To want to scream at twats posting shite false crap about the bedroom tax

[BrittaPie]

Eg 'muslims can turn a room into a prayer room and it is exempt'

'Sex offenders are exempt'

Etc etc etc

One just told me to check google, so out of curiousity I did. The ONLY source was ridiculous bnp affiliated blogs. Not even the actual BNP.

Twats.

(Not Muslim, a social housing tenant or a sex offender, btw. Just not a twat.)

So private landlords won't be able to accept people on universal credit, which will take over from ctc which the majority of families receive. This will result in them being evicted and unable to find private rental?

Makes all the moaning about having to pay for the cheap properties a bit redundant really...

'But how on earth would private landlords know that someone was on uc?'

Because you have to prove your income to the letting agent/LL. If part of that is made up of UC you need to tell them that, otherwise, they will consider your income too low to take up the flat/house. You have to show them bank statements. They will see that going into your account.

I don't think I've seen a single poster saying people with disabled children should get a job. I'm in favour of some welfare reform. I want welfare to go to those who need it. Why are people on £50,000 a year getting child tax credits.

'all workinh people are feeling cuts as salaries are not rising to meet inflation either.

why should benefits be any different.'

Plenty of those working people are on these benefits.

This business of "Get an education, get a better job" always riles me. It's the Margaret Thatcher philosophy.

What happened once (almost) everyone had O levels? The qualification for good jobs became A levels. When more people began to stay in education to get A levels? You then needed a degree to get a similar job to that which you could have got with O levels in earlier years.

Not everyone can guarantee a good, secure, well paid job by getting an education. Society, as it is structured, needs a steady supply of low paid workers. And if low paid work means that you can't live on your pay then what is the alternative but top up benefits?

As David Cameron says, albeit in a different context, TINA. If the top up benefits are reduced or abolished then there is no incentive to apply for work. So then the government is forced to penalise people who will not apply for low paid jobs. It is an endless cycle of government intervention and compulsion which builds up resentment not to mention, poverty and misery. And further widens the gulf between rich and poor.

Andrew Neil pointed out to ( the wealthy ) David Starkey in an interview a couple of weeks ago that the people who are most in favour of benefit cuts and the like are those who will be least affected by them. I think that we see that on here a lot.

How many children do you have to have in order to get child tax credit on £50k p.a., Vivienne? Serious question.

Everyone is feeling the pinch, agreed. But when a system makes it so that working people and the most vulnerable struggle to keep a roof over their heads, afford heating and basic food, then the system is all wrong.

Vivienne you don't get CTC if you earn £50,0000

delboysfileofax

^See the thing is this could all be sorted. It really is a piece of Piss to sort out. Quite simply build houses. Hundreds of thousands of them.
This creates loads of jobs and brings down rent which equals more money for people to spend which will lead to further jobs.^

I'm always wary of anyone who claims there's a 'simple' solution which solves a problem, because as a rule they're wrong. There are several issues with your plan.

Firstly, where's the money going to come from to build all these houses?
Secondly, where are you going to build them? In South-East England and London where the jobs are? There's no space down here. The roads, the schools, the hospitals, the trains are full to bursting. In the North, where there aren't enough jobs? Who's going to want to live in them?
Thirdly, you have to get planning consent. Are you going to expand existing towns and build on green belt? Are you going to create new towns?
Fourthly, you need infrastructure. A million new homes means 2 million or more inhabitants. That means schooling for around 400,000 children within a couple of miles of the homes, it means hospitals. It means new roads. It means new rail links.

Do you see the 'simple' problem with your simplistic solution?

Won't happen though as its in the Tories interests to have high rents. More money for them and their mate's.

Lazy.

Well I did see it on a website somewhere. Honest! I think it's wrong when the tax thresholds are so low. I think they should raise it to £15,000 and take a lot of low paid workers and part-time people out of tax altogether.

SoniaGluck

This business of "Get an education, get a better job" always riles me. It's the Margaret Thatcher philosophy.

No, we couldn't have people bettering themselves. They should be satisfied with mediocrity. That's the Labour philosophy.

What happened once (almost) everyone had O levels? The qualification for good jobs became A levels. When more people began to stay in education to get A levels? You then needed a degree to get a similar job to that which you could have got with O levels in earlier years.

