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.)

Youthecat, most companies take advantage of loopholes in the tax system. If they are doing it illegally then the HMRC will act, if within the rules then they are doing nothing wrong. S/E people ensure they pay as least tax as possible and many claim WTC on top but its seen as fine for them so we have many double standards.

The reduction in HB, its not a tax, has been known about for months. The majority of people are having to tighten their belts, not just those on benefits. Why should they be expempt? Yes, some cannot undertake any form of work due to their disabilities but many can but dont. How many wont work as they have children, how many have an adult in the household not working, lots just work the bare minimum needed for WTC.

Sadly personal responsibility seems to have gone out of the window and changes are needed to bring it back. People need to know that children cost money and they, not others, need to provide for them. No relationship is cast iron yet so many seem to think so with no regards as to how they would support their choices if things go wrong.

Those that self support have to pay more rent or mortgage if they want the luxury of a spare room so this should be the same for all. Its no longer seem as welfare and sommething to be grateful for but an entitlement as they may have paid tax for a few years. Changing this mindset and truly only having a bare minimum safety net can only be good for future generations and the economy as a whole.

UC may have stricter rules but I agree that raising the personal tax allowance would have been better.

MrNiceguy2

My HA only cover my daughter's rent when she is in her first year at Uni.
Obviously in her second and third years it's completely different, she is wallowing in cash and can afford to pay rent on two properties, that's the same for all students, no?

SoniaGluck

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

Well if you're going to make lazy slurs against your ideological opponents then so will I.

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.

What sort of equivalent job are you thinking of?

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?

It doesn't. But changing the way you look at the question alters the answer you get. You move from trying to use the state to create complicated handout systems to trying to stop the state inflating the price of everything.

Thanks for the education, though. See, I am open to being educated.

Perhaps you're more of a Thatcherite than you realise.

I simply don't agree.

I've found the survey. Here it is. Run by Yougov/Prospect.

The first question asks voters whether they agree with the government that welfare is too generous and should be reduced.

In favour: 94% Conservative, 74% Lib Dem, 59% Labour.

Look at question 3, and note that 51% of those with a household income less than £10,000 a year - what we might call real poverty - want welfare reduced.

It is not 'evil rich tories want to cut benefits.'

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

You've ignored reason and facts. What's left but sarcasm and patronising? The fact of the matter is that those who are ideologically opposed to welfare reform - as you are - are in a minority even amongst people who vote the same way that you do.

hi Flatpack!

Easy- the money will come from closing tax loopholes. Starbucks and the like can pay their dues, that will cover it, coupled with stopping overseas aid.

Yep build on green belt land, also expand on existing towns and cities.

It would need more infrastructure? See point one.

How was the last bit to my post lazy? Do you genuinely not believe that most landlords are Tories?

God, these threads really bring the ill-educated, right-wingers to the surface. Depressing.

Why is anyone getting so het up about what it is called? It's not really the issue. But since we're nit-picking... statistics show that the majority of housing benefit claimants are IN WORK. So, the people who are affected by this who are working yet cannot downsize because of lack of smaller social housing will have to make up the amount from their OWN money.

Tax.

Thank you.

Why the stigmatizing of people who live in Council Homes? I find this genuinely frustrating.

People seem to think of them as a ?last resort? for the poor or those ?on benefits? (actually hate that word, I wish there was an alternative) which people leave behind when they ?get educated and a better job etc?.

In 1979 just under half of the population lived in council homes. One fifth of the richest 20% in the country lived in council homes.

What on earth is wrong with living in a council home? Why should council tenants be treated as second-class citizens and why shouldn?t they enjoy security of tenure?

This government is making the poorest people pay for their own shortcomings (and those of previous governments) in failing to build new housing and allowing the shortage of council housing stock to reach such acute levels.

I understand how frustrating it must be to be stuck on the waiting-list for a council house but a lot of people?s anger is misdirected. Instead of blaming people who through no fault of their own enjoy the ?luxury? of an extra bedroom, get angry at the politicians who presided over increasing housing shortages and are still failing to address the issue ? because it?s much easier to stigmatize people and divide and rule.

delboysfileofax

Easy- the money will come from closing tax loopholes. Starbucks and the like can pay their dues, that will cover it, coupled with stopping overseas aid.

Is that 'easy'? If it was easy, the government - every government - would already be doing it. The reason they're not is that it's hard.

Yep build on green belt land, also expand on existing towns and cities.

How are you going to overcome planning restrictions on green belt, and deal with protests? And more importantly, where in the UK are you going to put this million houses?

It would need more infrastructure? See point one.

