'Bedroom tax' hitting region the hardest

Kevan Jones:

Kevan Jones: "National scandal."

First published in News The Northern Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter (Derwentside & Tyneside)

BENEFITS claimants in the North-East and North Yorkshire have been hit harder by Government’s ‘bedroom tax’ than any other region, a new study has revealed.

The report, by Oxfam and the New Policy Institute (NPI), warns that wide-ranging cuts are changing the shape of welfare support at a time when rising prices are making it harder for families to make ends meet.

The study, Multiple Cuts For The Poorest Families, found 28,000 of the poorest households in the region are being hit by the bedroom tax and are £12.80 per week worse off, with around 3,000 at least £20 a week out of pocket.

As a result, job seekers, carers, single parents or those with a disability or illness who are unable to work are being pushed deeper into poverty, it said.

North Durham MP Kevan Jones said the record use of food banks was a clear indication that not only the unemployed, but also those in low pay, are being forced to rely on charity to survive.

He said: “In the year 2014 it is a national scandal. It is a situation where they are forcing people to move who have lived in the same homes for many years. The Government is treating people’s home as commodities rather than homes.”

But cuts to council tax benefit are more widespread in the region, where 103,000 of the poorest households have seen a cut in their cash payments.

These households now have to pay around £2.40 per week in council tax, a charge they were previously deemed too poor to pay.

The worst off are those 40,000 households who have seen both cuts in their housing benefit and their council tax benefit.

North-West Durham MP Pat Glass said: “People who have never been in debt before are now in debt.

“What worries me more is that people who are on the margins do not seem to be able to hold on any more are falling into all sorts of problems.”

Renters in the private sector have also seen their housing benefit slashed too, through cuts to the Local Housing Allowance.

The research estimates that this has affected 29,000 of the poorest households in the area, costing them around £7.80 per week.

Mark Goldring, Oxfam chief executive, said: "This is the latest evidence of a perfect storm blowing massive holes in the safety net which is supposed to stop people falling further into poverty.”

In London, where the population is two-and-a-half to three times greater than the North-East, around 34,000 of the poorest households are being hit by the bedroom tax.

On average they are £20 per week worse off, the highest cut of any region, and around 7,000 are being hit by at least £25 per week.

But cuts to council tax benefit are much more widespread in the capital where 240,000 of the poorest households have seen a cut.

Geraldine Kay, chief executive Derwentside Homes, the social landlord, which manages former council housing stock in the north-west of County Durham, said: “The North-East has been disproportionately adversely affected by welfare reforms compared to all other regions with the exception of London for a different reason.

“In London the issue is the extortionate cost of housing, to buy or to rent, exceeding the benefit cap.

“In the North-East it is the ‘bedroom tax’ that is causing particular hardship as our housing stock is dominated by two and three bedroom family homes with very few flats and apartments.

“There are simply not the smaller properties for people to downsize into and tenants are caught in the ‘bedroom tax’ poverty trap.”

Conservative Stockton South MP James Wharton said hundreds of thousands of people are on waiting list for homes while hundreds of thousands more have properties bigger than they needs, which are paid for by the taxpayer.

He said: “The housing system this government inherited was in need of major reform and by paying for what people need, rather than over the odds, the taxpayer can get people into the right sized homes and free up properties for those in desperate need.”

A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions said £94bn is spent a year on welfare for working-age people and the reforms aim to improve the lives of the poorest in society.

She said three million families are better off as a result of the Coalition’s Universal Credit system.

She said: “Britain has a strong welfare state, but for too long the system trapped those it was designed to help in a state of dependency.

“There's nothing kind or fair about that.”

Comments (97)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:42am Tue 22 Apr 14

tubgut says...

Not enough jobs not enough houses, Labour created this situation and Dave just carried on where Blair and Brown stopped. Who is on the side of the working person. More of the same will not sole this problem, before putting you X on the ballot paper thing long and hard.
Not enough jobs not enough houses, Labour created this situation and Dave just carried on where Blair and Brown stopped. Who is on the side of the working person. More of the same will not sole this problem, before putting you X on the ballot paper thing long and hard. tubgut
  • Score: 4

10:05am Tue 22 Apr 14

stevegg says...

Thats because the North East is the benefits capital of England, a good % of those inreceipt would like it to stay this way!!
Thats because the North East is the benefits capital of England, a good % of those inreceipt would like it to stay this way!! stevegg
  • Score: 7

11:09am Tue 22 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Oh for goodness sake geegee, give it a break. Your like a broken record. Go get your fix of unreality and buy the mail or mirror!
Oh for goodness sake geegee, give it a break. Your like a broken record. Go get your fix of unreality and buy the mail or mirror! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 1

12:02pm Tue 22 Apr 14

bambara says...

The Northeast is hit hardest largely due to the brain drain by which a lot of the economically active and capable young people are forced to move out of the area to find work.
The damage done to the Northeast by Thatcher and her destruction of the industrial base of the UK have left the country overly dependant on financial services, and the focus of financial services in the South of England drags a lot of the most active away from the region.
The lack of opportunity skews the figures.
The old, the disabled, their carers, those without the means to move for work and those with family ties are left behind. Those are the elements of society most likely to need the help that a decent society should provide.
Sadly the sociopathic policies of the Tory party are abandoning and all too frequently demonising these people.
The Northeast is hit hardest largely due to the brain drain by which a lot of the economically active and capable young people are forced to move out of the area to find work. The damage done to the Northeast by Thatcher and her destruction of the industrial base of the UK have left the country overly dependant on financial services, and the focus of financial services in the South of England drags a lot of the most active away from the region. The lack of opportunity skews the figures. The old, the disabled, their carers, those without the means to move for work and those with family ties are left behind. Those are the elements of society most likely to need the help that a decent society should provide. Sadly the sociopathic policies of the Tory party are abandoning and all too frequently demonising these people. bambara
  • Score: 5

1:59pm Tue 22 Apr 14

RealLivin says...

