ALL of his life and paid his taxes ALL of his life he has never and I repeat never been a 'SPONGER' or taken advantage of the system. He is a very proud man and would prefer not to seek financial help in any form whatsoever. He has been trying tirelessly to find a job since his redundancy, he has had interview after interview after interview, sometimes he has applied for jobs and heard nothing back. I believe this is partly becuase of his age (mid 60's) and his health (he is diabetic, has high blood pressure and cealiac disease) employers are age-ist and generally would rather employ a young fit person then an older person close to retirement age with health problems, that's a fact! My brother, does contribute and pays his way but he is trying to save for his own flat, which as we all know is a hard thing to do. The journalist missprinted the arrears and it is NOT £9000 it is £900. Their 3 bedroom house is only used as a two bedroom house, the third room has not got a bed in it and is used as a laundry/storage room and NOT a bedroom, I'm sure I have been told that to qualify for bedroom tax a room has to have a bed in it and be actively used as a bedroom, which it is not. My parents have wanted to move out of this house for a very long time. But the process of re-homing is painfully slow and difficult for council tenants. They would love to be moved to a smaller more affordable one bedroom property and have told the council this time and again, they were on the housing list for sheltered accommodation as they are over 60 but have been taken off, so they just can't win! Who know's what the outcome will be at the courtcase on Friday. All I would like to say is for people to have some understanding and do not tar everyone with the same brush, my parents are honest, hardworking and proud people, this whole thing has knocked them for six. Personally I think it has been taken too far and could have been resolved another way, surely this whole process with the court on Friday will cost them more than the £900 arrears??!!!![/p][/quote]Sounds like they've had it really tough for a while. I hope the court shows some leniency. When you consider how some people play the system and milk it for all they can, and get away with it, it's sad that your (decent sounding) parents are being put through this pain. Did they end up in a council property as a result of the redundancies? That must also have been hard for a proud man like your father. One more thing - how can the Echo get it so wrong - £9000 vs £900??? That could be deemed slanderous if you ask me![/p][/quote]Why didn't you and possibly other family, help out with a small contribution each? This whole thing would now not be boring us.[/p][/quote]Why do you read something that bores you? Have you no willpower..I bet you watch every soap religiously too..."Ricky Ricky tell Bet lynch there's trouble t'at woolpack" (I researched to make that comment)[/p][/quote]That is about your level of research accuracy.[/p][/quote]got bedroom tax, tax? got jim henson? profondo asbo
  • Score: -1

12:57pm Fri 11 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

or got taxed bedroom tax?
or got taxed bedroom tax? profondo asbo
  • Score: 2

1:42pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Alekhine says...

profondo asbo wrote:
or got taxed bedroom tax?
Yep, that says it all.

Got a camper van.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: or got taxed bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]Yep, that says it all. Got a camper van. Alekhine
  • Score: 4

2:28pm Fri 11 Apr 14

DontForgetToBreathe says...

When / if the research was done that showed that there were no properties to move into and that this policy would result in undue hardship for people, the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy.

When it must have been pointed out to the minister that tenants in arrears are not allowed, by law, to move/swap social housing, the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy.

When it was pointed out that Kafka wrote fiction and not manuals on how to run a country the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy.

Unfortunately we have a sociopathic, ideologically driven government whose sole aim is to destroy the hard won living standards of ordinary folk in order to engage us in a race to the bottom in the global economy so that we will be able to compete with the slum dwellers of Calcutta. Only then will we be able to make our "Masters" the wealth they deserve.

They have one simple method to do this and that is to pit ordinary folk against each other and boy! are they succeeding!

If you believe in the concept of the deserving and undeserving poor you have already been suckered into their lies, what next? will you support the return of the workhouse? does it make you feel better when others suffer?

We are a pitiful nation stuffed to the gills with pitiful, selfish bigots.
When / if the research was done that showed that there were no properties to move into and that this policy would result in undue hardship for people, the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy. When it must have been pointed out to the minister that tenants in arrears are not allowed, by law, to move/swap social housing, the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy. When it was pointed out that Kafka wrote fiction and not manuals on how to run a country the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy. Unfortunately we have a sociopathic, ideologically driven government whose sole aim is to destroy the hard won living standards of ordinary folk in order to engage us in a race to the bottom in the global economy so that we will be able to compete with the slum dwellers of Calcutta. Only then will we be able to make our "Masters" the wealth they deserve. They have one simple method to do this and that is to pit ordinary folk against each other and boy! are they succeeding! If you believe in the concept of the deserving and undeserving poor you have already been suckered into their lies, what next? will you support the return of the workhouse? does it make you feel better when others suffer? We are a pitiful nation stuffed to the gills with pitiful, selfish bigots. DontForgetToBreathe
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

DontForgetToBreathe wrote:
When / if the research was done that showed that there were no properties to move into and that this policy would result in undue hardship for people, the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy.

When it must have been pointed out to the minister that tenants in arrears are not allowed, by law, to move/swap social housing, the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy.

When it was pointed out that Kafka wrote fiction and not manuals on how to run a country the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy.

Unfortunately we have a sociopathic, ideologically driven government whose sole aim is to destroy the hard won living standards of ordinary folk in order to engage us in a race to the bottom in the global economy so that we will be able to compete with the slum dwellers of Calcutta. Only then will we be able to make our "Masters" the wealth they deserve.

They have one simple method to do this and that is to pit ordinary folk against each other and boy! are they succeeding!

If you believe in the concept of the deserving and undeserving poor you have already been suckered into their lies, what next? will you support the return of the workhouse? does it make you feel better when others suffer?

We are a pitiful nation stuffed to the gills with pitiful, selfish bigots.
In a nutshell..
[quote][p][bold]DontForgetToBreathe[/bold] wrote: When / if the research was done that showed that there were no properties to move into and that this policy would result in undue hardship for people, the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy. When it must have been pointed out to the minister that tenants in arrears are not allowed, by law, to move/swap social housing, the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy. When it was pointed out that Kafka wrote fiction and not manuals on how to run a country the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy. Unfortunately we have a sociopathic, ideologically driven government whose sole aim is to destroy the hard won living standards of ordinary folk in order to engage us in a race to the bottom in the global economy so that we will be able to compete with the slum dwellers of Calcutta. Only then will we be able to make our "Masters" the wealth they deserve. They have one simple method to do this and that is to pit ordinary folk against each other and boy! are they succeeding! If you believe in the concept of the deserving and undeserving poor you have already been suckered into their lies, what next? will you support the return of the workhouse? does it make you feel better when others suffer? We are a pitiful nation stuffed to the gills with pitiful, selfish bigots.[/p][/quote]In a nutshell.. ThisYear
  • Score: -3

3:24pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
or got taxed bedroom tax?
Yep, that says it all.

