To think if you're a fan of the bedroom tax

[NicholasTeakozy]

That means you are at best a spunktrumpet and at worst a cunt. short video and see what it's doing.

You called me ungrateful for no reason whatsoever.

Not my argument, but in the bit quoted below, you are "sceptical" that you should feel lucky to have been give social housing.

(got this house after fleeing a violent relationship so yes I feel really lucky in being given a Social Housing Property )

(I really don't care, no requirement from me that you should feel grateful.)

Thanks for that sock I know they have to be so careful dont they? Govt have already said they are limiting the number of Boxrooms that can be registered so the LA's can't continue to use this 'Loophole' ~

jolleigh

You were really very rude to missPixie, I don't normally even think much about anything other than the factual basis of a post but the one you made after she said why she got housed was very eyebrow raisey.

fYI anybody who does not own a liveable house can apply for social housing you do not require any need to be accepted onto the waiting list if they have no need they may very well end up waiting a very long time but they can still stay on the list.

About 70% of homelessness is caused in some way by domestic violence its a bit unfortunate to decide that people many of whom will have been tortured raped and beaten on a regular basis often for many years should feel lucky,perhaps you should stick with feeling lucky if you have not been or are not in that situation.

In some cases its appropriate. A friends mum is fifty something and still lives in a 3 bed house since her children moved out years ago. Still covered by HB. Why shouldn't she be forced into a 1 bed flat if she isn't willing to pay the difference? There are some families living in poky little bedsits with children who could have her place instead. Makes sense to me.

I've already explained that bit LondonMan the Poster said I should count myself lucky so I simply stated the preluding circumstances in which I got 'lucky' enough to be here. That's where the came from. ~

Sock - I've never questioned why she's entitled. It's none of my business. If me pointing that part out is rude, then I'm rude. As LondonMan has pointed out the precise phrase I was referring to and I have repeated that her reasons behind being entitled don't affect the discussion on this page, forgive me if I don't take this being rude thing to heart.

I personally think that anyone privileged enough to live in a country where financial aid is available to those who need it should feel lucky to do so. There are countries on this planet where this type of aid isn't available and people in need starve on the streets.

On that programme 'how to get a council house', I was actually quite surprised to see the council offices telling single homeless men that they had no obligation to provide housing. They weren't accepted onto this list and they didn't own liveable houses.

I don't believe that 70% of people currently living in social housing have tortured, raped or beaten.

And of course no one is going to feel grateful or lucky if that has happened to them. But we can feel grateful that there is a system to pick us up if it, or anything else unfortunate does happen, as many people in many countries don't have have any support at all.

Considering some of the stuff that's going on in the world at the moment, I feel very lucky just to have a stable government.

Jolleigh: "But in cases like Misspixie's , doesn't the fact that she's capable of absorbing the cost prove that although yes it may have been a difficult decision what to cut back on, the government were right in thinking that she's adult enough to make that decision for herself."

I find statement this fascinating. I think it succinctly sums up what a lot of supporters of this policy are telling themselves.

What, exactly, would constitute not being "capable of absorbing the cost"?

My guess is that nothing short of full-on starvation counts. People going without, having to live very constricted lives, being in grim financial straits: that doesn't count. That's being "capable of absorbing the cost[.]"

It's a grim way of thinking. A little lacking in charity and compassion.

By the way, all of you who think this policy is "good but flawed in execution": think again. It's execution is working just fine. It's execution is just dandy - and doing just what it was meant to: pitting one group of the poor against another; spreading dissent and mistrust; dividing the different groups who are getting screwed. And all the while, the people who pay shitty wages, and make profits from accommodation, and screw us all - their income differential is soaring away from the majority of us. Up, up into the stratosphere, into the Elysium of the super-rich, where they can look on us tearing into each other for crumbs.

It's execution is just dandy - and doing just what it was meant to: pitting one group of the poor against another; spreading dissent and mistrust; dividing the different groups who are getting screwed.

And this is where the lefty hysteria kicks in!

Thecat, I saw that film yesterday. It was rather excellent.

Some people on this thread are horrifically patronising and really have no idea how these insanely awful policies impact on real people on a day-to-day basis.

yanbu

Not just me who thought that then Broken?

