Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Govement u-turn

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
triumphv8
triumphv8  7450 forum posts United Kingdom
4 Feb 2013 - 9:21 AM


Quote: If you invite someone to live with you after you become a tenant who is not a partner, ( and if a partner moves in after a person has acquired a social housing tenancy they must be declared ) then for what ever reason you and I may call it, it social housing calls it Sub letting

Then declare it and ask permission. There's plenty of shared households in both private landlord and social housing.


Quote: Originally these rules were in place to prevent over crowding of properties, and were a measure to stop people obtaining a tenancy based on need, then adding family members who in there own right not entitled to housing, so that they could then claim to be over crowded and required rehousing in a bigger property.

Based on abusing the system then - well who's fault is that ?


Quote: You ask "are the low paid on benefits exempt from social responsibility" no, but neither are the well paid.

No, but as you have already pointed out in rather a vulgar manner, they are legally bound to social responsibility through payment of tax, and from my experience they do have a relatively high level of it.

How come the people who give the most are made out to be the bad guys ?

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
4 Feb 2013 - 9:21 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110247 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
4 Feb 2013 - 9:25 AM


Quote: How come the people who give the most are made out to be the bad guys ?

On this theme I spotted some figures over the week-end stating that highest earning 14% of the tax-paying public pay 60% of the taxes in the UK

mikehit
mikehit  56338 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
4 Feb 2013 - 9:36 AM


Quote: How come the people who give the most are made out to be the bad guys ?

On this theme I spotted some figures over the week-end stating that highest earning 14% of the tax-paying public pay 60% of the taxes in the UK

It's worse than that: for the first time over 50% of the population are now nett receivers of state money (recieve more in support than they pay in tax). And 25% of the tax paying population are supporting the whole system. And if I remember correctly 25% are supporting the whole system.

keith selmes
4 Feb 2013 - 9:59 AM


Quote: Did you notice the working arrangements, totally useless if you out of work and on benefits, May, June & August, migrant workers here on Holiday love this kind of work.

It struck me it would be good for fit young people who are not yet settled. The sort of thing I might have done in late teens or early twenties. And we apparently have a major problem with young people being unemployed. The kicker in that, relevant to the OP, is that my parents would have kept a spare room for me. Another reason why I think the people pushing this policy have not got their brains in gear.

keith selmes
4 Feb 2013 - 10:02 AM


Quote: One more fact - it is NOT a tax.

Heaves a big sigh. Yesterday someone was sympathising with us homeowners because we have to pay extra council tax on spare bedrooms. Amazing how it gets twisted.

stuwhitt
stuwhitt  101357 forum posts United Kingdom
4 Feb 2013 - 11:55 AM


Quote: One more fact - it is NOT a tax.

Wrong, yes it is and a highly regressive tax at that, some may describe it as a stealth tax.

The sums,

If you are deemed to be under occupying by 1 room then the charge is 14 per week, that increases to 25 per week if it 2 rooms.

That may be pocket money to some, but those on low incomes it is a small fortune.

With record numbers of people already having to rely on Food Banks, we are going to see a massive increase in poverty.

KevSB
KevSB  101407 forum posts United Kingdom5 Constructive Critique Points
4 Feb 2013 - 12:05 PM

AN
Quote: One more fact - it is NOT a tax.

Wrong, yes it is and a highly regressive tax at that, some may describe it as a stealth tax.

The sums,

If you are deemed to be under occupying by 1 room then the charge is 14 per week, that increases to 25 per week if it 2 rooms.

That may be pocket money to some, but those on low incomes it is a small fortune.

With record numbers of people already having to rely on Food Banks, we are going to see a massive increase in poverty.

And takes those on the minimum amount to survive below the threshold, set by the same goverment that is taking it away. If its accepted by the mojority it wont be long before the same tax will be applied by councils to private dwellings and everyone as another revinue Stream.

chris.maddock
4 Feb 2013 - 12:12 PM


Quote: One more fact - it is NOT a tax.

Wrong, yes it is and a highly regressive tax at that, some may describe it as a stealth tax.



No it is not - it is a reduction in benefit being paid to recipients, not an additional tax bill.

LVanDhal
LVanDhal  1126 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
4 Feb 2013 - 2:13 PM


Quote: If you invite someone to live with you after you become a tenant who is not a partner, ( and if a partner moves in after a person has acquired a social housing tenancy they must be declared ) then for what ever reason you and I may call it, it social housing calls it Sub letting

Then declare it and ask permission. There's plenty of shared households in both private landlord and social housing.

Originally these rules were in place to prevent over crowding of properties, and were a measure to stop people obtaining a tenancy based on need, then adding family members who in there own right not entitled to housing, so that they could then claim to be over crowded and required rehousing in a bigger property.

Based on abusing the system then - well who's fault is that ?

You ask "are the low paid on benefits exempt from social responsibility" no, but neither are the well paid.

No, but as you have already pointed out in rather a vulgar manner, they are legally bound to social responsibility through payment of tax, and from my experience they do have a relatively high level of it.

How come the people who give the most are made out to be the bad guys ?

If my points have come over to you as "Vulgar" then i apologize it was most certainly not my intentions to contribute to this thread from any other stand point than to highlight the factual misunderstandings as I saw them.
I hoped to promote a better understanding of the situation based on facts of my own tenancy agreement with a social housing landlord.
The rules in place to prevent over crowding were put in place at the inception of council housing which has now become enshrined in housing law,
they were measures designed specifically to break the cycle of extreme deprivation in housing created by slum landlords.
If it helps I will add that I personally am not affected by this Bedroom Tax as i am adequately housed under the terms of housing legislation,
but many of my neighbors will be affected by this, and I see how they are now caught in a trap that is none of there own making, all of them would willingly go to smaller properties, but none as yet have been able to find one, and its not because they have not tried.
I myself have 40 pounds a week to live on once my bills have been paid, ( that's basic utility bills, I do not own a car, or a TV, ) and I know that if
I had to pay this bedroom tax at 14 pounds a week I would have only 26 pounds a week to live on.
As mentioned i personally do not face having to pay for an extra bedroom, and although i am a benefit recipient i do not receive jsa, how someone
will cope living on jsa with this additional benefit reduction worries me alot.
kindest regards liz.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315237 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
4 Feb 2013 - 6:47 PM


Quote: One more fact - it is NOT a tax

Some MP`s seem to think it is Smile

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/23/social-housing-windows-welfare-re...

Interesting



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vDWUXUXD7Dk

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 4 Feb 2013 - 6:50 PM
brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110247 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
4 Feb 2013 - 7:09 PM


Quote: Some MP`s seem to think it is

But they would say that wouldn't they, it suits their political needs to try to make it sound like the "Poll Tax" Tongue

chris.maddock
4 Feb 2013 - 7:44 PM


Quote: One more fact - it is NOT a tax
Some MP`s seem to think it is Smile


Pure sound bites.

A tax is something for which you effectively get billed and have to pay out, this is a reduction in what some people are given which is a completely different thing.

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014131 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
4 Feb 2013 - 7:56 PM


Quote: this is a reduction in what some people are given which is a completely different thing.

The end result is the same though - they end up with less money.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315237 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
4 Feb 2013 - 7:56 PM

I`d just call it a stealth tax Smile

stuwhitt
stuwhitt  101357 forum posts United Kingdom
5 Feb 2013 - 3:35 PM


Quote: No it is not - it is a reduction in benefit being paid to recipients, not an additional tax bill.

Typical some are more worried about semantics rather than the effect of this regressive tax on people.
When did this country get so nasty? Sad

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.