Got a camper van.
Got plenty of room in brain cavity.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: or got taxed bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]Yep, that says it all. Got a camper van.[/p][/quote]Got plenty of room in brain cavity. ThisYear
  • Score: -6

3:29pm Fri 11 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

Alekhine wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
or got taxed bedroom tax?
Yep, that says it all.

Got a camper van.
got kindling and unsuitable location next to a127?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: or got taxed bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]Yep, that says it all. Got a camper van.[/p][/quote]got kindling and unsuitable location next to a127? profondo asbo
  • Score: 0

3:36pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
or got taxed bedroom tax?
Yep, that says it all.

Got a camper van.
got kindling and unsuitable location next to a127?
Got issues in life and only the comment section for company
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: or got taxed bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]Yep, that says it all. Got a camper van.[/p][/quote]got kindling and unsuitable location next to a127?[/p][/quote]Got issues in life and only the comment section for company ThisYear
  • Score: -5

4:19pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Alekhine says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
profondo asbo wrote: or got taxed bedroom tax?
Yep, that says it all. Got a camper van.
got kindling and unsuitable location next to a127?
Got back up copy of dossier?
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: or got taxed bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]Yep, that says it all. Got a camper van.[/p][/quote]got kindling and unsuitable location next to a127?[/p][/quote]Got back up copy of dossier? Alekhine
  • Score: 1

4:24pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Alekhine says...

ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
profondo asbo wrote: or got taxed bedroom tax?
Yep, that says it all. Got a camper van.
Got plenty of room in brain cavity.
Got horse box. Oh, it's a camper van and i do not have the slightest evidence there was ever a horse in it.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: or got taxed bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]Yep, that says it all. Got a camper van.[/p][/quote]Got plenty of room in brain cavity.[/p][/quote]Got horse box. Oh, it's a camper van and i do not have the slightest evidence there was ever a horse in it. Alekhine
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Devils Advocate says...

profondo asbo,
Going by your comments on this page, you lie every time you click the button to stick the ball of your biro out.
Because private rent is more expensive than council rent, you state that proves your point.
Right, so a pound shop charges less for a AA battery than Waitrose. Are all pound shops batteries subsidised?

You haven't approached my simple question about the pay scale of the "Working Class" people, for whom Council houses were instituted, and whether they should be paid enough to buy their own house. This is the heart of the have and have not problem. If Council houses were not introduced (and they are not subsidised) then the working classes would live in the bushes. Unless the benevolent "Investor" (Biggest con ever) were to provide for him by allowing him to keep more of his earnings, instead of taking most as "A return on his investment"
Answer this: Is this couple being paid enough to buy their own house? Should they be able to afford private rent? If council houses were to include the huge profit margin that private rent accommodation attracts, would working people be able to afford that rent? You know the truth, why keep the battle here between the havenots and the have -nots raging? Obviously so the poor uneducated can follow your logic you wicked person!
profondo asbo, Going by your comments on this page, you lie every time you click the button to stick the ball of your biro out. Because private rent is more expensive than council rent, you state that proves your point. Right, so a pound shop charges less for a AA battery than Waitrose. Are all pound shops batteries subsidised? You haven't approached my simple question about the pay scale of the "Working Class" people, for whom Council houses were instituted, and whether they should be paid enough to buy their own house. This is the heart of the have and have not problem. If Council houses were not introduced (and they are not subsidised) then the working classes would live in the bushes. Unless the benevolent "Investor" (Biggest con ever) were to provide for him by allowing him to keep more of his earnings, instead of taking most as "A return on his investment" Answer this: Is this couple being paid enough to buy their own house? Should they be able to afford private rent? If council houses were to include the huge profit margin that private rent accommodation attracts, would working people be able to afford that rent? You know the truth, why keep the battle here between the havenots and the have -nots raging? Obviously so the poor uneducated can follow your logic you wicked person! Devils Advocate
  • Score: -1

4:56pm Fri 11 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
Going by your comments on this page, you lie every time you click the button to stick the ball of your biro out.
Because private rent is more expensive than council rent, you state that proves your point.
Right, so a pound shop charges less for a AA battery than Waitrose. Are all pound shops batteries subsidised?

You haven't approached my simple question about the pay scale of the "Working Class" people, for whom Council houses were instituted, and whether they should be paid enough to buy their own house. This is the heart of the have and have not problem. If Council houses were not introduced (and they are not subsidised) then the working classes would live in the bushes. Unless the benevolent "Investor" (Biggest con ever) were to provide for him by allowing him to keep more of his earnings, instead of taking most as "A return on his investment"
Answer this: Is this couple being paid enough to buy their own house? Should they be able to afford private rent? If council houses were to include the huge profit margin that private rent accommodation attracts, would working people be able to afford that rent? You know the truth, why keep the battle here between the havenots and the have -nots raging? Obviously so the poor uneducated can follow your logic you wicked person!
let social housing rent costs = x
let private housing rent costs = y
y minus x = cost of renting private housing vs cost of renting social housing or "the subsidy"

Q: why is y > x? A: state does not charge a market rent for its property bank - it charges a below market rent (implicit subsidy for council tenants). got that last poster?

it has zero to do with batteries, retailer profit margins or the size of the box of chocolates that have been artificially shrunk to con the consumer into thinking they are getting a good deal.

as to whether they were paid enough to afford a mortgage - you know about as much as i do.

who pays the opportunity cost of y-x
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, Going by your comments on this page, you lie every time you click the button to stick the ball of your biro out. Because private rent is more expensive than council rent, you state that proves your point. Right, so a pound shop charges less for a AA battery than Waitrose. Are all pound shops batteries subsidised? You haven't approached my simple question about the pay scale of the "Working Class" people, for whom Council houses were instituted, and whether they should be paid enough to buy their own house. This is the heart of the have and have not problem. If Council houses were not introduced (and they are not subsidised) then the working classes would live in the bushes. Unless the benevolent "Investor" (Biggest con ever) were to provide for him by allowing him to keep more of his earnings, instead of taking most as "A return on his investment" Answer this: Is this couple being paid enough to buy their own house? Should they be able to afford private rent? If council houses were to include the huge profit margin that private rent accommodation attracts, would working people be able to afford that rent? You know the truth, why keep the battle here between the havenots and the have -nots raging? Obviously so the poor uneducated can follow your logic you wicked person![/p][/quote]let social housing rent costs = x let private housing rent costs = y y minus x = cost of renting private housing vs cost of renting social housing or "the subsidy" Q: why is y > x? A: state does not charge a market rent for its property bank - it charges a below market rent (implicit subsidy for council tenants). got that last poster? it has zero to do with batteries, retailer profit margins or the size of the box of chocolates that have been artificially shrunk to con the consumer into thinking they are getting a good deal. as to whether they were paid enough to afford a mortgage - you know about as much as i do. who pays the opportunity cost of y-x profondo asbo
  • Score: 3