Thankyou LondonMan

It wouldn't even be a reasonable policy if there were the housing to back it up. It may be that people would be having to move miles away from a support network, one that's been in place for years. It may be that they have mental health problems and moving would be too many changes to cope with, eg. different nurses/social workers/health authority. All these seemingly small things need to be taken into consideration and aren't.
Oh, and used to be chair of the Housing Committee before anyone wants to say I don't know how it works.

broken I did not say 70% of people currently in social housing, I said 70% of homelessness is caused in some way by DV.

Lots of people are in social housing due to waiting it out or if housed many years ago due to slum clearance or a succeeded tenancy along with a few other reasons.

Homelessness is one way of getting onto the waiting list it is not the only way. One of the reasons someone who was applying as homeless could have any duty to them discharged would be intentionality and that can go back to there last settled accommodation that is the most frequent reason for a homeless person to not receive emergency or temp help.

By the way, all of you who think this policy is "good but flawed in execution": think again. It's execution is working just fine. It's execution is just dandy - and doing just what it was meant to: pitting one group of the poor against another; spreading dissent and mistrust; dividing the different groups who are getting screwed. And all the while, the people who pay shitty wages, and make profits from accommodation, and screw us all - their income differential is soaring away from the majority of us. Up, up into the stratosphere, into the Elysium of the super-rich, where they can look on us tearing into each other for crumbs.

This is just silly. There's a huge chunk of people between those who are on housing benefit and the super-rich, the people who are actually paying for the housing benefit. Some of those people are on this thread, and they are pointing out that they can't actually afford an extra bedroom or maybe they've even got kids sharing a room and they're getting older and they'd like to separate them (I think I recall that different sex kids over the age of 10 don't have to share under the so-called bedroom tax).

Talk like that just isn't productive.

I'd like to see an increase in wages and I think that a lot of the working poor have gotten a bad draw over the past several years but that doesn't change the fact that there's a shortage in housing stock.

Sock I wouldnt waste your Intellect

I think you've got to be pretty short sighted to think this policy is a good one. It isn't reducing the amount of under occupiers because the largest groups are exempt.

The people it is targeting have no where to move to because there are no smaller properties.

It is not saving money because in a lot of areas, the cost of privately renting is higher than social housing - So housing benefit are just paying more out for them to live in a one bedroomed place (IF they're lucky enough to find one) than they were paying for them to live in a two bedroomed house.

I don't think everyone are cunts or bastards though, The media propaganda when it comes to benefits and social housing is disgusting, it's bound to effect those who have little to no experience of 'the system' and the more self righteous of those who do.

Okay her rent is less than local market value. Obviously the use of subsidised was technically incorrect here. However, that wasn't my point was it? I was surprised that as a family of three (her, dh and teenage son) living in a 4 bedroom HA house she was not subject to the bedroom tax because she pays the rent herself. I stand by what I said about this being unfair.

There seems little point in saying that benefit receivers should be moved out of their 3 bedroom social housing because high earners can only afford 1 or 2 bedrooms of expensive private housing: that is irrelevant. The benefit receivers couldn't move into those 1 bedroom flats anyway, because they can't afford them. They can only move into smaller housing if affordable smaller housing is available. And in many parts of the country, developers only build smaller flats/houses for the upper end of the market.

Not my argument, but in the bit quoted below, you are "sceptical" that you should feel lucky to have been give social housing.

Until the other month i lived in a huosing association property. I didn't feel lucky, I was pushed in to it. I didn't need or want it. I did feel grateful to the housing association initially for not making my situation any worse than it already was. But lucky? No.

at Dizzy. I fear you're in for it next

The concept of trying to make sure that social housing is fairly distributed by making sure that everyone has the space they need, in an appropriate property, is sound. This policy is not that. If that was the basis for the policy, they wouldn't have given exemptions to the thousands of older people in larger properties. If they actually wanted to make things fairer they would do something about the disastrous private rent situation. If this is the best solution that the government could come up with to sort out the problem of oversubscribed social housing, it doesn't fill me with confidence that they can do anything else properly at all. All they are doing is pandering to a section of the population who have had to 'tighten their belts' due to the economy, but are still very far away from understanding that £14 a week could be the difference between being poor but fed and sheltered, and having the bailiffs knocking at your door. People think that they understand what being really poor is like because they are struggling or unable to afford their previous lifestyle. They do not have a clue.