The jobs changed. The jobs market has changed beyond recognition in 40 years.

Not everyone can guarantee a good, secure, well paid job by getting an education. Society, as it is structured, needs a steady supply of low paid workers. And if low paid work means that you can't live on your pay then what is the alternative but top up benefits?

You're looking at the problem incorrectly. What you ought to be asking is why it is that prices are now so high. Why has there been such a rise in living expenses?

Andrew Neil pointed out to ( the wealthy ) David Starkey in an interview a couple of weeks ago that the people who are most in favour of benefit cuts and the like are those who will be least affected by them. I think that we see that on here a lot.

This simply isn't the case. I'll try to find the survey I was looking at this morning, but the fact of the matter is that a majority of voters who support all parties think the current welfare system is too generous. A majority of Labour voters think that. Not just Tory or Lib Dem voters. Labour voters. Think about that.

Raise what to £15,000? The cap on benefits? That wouldn't even cover rent, bills and food - nothing left over for essentials like clothes and travel to work.

Cutting benefits in an ideological attack on the welfare state, dressed up as an attempt to save money? Then further obfuscating the matter by claiming it will reduce underoccupation by forcing people to move to smaller accommodation, which in some locales is non-existent and in many others is more expensive and will cost the taxpayer more in HB?

Now, that is lazy.

Vivienne are you confusing CTC with Child Benefit?

How about they leave the benefit system alone and go after the tax evaders/avoiders? They account for a whole lot more money.

But it will never happen because those are the people funding the main parties.

I havent read the whole thread so apologises if this has been answer but a poster on the first page says sex offenders are exempt and that is true.

Why is that do anyone know?

Because many of them are priests?

Joking before anyone starts getting offended.

'Why is that do anyone know?'

The reasoning is that it's easier to keep track of them by leaving them in their council homes.

YouTheCat - I think £15000 relates to the personal tax allowance threshold

YouTheCat

Raise what to £15,000? The cap on benefits? That wouldn't even cover rent, bills and food - nothing left over for essentials like clothes and travel to work.

No, the tax-free personal allowance. The amount you can earn before you start paying income tax.

The benefits cap will be £26,000 a year IIRC.

Hahaha i really cant find an answer as to why they are exempt though

Because they are unable to take in lodgers and are difficult to rehouse.

No, we couldn't have people bettering themselves. They should be satisfied with mediocrity. That's the Labour philosophy.

Oh, do behave. Nobody is against people "bettering" themselves but not everyone can because of how the job market and society are structured.*

The jobs changed. The jobs market has changed beyond recognition in 40 years.

Of course, that's true but the principle is the same. You need a higher level of education to do an equivalent level job than, say, 30 years ago.

You're looking at the problem incorrectly.

Well, maybe I am but even if I am not asking the correct question, it doesn't alter the facts that many people have low paid jobs and need top up benefits, does it? Thanks for the education, though. See, I am open to being educated.

This simply isn't the case.

I simply don't agree.

Think about that.

And I'm not sure patronising me is the best way to get your point across.

My ds has to live in one room with shared toilet.
He washes up in the same sink he washes in.
He is too sick to work but this is the only thing he can afford due to HB caps and he still has to pay another eighty quid from his SSp.
This has been going on before the so called bedroom tax. Anyone under 35 and on low income is only entitled to a room to live in.

With regards to raising the personal allowance to £15k, bear in mind that the coalition have only just raised it to £10k. It just won't work.

And therein lies the problem with politically motivated changes which are not sustainable in the economy.

It's just like the minimum wage. Before we had the NMW the left felt that this would be the solution to those nasty employers not paying employees enough. It was introduced, been raised quite significantly since its introduction and yet now people are wanting a 'living wage'.

What will happen is that introducing a 'living wage' will simply make prices rise and then people will want another 'xxx wage'.

Same with the allowance. We've barely even got the £10k rate and now it's not enough?!?! Seriously?

...that the people who are most in favour of benefit cuts and the like are those who will be least affected by them.

You are probably right. But also bear in mind that those are most likely to be the group of people who are net contributors to the system. In other words these are the people who are actually paying and therefore why should their opinion not count?