5:01pm Fri 11 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

who pays the opportunity cost of y-x? A: we all do....out of the goodness of our hearts
who pays the opportunity cost of y-x? A: we all do....out of the goodness of our hearts profondo asbo
  • Score: 2

5:18pm Fri 11 Apr 14

cg1blue says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote: profondo asbo, Going by your comments on this page, you lie every time you click the button to stick the ball of your biro out. Because private rent is more expensive than council rent, you state that proves your point. Right, so a pound shop charges less for a AA battery than Waitrose. Are all pound shops batteries subsidised? You haven't approached my simple question about the pay scale of the "Working Class" people, for whom Council houses were instituted, and whether they should be paid enough to buy their own house. This is the heart of the have and have not problem. If Council houses were not introduced (and they are not subsidised) then the working classes would live in the bushes. Unless the benevolent "Investor" (Biggest con ever) were to provide for him by allowing him to keep more of his earnings, instead of taking most as "A return on his investment" Answer this: Is this couple being paid enough to buy their own house? Should they be able to afford private rent? If council houses were to include the huge profit margin that private rent accommodation attracts, would working people be able to afford that rent? You know the truth, why keep the battle here between the havenots and the have -nots raging? Obviously so the poor uneducated can follow your logic you wicked person!
let social housing rent costs = x let private housing rent costs = y y minus x = cost of renting private housing vs cost of renting social housing or "the subsidy" Q: why is y > x? A: state does not charge a market rent for its property bank - it charges a below market rent (implicit subsidy for council tenants). got that last poster? it has zero to do with batteries, retailer profit margins or the size of the box of chocolates that have been artificially shrunk to con the consumer into thinking they are getting a good deal. as to whether they were paid enough to afford a mortgage - you know about as much as i do. who pays the opportunity cost of y-x
A very clear explanation.

I am actually glad we have subsidised social housing so that lower earners don't sleep on the streets. But don't deny it's subsidised DevilsAdvocate, even though the subsidy is not physically there for all to see.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, Going by your comments on this page, you lie every time you click the button to stick the ball of your biro out. Because private rent is more expensive than council rent, you state that proves your point. Right, so a pound shop charges less for a AA battery than Waitrose. Are all pound shops batteries subsidised? You haven't approached my simple question about the pay scale of the "Working Class" people, for whom Council houses were instituted, and whether they should be paid enough to buy their own house. This is the heart of the have and have not problem. If Council houses were not introduced (and they are not subsidised) then the working classes would live in the bushes. Unless the benevolent "Investor" (Biggest con ever) were to provide for him by allowing him to keep more of his earnings, instead of taking most as "A return on his investment" Answer this: Is this couple being paid enough to buy their own house? Should they be able to afford private rent? If council houses were to include the huge profit margin that private rent accommodation attracts, would working people be able to afford that rent? You know the truth, why keep the battle here between the havenots and the have -nots raging? Obviously so the poor uneducated can follow your logic you wicked person![/p][/quote]let social housing rent costs = x let private housing rent costs = y y minus x = cost of renting private housing vs cost of renting social housing or "the subsidy" Q: why is y > x? A: state does not charge a market rent for its property bank - it charges a below market rent (implicit subsidy for council tenants). got that last poster? it has zero to do with batteries, retailer profit margins or the size of the box of chocolates that have been artificially shrunk to con the consumer into thinking they are getting a good deal. as to whether they were paid enough to afford a mortgage - you know about as much as i do. who pays the opportunity cost of y-x[/p][/quote]A very clear explanation. I am actually glad we have subsidised social housing so that lower earners don't sleep on the streets. But don't deny it's subsidised DevilsAdvocate, even though the subsidy is not physically there for all to see. cg1blue
  • Score: 2

6:47pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
profondo asbo wrote: or got taxed bedroom tax?
Yep, that says it all. Got a camper van.
got kindling and unsuitable location next to a127?
Got back up copy of dossier?
Got coming appointment that can't be avoided..
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: or got taxed bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]Yep, that says it all. Got a camper van.[/p][/quote]got kindling and unsuitable location next to a127?[/p][/quote]Got back up copy of dossier?[/p][/quote]Got coming appointment that can't be avoided.. ThisYear
  • Score: -5

6:47pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
profondo asbo wrote: or got taxed bedroom tax?
Yep, that says it all. Got a camper van.
Got plenty of room in brain cavity.
Got horse box. Oh, it's a camper van and i do not have the slightest evidence there was ever a horse in it.
Got habit of posting out of ignorance.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: or got taxed bedroom tax?[/p][/quote]Yep, that says it all. Got a camper van.[/p][/quote]Got plenty of room in brain cavity.[/p][/quote]Got horse box. Oh, it's a camper van and i do not have the slightest evidence there was ever a horse in it.[/p][/quote]Got habit of posting out of ignorance. ThisYear
  • Score: -5

6:54pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
Going by your comments on this page, you lie every time you click the button to stick the ball of your biro out.
Because private rent is more expensive than council rent, you state that proves your point.
Right, so a pound shop charges less for a AA battery than Waitrose. Are all pound shops batteries subsidised?