Delusional.

How was the last bit to my post lazy? Do you genuinely not believe that most landlords are Tories?

It was lazy because it was the sort of tired socialist groupthink ideology that has no foundation in reality. But no doubt it made you feel good as you struck a blow at The Man.

MarmaladeTwatkins

God, these threads really bring the ill-educated, right-wingers to the surface. Depressing.

Luckily they can't get near the thread for all the bigoted trots rolling out their Socialist Worker pamphlets and getting ready for a demo to Smash The Rich.

Why is anyone getting so het up about what it is called? It's not really the issue.

It is an issue, because something's name affects people's perception of it. Which is why our supposed 'impartial' state broadcaster calling it what the Labour party is calling it is wrong.

But where will people who cannot downsize get money from to make up the difference? From their own pockets. The majority of HB claimants work... Is this not a tax?

For your elucidation, the true story of where benefits go:

twitter.com/LEAPeconomics/status/298851285090856963/photo/1

Hi flatpack

It is easy-there's just not the political will to do it. HMRC could have it sorted by the weekend if they wanted to

How would they get planning permission? Easy- legislate for it. If there are protests, so what? There were protests against Iraq and no one in power gave a shit!

And yes most landlords would vote Tory. Do you honestly not believe that to be the case?

Easy- the money will come from closing tax loopholes. Starbucks and the like can pay their dues, that will cover it

Rubbish. According to UKUncut (so hardly a right wing opinion), we're losing £25 billion through tax avoidance. And bear in mind that avoidance is often perfectly legal. Stashing your savings in an ISA is a form of tax avoidance!

But let's assume for a moment it's easy & doable. That's £25 billion.

Overseas aid? That's £12 billion a year. So great. That's theoretically £37 billion we've raised.

Our deficit? Well last year it was £121 billion. This year it's predicted to be £120.9 billion Source: Economics Help

You aren't even touching the sides. Even with your theoretical £25 billion.

God, these threads really bring the ill-educated, right-wingers to the surface...

Really? Because all i try and do is point out that we cannot afford the status quo. I hear it is causing hardship. But if the money isn't there, it isn't there. And continuing to borrow money to fund an unsustainable lifestyle helps noone.

I didn't say it was illegal- I would however make it so. I didn't say anything about the deficit- all that money was purely for house building. More houses= cheaper rent, more home owners, more jobs all of which would be taxed which would reduce the deficit

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'.

Haven't wages decreased significantly, if you take into account inflation?

The usual lefty hand wringing. And name calling. They do like name calling, don't they ? Folks, the debate has moved on. The general public ( Yep, those sun reading, facebooking, thickos so despised by the left ) are sick,sick,sick of it. They are the people living cheek by jowl with the workshy,the feckless and the entitled. They see the rampant piss taking that has gone on for years. They want it stopped. And until the left is sensible enough to admit that a problem exists, and actually make a few suggestions as to how it should be tackled, it will continue to lose ground on this issue. Stop pretending that the underclass doesn't exist. Because out there, on the estates,in real life, we know they do. They are not "trapped" on benefits. They are fighting like crazy to stay on them.And pretending otherwise is not helping the left.

Haven't wages decreased significantly, if you take into account inflation?

Nope. Actually quite the opposite.

In 1999 the NMW was £3.60 per hour.
In 2012/2013 it is £6.19 per hour

Source: NMW rates

Annual inflation rates you can find here: UK historical inflation rates

If you put the two together you will find that had the NMW kept pace with inflation NMW would be around £4.72 rather than £6.19. Quite a significant difference (around 30% more).

So given the NMW and the impact of the higher tax free allowance, in reality people should be better off. The fact they don't feel it is more because living costs have shot up. But that's the same for all people and of course the rich feel it the least but that is life.

Well if you're going to make lazy slurs against your ideological opponents then so will I.

Well, to be perfectly honest I wasn't aware of having made lazy slurs I thought that I was explaining the situation as I saw and understood it. However, I bow to your superior intellect and understanding. I am not an economist or a political theorist. I watch the news and listen to what people around me say. My thoughts reflect what I read and hear.

But changing the way you look at the question alters the answer you get.

Certainly, if I ask why so many people are feckless, work shy, bone idle, etc. rather than how to help the disadvantaged, for example, it certainly would change the answers.

You've ignored reason and facts. What's left but sarcasm and patronising?

So, it's my fault that you were rude and patronising?

I have ignored nothing. As I said before, I only expressed my own thoughts based on observation. I don't actually have a fixed ideology, nor do you know how I vote - you can only guess at that based on what I post on here.