You haven't approached my simple question about the pay scale of the "Working Class" people, for whom Council houses were instituted, and whether they should be paid enough to buy their own house. This is the heart of the have and have not problem. If Council houses were not introduced (and they are not subsidised) then the working classes would live in the bushes. Unless the benevolent "Investor" (Biggest con ever) were to provide for him by allowing him to keep more of his earnings, instead of taking most as "A return on his investment"
Answer this: Is this couple being paid enough to buy their own house? Should they be able to afford private rent? If council houses were to include the huge profit margin that private rent accommodation attracts, would working people be able to afford that rent? You know the truth, why keep the battle here between the havenots and the have -nots raging? Obviously so the poor uneducated can follow your logic you wicked person!
let social housing rent costs = x
let private housing rent costs = y
y minus x = cost of renting private housing vs cost of renting social housing or "the subsidy"

Q: why is y > x? A: state does not charge a market rent for its property bank - it charges a below market rent (implicit subsidy for council tenants). got that last poster?

it has zero to do with batteries, retailer profit margins or the size of the box of chocolates that have been artificially shrunk to con the consumer into thinking they are getting a good deal.

as to whether they were paid enough to afford a mortgage - you know about as much as i do.

who pays the opportunity cost of y-x
"state does not charge a market rent for its property bank"

The 'state' does not OWN the property it rents..it is the property of the people and the state rent it back to them..
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, Going by your comments on this page, you lie every time you click the button to stick the ball of your biro out. Because private rent is more expensive than council rent, you state that proves your point. Right, so a pound shop charges less for a AA battery than Waitrose. Are all pound shops batteries subsidised? You haven't approached my simple question about the pay scale of the "Working Class" people, for whom Council houses were instituted, and whether they should be paid enough to buy their own house. This is the heart of the have and have not problem. If Council houses were not introduced (and they are not subsidised) then the working classes would live in the bushes. Unless the benevolent "Investor" (Biggest con ever) were to provide for him by allowing him to keep more of his earnings, instead of taking most as "A return on his investment" Answer this: Is this couple being paid enough to buy their own house? Should they be able to afford private rent? If council houses were to include the huge profit margin that private rent accommodation attracts, would working people be able to afford that rent? You know the truth, why keep the battle here between the havenots and the have -nots raging? Obviously so the poor uneducated can follow your logic you wicked person![/p][/quote]let social housing rent costs = x let private housing rent costs = y y minus x = cost of renting private housing vs cost of renting social housing or "the subsidy" Q: why is y > x? A: state does not charge a market rent for its property bank - it charges a below market rent (implicit subsidy for council tenants). got that last poster? it has zero to do with batteries, retailer profit margins or the size of the box of chocolates that have been artificially shrunk to con the consumer into thinking they are getting a good deal. as to whether they were paid enough to afford a mortgage - you know about as much as i do. who pays the opportunity cost of y-x[/p][/quote]"state does not charge a market rent for its property bank" The 'state' does not OWN the property it rents..it is the property of the people and the state rent it back to them.. ThisYear
  • Score: -3

6:56pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
who pays the opportunity cost of y-x? A: we all do....out of the goodness of our hearts
Are you suggesting for one moment, if we accept your twaddle is correct, that you pay tax out of the goodness of your heart...you are as thick as you are bitter..Get yourself a wife or companion.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: who pays the opportunity cost of y-x? A: we all do....out of the goodness of our hearts[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting for one moment, if we accept your twaddle is correct, that you pay tax out of the goodness of your heart...you are as thick as you are bitter..Get yourself a wife or companion. ThisYear
  • Score: -4

7:01pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

cg1blue wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote: profondo asbo, Going by your comments on this page, you lie every time you click the button to stick the ball of your biro out. Because private rent is more expensive than council rent, you state that proves your point. Right, so a pound shop charges less for a AA battery than Waitrose. Are all pound shops batteries subsidised? You haven't approached my simple question about the pay scale of the "Working Class" people, for whom Council houses were instituted, and whether they should be paid enough to buy their own house. This is the heart of the have and have not problem. If Council houses were not introduced (and they are not subsidised) then the working classes would live in the bushes. Unless the benevolent "Investor" (Biggest con ever) were to provide for him by allowing him to keep more of his earnings, instead of taking most as "A return on his investment" Answer this: Is this couple being paid enough to buy their own house? Should they be able to afford private rent? If council houses were to include the huge profit margin that private rent accommodation attracts, would working people be able to afford that rent? You know the truth, why keep the battle here between the havenots and the have -nots raging? Obviously so the poor uneducated can follow your logic you wicked person!
let social housing rent costs = x let private housing rent costs = y y minus x = cost of renting private housing vs cost of renting social housing or "the subsidy" Q: why is y > x? A: state does not charge a market rent for its property bank - it charges a below market rent (implicit subsidy for council tenants). got that last poster? it has zero to do with batteries, retailer profit margins or the size of the box of chocolates that have been artificially shrunk to con the consumer into thinking they are getting a good deal. as to whether they were paid enough to afford a mortgage - you know about as much as i do. who pays the opportunity cost of y-x
A very clear explanation.

I am actually glad we have subsidised social housing so that lower earners don't sleep on the streets. But don't deny it's subsidised DevilsAdvocate, even though the subsidy is not physically there for all to see.
Going by your own reasoning..would that not suggest that private housing is also subsidised?

The houses are not all the same prices in the same areas..while a one bed council house would cost less than a two bed the same with the private housing...

While a council house in an area might cost less/more than another in another area the same is the case with private housing..

Although the subsidy is not obvious or physical it is there if you look for it..
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, Going by your comments on this page, you lie every time you click the button to stick the ball of your biro out. Because private rent is more expensive than council rent, you state that proves your point. Right, so a pound shop charges less for a AA battery than Waitrose. Are all pound shops batteries subsidised? You haven't approached my simple question about the pay scale of the "Working Class" people, for whom Council houses were instituted, and whether they should be paid enough to buy their own house. This is the heart of the have and have not problem. If Council houses were not introduced (and they are not subsidised) then the working classes would live in the bushes. Unless the benevolent "Investor" (Biggest con ever) were to provide for him by allowing him to keep more of his earnings, instead of taking most as "A return on his investment" Answer this: Is this couple being paid enough to buy their own house? Should they be able to afford private rent? If council houses were to include the huge profit margin that private rent accommodation attracts, would working people be able to afford that rent? You know the truth, why keep the battle here between the havenots and the have -nots raging? Obviously so the poor uneducated can follow your logic you wicked person![/p][/quote]let social housing rent costs = x let private housing rent costs = y y minus x = cost of renting private housing vs cost of renting social housing or "the subsidy" Q: why is y > x? A: state does not charge a market rent for its property bank - it charges a below market rent (implicit subsidy for council tenants). got that last poster? it has zero to do with batteries, retailer profit margins or the size of the box of chocolates that have been artificially shrunk to con the consumer into thinking they are getting a good deal. as to whether they were paid enough to afford a mortgage - you know about as much as i do. who pays the opportunity cost of y-x[/p][/quote]A very clear explanation. I am actually glad we have subsidised social housing so that lower earners don't sleep on the streets. But don't deny it's subsidised DevilsAdvocate, even though the subsidy is not physically there for all to see.[/p][/quote]Going by your own reasoning..would that not suggest that private housing is also subsidised? The houses are not all the same prices in the same areas..while a one bed council house would cost less than a two bed the same with the private housing... While a council house in an area might cost less/more than another in another area the same is the case with private housing.. Although the subsidy is not obvious or physical it is there if you look for it.. ThisYear
  • Score: -6

7:04pm Fri 11 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

got bunny in pot?
got bunny in pot? profondo asbo
  • Score: 0

7:33pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
got bunny in pot?
Got recurring 'same-commentitis'
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: got bunny in pot?[/p][/quote]Got recurring 'same-commentitis' ThisYear
  • Score: -3

7:56pm Fri 11 Apr 14

abd123 says...

£15 per week is £780 in the year the reduction has been in place. Why no mention of the other £8000?.
£15 per week is £780 in the year the reduction has been in place. Why no mention of the other £8000?. abd123
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Devils Advocate says...

profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants? Devils Advocate
  • Score: -3

8:21pm Fri 11 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
13 years in "power" and the last government did nothing/zip/zero about the low paid. where to begin - they scrapped the 10p tax rate and did nothing about the personal allowance? in fact i think you'll find the spare room subsidy is actually a labour idea (lol).

this current administration has done more for the low paid in 4 years than the previous crop of jokers did in 13 by raising the personal allowance. i think you need a wholesale re-think of your political allegiances. oh and pay tribute to this government on your way to confession.
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]13 years in "power" and the last government did nothing/zip/zero about the low paid. where to begin - they scrapped the 10p tax rate and did nothing about the personal allowance? in fact i think you'll find the spare room subsidy is actually a labour idea (lol). this current administration has done more for the low paid in 4 years than the previous crop of jokers did in 13 by raising the personal allowance. i think you need a wholesale re-think of your political allegiances. oh and pay tribute to this government on your way to confession. profondo asbo
  • Score: 3

8:46pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
13 years in "power" and the last government did nothing/zip/zero about the low paid. where to begin - they scrapped the 10p tax rate and did nothing about the personal allowance? in fact i think you'll find the spare room subsidy is actually a labour idea (lol).

this current administration has done more for the low paid in 4 years than the previous crop of jokers did in 13 by raising the personal allowance. i think you need a wholesale re-think of your political allegiances. oh and pay tribute to this government on your way to confession.
Regardless of whoever was tempted by the devil (keeping with your religious mention) to torture the poor this way, it needs to be abolished or rolled out right across the board...for those who want equality between council and private renters...bet that wouldn't be so acceptable to many on these threads...the 'Im alright jack you can burn' specimens.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]13 years in "power" and the last government did nothing/zip/zero about the low paid. where to begin - they scrapped the 10p tax rate and did nothing about the personal allowance? in fact i think you'll find the spare room subsidy is actually a labour idea (lol). this current administration has done more for the low paid in 4 years than the previous crop of jokers did in 13 by raising the personal allowance. i think you need a wholesale re-think of your political allegiances. oh and pay tribute to this government on your way to confession.[/p][/quote]Regardless of whoever was tempted by the devil (keeping with your religious mention) to torture the poor this way, it needs to be abolished or rolled out right across the board...for those who want equality between council and private renters...bet that wouldn't be so acceptable to many on these threads...the 'Im alright jack you can burn' specimens. ThisYear
  • Score: -7

9:09pm Fri 11 Apr 14

imnotanimby says...

For goodness sake why don't their two hard working, loyal sons chip together and stump up the £900 between them. As for the son at home not being in a position to help out because he is 'saving for his own flat', surely it is more important to protect the home that he is currently living comfortably in before worrying about one that doesn't yet exist! That's not to mention his duty to his parents - he should be ashamed of himself for letting them down in their hour of need as should the other son. My children would happily give me their pocket money if they thought I needed it so two boys earning a wage should have some respect for the sacrifices that their parents would have made for them over the years.
As for the sons comments on a lodger and the room not being big enough, perhaps the boy who couldn't/wouldn't stump up an extra £15 a week should slum it in there so that the lodger could have the bigger room. And if he thinks so badly of Basildon people he should remember that he is also speaking about his parents!!!
For goodness sake why don't their two hard working, loyal sons chip together and stump up the £900 between them. As for the son at home not being in a position to help out because he is 'saving for his own flat', surely it is more important to protect the home that he is currently living comfortably in before worrying about one that doesn't yet exist! That's not to mention his duty to his parents - he should be ashamed of himself for letting them down in their hour of need as should the other son. My children would happily give me their pocket money if they thought I needed it so two boys earning a wage should have some respect for the sacrifices that their parents would have made for them over the years. As for the sons comments on a lodger and the room not being big enough, perhaps the boy who couldn't/wouldn't stump up an extra £15 a week should slum it in there so that the lodger could have the bigger room. And if he thinks so badly of Basildon people he should remember that he is also speaking about his parents!!! imnotanimby
  • Score: 7

9:17pm Fri 11 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised? profondo asbo
  • Score: 2

9:28pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?
Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists?

If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?[/p][/quote]Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists? If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it? ThisYear
  • Score: -11

11:21pm Fri 11 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?
Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists?

If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?
you are a colossal ignoramus
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?[/p][/quote]Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists? If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?[/p][/quote]you are a colossal ignoramus profondo asbo
  • Score: 4

12:26am Sat 12 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?
Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists?

If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?
you are a colossal ignoramus
And yet smart enough to ask you a question you are unable to answer..
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?[/p][/quote]Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists? If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?[/p][/quote]you are a colossal ignoramus[/p][/quote]And yet smart enough to ask you a question you are unable to answer.. ThisYear
  • Score: -7

9:42am Sat 12 Apr 14

InTheKnowOk says...

profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?
Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists?

If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?
you are a colossal ignoramus
He rants about bigotry yet he is the biggest bigot of them all .. Look at how he hounds Kim Gandy .. If she was a Traveller he'd be chomping at the bit compiling notes in that dossier of his ..
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?[/p][/quote]Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists? If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?[/p][/quote]you are a colossal ignoramus[/p][/quote]He rants about bigotry yet he is the biggest bigot of them all .. Look at how he hounds Kim Gandy .. If she was a Traveller he'd be chomping at the bit compiling notes in that dossier of his .. InTheKnowOk
  • Score: 3

9:53am Sat 12 Apr 14

Idontknowy says...

DontForgetToBreathe wrote:
When / if the research was done that showed that there were no properties to move into and that this policy would result in undue hardship for people, the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy. When it must have been pointed out to the minister that tenants in arrears are not allowed, by law, to move/swap social housing, the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy. When it was pointed out that Kafka wrote fiction and not manuals on how to run a country the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy. Unfortunately we have a sociopathic, ideologically driven government whose sole aim is to destroy the hard won living standards of ordinary folk in order to engage us in a race to the bottom in the global economy so that we will be able to compete with the slum dwellers of Calcutta. Only then will we be able to make our "Masters" the wealth they deserve. They have one simple method to do this and that is to pit ordinary folk against each other and boy! are they succeeding! If you believe in the concept of the deserving and undeserving poor you have already been suckered into their lies, what next? will you support the return of the workhouse? does it make you feel better when others suffer? We are a pitiful nation stuffed to the gills with pitiful, selfish bigots.
Absolutely correct I wouldn' be at a surprised if Camoron andhis lot made it compusory to have chimeys on your homes so children could be shoved up them again. Probably be reintroducing the workhouses any time soon
[quote][p][bold]DontForgetToBreathe[/bold] wrote: When / if the research was done that showed that there were no properties to move into and that this policy would result in undue hardship for people, the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy. When it must have been pointed out to the minister that tenants in arrears are not allowed, by law, to move/swap social housing, the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy. When it was pointed out that Kafka wrote fiction and not manuals on how to run a country the whole thing would have been kicked into the long grass by anyone with a semblance of empathy. Unfortunately we have a sociopathic, ideologically driven government whose sole aim is to destroy the hard won living standards of ordinary folk in order to engage us in a race to the bottom in the global economy so that we will be able to compete with the slum dwellers of Calcutta. Only then will we be able to make our "Masters" the wealth they deserve. They have one simple method to do this and that is to pit ordinary folk against each other and boy! are they succeeding! If you believe in the concept of the deserving and undeserving poor you have already been suckered into their lies, what next? will you support the return of the workhouse? does it make you feel better when others suffer? We are a pitiful nation stuffed to the gills with pitiful, selfish bigots.[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct I wouldn' be at a surprised if Camoron andhis lot made it compusory to have chimeys on your homes so children could be shoved up them again. Probably be reintroducing the workhouses any time soon Idontknowy
  • Score: -3

12:11pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Devils Advocate says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?
Thank god you've buried your malice regarding subsidies of Council houses! Now if we can all work together to get rid of your illusions about these right wing war-mongering money grubbing fascists you call god, we would be moving towards a harmonius people at last!
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?[/p][/quote]Thank god you've buried your malice regarding subsidies of Council houses! Now if we can all work together to get rid of your illusions about these right wing war-mongering money grubbing fascists you call god, we would be moving towards a harmonius people at last! Devils Advocate
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Sat 12 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

InTheKnowOk wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?
Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists?

If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?
you are a colossal ignoramus
He rants about bigotry yet he is the biggest bigot of them all .. Look at how he hounds Kim Gandy .. If she was a Traveller he'd be chomping at the bit compiling notes in that dossier of his ..
Oh deary me..cant find an angle to use with me so come out with this KM plaff..KG attacks immigrants and ethnic minorities at every juncture and so makes herself available for reply. Unless you feel bigots can just post what they want and not be challenged..?

Can you explain how I'm a bigot for confronting a bigot?

If I confronted a racist would that also make me a racist?

I think the only dossier on here is you..
[quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?[/p][/quote]Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists? If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?[/p][/quote]you are a colossal ignoramus[/p][/quote]He rants about bigotry yet he is the biggest bigot of them all .. Look at how he hounds Kim Gandy .. If she was a Traveller he'd be chomping at the bit compiling notes in that dossier of his ..[/p][/quote]Oh deary me..cant find an angle to use with me so come out with this KM plaff..KG attacks immigrants and ethnic minorities at every juncture and so makes herself available for reply. Unless you feel bigots can just post what they want and not be challenged..? Can you explain how I'm a bigot for confronting a bigot? If I confronted a racist would that also make me a racist? I think the only dossier on here is you.. ThisYear
  • Score: -7

6:11pm Sat 12 Apr 14

InTheKnowOk says...

ThisYear wrote:
InTheKnowOk wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?
Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists?

If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?
you are a colossal ignoramus
He rants about bigotry yet he is the biggest bigot of them all .. Look at how he hounds Kim Gandy .. If she was a Traveller he'd be chomping at the bit compiling notes in that dossier of his ..
Oh deary me..cant find an angle to use with me so come out with this KM plaff..KG attacks immigrants and ethnic minorities at every juncture and so makes herself available for reply. Unless you feel bigots can just post what they want and not be challenged..?

Can you explain how I'm a bigot for confronting a bigot?

If I confronted a racist would that also make me a racist?

I think the only dossier on here is you..
Although I don't agree with some of what she says, she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities .. Either way, to constantly bring her into threads she hasn't even commented on is trolling ..

If you want to act righteous by accusing people of bigotry, you in turn must not succumb to hypocrisy ..
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?[/p][/quote]Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists? If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?[/p][/quote]you are a colossal ignoramus[/p][/quote]He rants about bigotry yet he is the biggest bigot of them all .. Look at how he hounds Kim Gandy .. If she was a Traveller he'd be chomping at the bit compiling notes in that dossier of his ..[/p][/quote]Oh deary me..cant find an angle to use with me so come out with this KM plaff..KG attacks immigrants and ethnic minorities at every juncture and so makes herself available for reply. Unless you feel bigots can just post what they want and not be challenged..? Can you explain how I'm a bigot for confronting a bigot? If I confronted a racist would that also make me a racist? I think the only dossier on here is you..[/p][/quote]Although I don't agree with some of what she says, she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities .. Either way, to constantly bring her into threads she hasn't even commented on is trolling .. If you want to act righteous by accusing people of bigotry, you in turn must not succumb to hypocrisy .. InTheKnowOk
  • Score: 2

6:22pm Sat 12 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

InTheKnowOk wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
InTheKnowOk wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?
Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists?

If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?
you are a colossal ignoramus
He rants about bigotry yet he is the biggest bigot of them all .. Look at how he hounds Kim Gandy .. If she was a Traveller he'd be chomping at the bit compiling notes in that dossier of his ..
Oh deary me..cant find an angle to use with me so come out with this KM plaff..KG attacks immigrants and ethnic minorities at every juncture and so makes herself available for reply. Unless you feel bigots can just post what they want and not be challenged..?

Can you explain how I'm a bigot for confronting a bigot?

If I confronted a racist would that also make me a racist?

I think the only dossier on here is you..
Although I don't agree with some of what she says, she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities .. Either way, to constantly bring her into threads she hasn't even commented on is trolling ..

If you want to act righteous by accusing people of bigotry, you in turn must not succumb to hypocrisy ..
"she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities"

That is of course your opinion which is why you don't reply to her points on the matter...does that mean others shouldn't.

So when she constantly brings DF/Travellers/ethnic minorities into threads that have nothing to do with such; Do you likewise confront her about that and advise her she is trolling? If not why do you do so now?

I think it was you who accused me of bigotry and I have asked you why I am..you have yet to reply to that..

I'm quite willing to explain why i consider someone a bigot, usually because of racial comments and not because they confront a bigot.. as you have done.

I have found racial bigots continue their hate when they are not challenged...
[quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?[/p][/quote]Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists? If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?[/p][/quote]you are a colossal ignoramus[/p][/quote]He rants about bigotry yet he is the biggest bigot of them all .. Look at how he hounds Kim Gandy .. If she was a Traveller he'd be chomping at the bit compiling notes in that dossier of his ..[/p][/quote]Oh deary me..cant find an angle to use with me so come out with this KM plaff..KG attacks immigrants and ethnic minorities at every juncture and so makes herself available for reply. Unless you feel bigots can just post what they want and not be challenged..? Can you explain how I'm a bigot for confronting a bigot? If I confronted a racist would that also make me a racist? I think the only dossier on here is you..[/p][/quote]Although I don't agree with some of what she says, she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities .. Either way, to constantly bring her into threads she hasn't even commented on is trolling .. If you want to act righteous by accusing people of bigotry, you in turn must not succumb to hypocrisy ..[/p][/quote]"she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities" That is of course your opinion which is why you don't reply to her points on the matter...does that mean others shouldn't. So when she constantly brings DF/Travellers/ethnic minorities into threads that have nothing to do with such; Do you likewise confront her about that and advise her she is trolling? If not why do you do so now? I think it was you who accused me of bigotry and I have asked you why I am..you have yet to reply to that.. I'm quite willing to explain why i consider someone a bigot, usually because of racial comments and not because they confront a bigot.. as you have done. I have found racial bigots continue their hate when they are not challenged... ThisYear
  • Score: -5

6:55pm Sat 12 Apr 14

InTheKnowOk says...

ThisYear wrote:
InTheKnowOk wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
InTheKnowOk wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?
Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists?

If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?
you are a colossal ignoramus
He rants about bigotry yet he is the biggest bigot of them all .. Look at how he hounds Kim Gandy .. If she was a Traveller he'd be chomping at the bit compiling notes in that dossier of his ..
Oh deary me..cant find an angle to use with me so come out with this KM plaff..KG attacks immigrants and ethnic minorities at every juncture and so makes herself available for reply. Unless you feel bigots can just post what they want and not be challenged..?

Can you explain how I'm a bigot for confronting a bigot?

If I confronted a racist would that also make me a racist?

I think the only dossier on here is you..
Although I don't agree with some of what she says, she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities .. Either way, to constantly bring her into threads she hasn't even commented on is trolling ..

If you want to act righteous by accusing people of bigotry, you in turn must not succumb to hypocrisy ..
"she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities"

That is of course your opinion which is why you don't reply to her points on the matter...does that mean others shouldn't.

So when she constantly brings DF/Travellers/ethnic minorities into threads that have nothing to do with such; Do you likewise confront her about that and advise her she is trolling? If not why do you do so now?

I think it was you who accused me of bigotry and I have asked you why I am..you have yet to reply to that..

I'm quite willing to explain why i consider someone a bigot, usually because of racial comments and not because they confront a bigot.. as you have done.

I have found racial bigots continue their hate when they are not challenged...
I'm not on here as much as you, therefore I don't see her every comment .. But If she said something I didn't agree on I would let her know, just as I would any other poster .. You on the other hand bring her into the conversation when she hasn't even left a reply, that is the difference ..

Do you not show bigotry towards religion? .. I think you do ..
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?[/p][/quote]Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists? If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?[/p][/quote]you are a colossal ignoramus[/p][/quote]He rants about bigotry yet he is the biggest bigot of them all .. Look at how he hounds Kim Gandy .. If she was a Traveller he'd be chomping at the bit compiling notes in that dossier of his ..[/p][/quote]Oh deary me..cant find an angle to use with me so come out with this KM plaff..KG attacks immigrants and ethnic minorities at every juncture and so makes herself available for reply. Unless you feel bigots can just post what they want and not be challenged..? Can you explain how I'm a bigot for confronting a bigot? If I confronted a racist would that also make me a racist? I think the only dossier on here is you..[/p][/quote]Although I don't agree with some of what she says, she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities .. Either way, to constantly bring her into threads she hasn't even commented on is trolling .. If you want to act righteous by accusing people of bigotry, you in turn must not succumb to hypocrisy ..[/p][/quote]"she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities" That is of course your opinion which is why you don't reply to her points on the matter...does that mean others shouldn't. So when she constantly brings DF/Travellers/ethnic minorities into threads that have nothing to do with such; Do you likewise confront her about that and advise her she is trolling? If not why do you do so now? I think it was you who accused me of bigotry and I have asked you why I am..you have yet to reply to that.. I'm quite willing to explain why i consider someone a bigot, usually because of racial comments and not because they confront a bigot.. as you have done. I have found racial bigots continue their hate when they are not challenged...[/p][/quote]I'm not on here as much as you, therefore I don't see her every comment .. But If she said something I didn't agree on I would let her know, just as I would any other poster .. You on the other hand bring her into the conversation when she hasn't even left a reply, that is the difference .. Do you not show bigotry towards religion? .. I think you do .. InTheKnowOk
  • Score: 2

9:42pm Sat 12 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

InTheKnowOk wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
InTheKnowOk wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
InTheKnowOk wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
profondo asbo,
You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.)
Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc.
SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there)
Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern.
Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property)
He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years.
You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system?
I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?
i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?
Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists?

If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?
you are a colossal ignoramus
He rants about bigotry yet he is the biggest bigot of them all .. Look at how he hounds Kim Gandy .. If she was a Traveller he'd be chomping at the bit compiling notes in that dossier of his ..
Oh deary me..cant find an angle to use with me so come out with this KM plaff..KG attacks immigrants and ethnic minorities at every juncture and so makes herself available for reply. Unless you feel bigots can just post what they want and not be challenged..?

Can you explain how I'm a bigot for confronting a bigot?

If I confronted a racist would that also make me a racist?

I think the only dossier on here is you..
Although I don't agree with some of what she says, she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities .. Either way, to constantly bring her into threads she hasn't even commented on is trolling ..

If you want to act righteous by accusing people of bigotry, you in turn must not succumb to hypocrisy ..
"she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities"

That is of course your opinion which is why you don't reply to her points on the matter...does that mean others shouldn't.

So when she constantly brings DF/Travellers/ethnic minorities into threads that have nothing to do with such; Do you likewise confront her about that and advise her she is trolling? If not why do you do so now?

I think it was you who accused me of bigotry and I have asked you why I am..you have yet to reply to that..

I'm quite willing to explain why i consider someone a bigot, usually because of racial comments and not because they confront a bigot.. as you have done.

I have found racial bigots continue their hate when they are not challenged...
I'm not on here as much as you, therefore I don't see her every comment .. But If she said something I didn't agree on I would let her know, just as I would any other poster .. You on the other hand bring her into the conversation when she hasn't even left a reply, that is the difference ..

Do you not show bigotry towards religion? .. I think you do ..
Im sure I dont see her every comment either..so im sure i miss a lot of her irrelevant dribble too..

So when she rants about ethnic minorities on threads with even the most tenacious link (as she does often) you don't feel obliged to make mention of that irrelevance...have you ever?

I have already explained I do just as she does.. the only difference is you have decided to front me on it while ignoring her..(Ill look for a thread where she does this and you are one it and remind you of this set of posts)

No I do not show bigotry against religion or religions..people are entitled to their beliefs..why shouldn't they be..

Some people who might think of themselves as 'religious' might be in favour of this tax while ignoring the damage it causes to those affected by it.
[quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: profondo asbo, You are blind to everything but profit. Your friends in Government have also taken to calling state pension a "Benefit" which, as you well know, is the way they went with the "Social Housing" bit (taken, as always, from across the pond.) Now watch closely: Working class rubbish goes to work. earns rubbish pay. Pays proportianally more tax than self employed because his system does not allow such things as relief for the wife as a secratary, because she answered the phone once. Car allowance, fuel allowance etc etc. SE Gent gets tax subsidy on his mortgage interest (I know about the cancellation of miras but hang on in there) Rent goes into a pot to build more houses. This is a pay for itself, non profit concern. Even closer now. My next door neighbour has a boyfriend. He has 14 mortgages on 14 ex-council properties. His capital now comes from the rental of those properties. Via that rental, he is paying for those 14 houses. He is turning his income into properties. He is making a very good living, despite spending heavily on redecorating costs (Private renters seem to disrespect private property) He hopes to reach twenty properties in the next three years. You see, he is building up a business, as are many of these such people. When Maggie got many people to buy their rented accomodation from the Council and the scatterbrained idea of not replacing that housing stock because the demand will reduce in proportion to those buying themselves out of rental reduced the houses available, we went into shift the stock remaining into private Housing Associations. NOW we are talking subsidy, to float the purchase of those houses. Now tell me how your taxes subsidise the difference in rent between council and private accomodation. 14 motgages paid out of 14 peoples rent. What part of that is part of the council system? I asked you about the working people's income because, as you know, if they paid private rent, they would need to be paid wages to allow for this. Now the distribution of capital would hurt you because there would need to be a reduction in the unearned wages of the better off. As it has been proved that the average council house renter pays for his house over and over again, without ever taking ownership of it. Who do you think is actually being ripped off, smartie pants?[/p][/quote]i assume you are now conceding that social housing is sudsidised?[/p][/quote]Subsidies don't just happen...have you any documental evidence to prove this subsidy exists? If this subsidy existed this would of been raised before, perhaps from the very conception of council housing...there would be records...or are you claiming to be the first one to suggest/mention it?[/p][/quote]you are a colossal ignoramus[/p][/quote]He rants about bigotry yet he is the biggest bigot of them all .. Look at how he hounds Kim Gandy .. If she was a Traveller he'd be chomping at the bit compiling notes in that dossier of his ..[/p][/quote]Oh deary me..cant find an angle to use with me so come out with this KM plaff..KG attacks immigrants and ethnic minorities at every juncture and so makes herself available for reply. Unless you feel bigots can just post what they want and not be challenged..? Can you explain how I'm a bigot for confronting a bigot? If I confronted a racist would that also make me a racist? I think the only dossier on here is you..[/p][/quote]Although I don't agree with some of what she says, she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities .. Either way, to constantly bring her into threads she hasn't even commented on is trolling .. If you want to act righteous by accusing people of bigotry, you in turn must not succumb to hypocrisy ..[/p][/quote]"she does make some valid points regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities" That is of course your opinion which is why you don't reply to her points on the matter...does that mean others shouldn't. So when she constantly brings DF/Travellers/ethnic minorities into threads that have nothing to do with such; Do you likewise confront her about that and advise her she is trolling? If not why do you do so now? I think it was you who accused me of bigotry and I have asked you why I am..you have yet to reply to that.. I'm quite willing to explain why i consider someone a bigot, usually because of racial comments and not because they confront a bigot.. as you have done. I have found racial bigots continue their hate when they are not challenged...[/p][/quote]I'm not on here as much as you, therefore I don't see her every comment .. But If she said something I didn't agree on I would let her know, just as I would any other poster .. You on the other hand bring her into the conversation when she hasn't even left a reply, that is the difference .. Do you not show bigotry towards religion? .. I think you do ..[/p][/quote]Im sure I dont see her every comment either..so im sure i miss a lot of her irrelevant dribble too.. So when she rants about ethnic minorities on threads with even the most tenacious link (as she does often) you don't feel obliged to make mention of that irrelevance...have you ever? I have already explained I do just as she does.. the only difference is you have decided to front me on it while ignoring her..(Ill look for a thread where she does this and you are one it and remind you of this set of posts) No I do not show bigotry against religion or religions..people are entitled to their beliefs..why shouldn't they be.. Some people who might think of themselves as 'religious' might be in favour of this tax while ignoring the damage it causes to those affected by it. ThisYear
  • Score: -5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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