The UK Benefits system WAS designed to ASSIST those out of work not continually pay for them and their children and grand children for ever and a day, which we are now seeing. However this is a small number compared to those trying for find work with a decent wage due to the lack of investment and jobs in the north east. If there were sufficient jobs with decent wages you can then force the benefits issue with those not wanting to work. Apparently it now costs aprox £6000 to move house, as you are now unemployed and working like mad to make this as short as possible the last thing you need is to be forced out of your house, invoking more costs you cant afford and for what? with the right help and investment you could be back in work with in weeks mitigating the need to move. The fact that there are not enough smaller houses for you to move too, meaning you are stuck with waiting and being charge for the privilege or moving to private rented accommodation which is likely to cost more then the extra bedroom. If you owned your own house and could no longer afford to live there you would sell up and move, therefore if you are long term unemployed or on benefits you should think of the cost of running a house that is bigger than you need and move to smaller premises.

The whole problem is brought about by another London issue with the fix being forced across the country, just because high rents in London are forcing extra payments from the system why should we all have to pay the price, if fact why not tell those in London who cannot afford to live there any more to move out and stop paying their rents with which we could help out dozens up here for the same cost (spend the least where it can do the most). As London's work force diminishes they will be forced pay wages to enable them to move back in to London or jobs will move out to other areas. The government wants private sector to take the lead, this they are doing and with as much profit as they can get a way with, especially if its coming from the government with no questions asked, read what I found in one paper

Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest man, Forbes magazine estimated his wealth at £10bn in 2011. Akhmetov paid £136.4m for two flats spread over the top floors of One Hyde Park and is liable to pay Westminster council £1,353.48 a year for his council tax. This is about £300 more than I pay for my ex council house which is currently valued under £100,000. This is obscene and the government should prevent this but it looks like the poor are rebuilding Britian as forced labour (and at some wages forced slavery) while the idle rich take all the profits to tax havens.

If we have investment and jobs the benefits system will sort it self out but while the imbalance in wealth is prevalent in the UK most will slide further into poverty until there is no way out and we will be no better of than 3rd world countries, at which point the rich would have departed for wealthier lands and the immigrants will have stopped coming.
The UK Benefits system WAS designed to ASSIST those out of work not continually pay for them and their children and grand children for ever and a day, which we are now seeing. However this is a small number compared to those trying for find work with a decent wage due to the lack of investment and jobs in the north east. If there were sufficient jobs with decent wages you can then force the benefits issue with those not wanting to work. Apparently it now costs aprox £6000 to move house, as you are now unemployed and working like mad to make this as short as possible the last thing you need is to be forced out of your house, invoking more costs you cant afford and for what? with the right help and investment you could be back in work with in weeks mitigating the need to move. The fact that there are not enough smaller houses for you to move too, meaning you are stuck with waiting and being charge for the privilege or moving to private rented accommodation which is likely to cost more then the extra bedroom. If you owned your own house and could no longer afford to live there you would sell up and move, therefore if you are long term unemployed or on benefits you should think of the cost of running a house that is bigger than you need and move to smaller premises. The whole problem is brought about by another London issue with the fix being forced across the country, just because high rents in London are forcing extra payments from the system why should we all have to pay the price, if fact why not tell those in London who cannot afford to live there any more to move out and stop paying their rents with which we could help out dozens up here for the same cost (spend the least where it can do the most). As London's work force diminishes they will be forced pay wages to enable them to move back in to London or jobs will move out to other areas. The government wants private sector to take the lead, this they are doing and with as much profit as they can get a way with, especially if its coming from the government with no questions asked, read what I found in one paper Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest man, Forbes magazine estimated his wealth at £10bn in 2011. Akhmetov paid £136.4m for two flats spread over the top floors of One Hyde Park and is liable to pay Westminster council £1,353.48 a year for his council tax. This is about £300 more than I pay for my ex council house which is currently valued under £100,000. This is obscene and the government should prevent this but it looks like the poor are rebuilding Britian as forced labour (and at some wages forced slavery) while the idle rich take all the profits to tax havens. If we have investment and jobs the benefits system will sort it self out but while the imbalance in wealth is prevalent in the UK most will slide further into poverty until there is no way out and we will be no better of than 3rd world countries, at which point the rich would have departed for wealthier lands and the immigrants will have stopped coming. RealLivin
  • Score: 8

2:07pm Tue 22 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

"On average they are £20 per week worse off, the highest cut of any region, and around 7,000 are being hit by at least £25 per week"

How they they be worse off, they have in fact earned nothing so in reality they are still better off but only not as better off as they are use too.

"He said: “In the year 2014 it is a national scandal. It is a situation where they are forcing people to move who have lived in the same homes for many years. The Government is treating people’s home as commodities rather than homes.” "

They are accommodated at the expense of the taxpayer, they dont have homes, some occupying places of residence larger than most working class can afford to buy. If they no longer require the space then they should be re-accommodated to smaller dwellings, why should the tax payer be expected to continue to pay for their comfort.

"Conservative Stockton South MP James Wharton said hundreds of thousands of people are on waiting list for homes while hundreds of thousands more have properties bigger than they needs, which are paid for by the taxpayer. "

This is something that needs to change as a matter of urgency, as a taxpayer with a mortgage it really annoys me that my next door neighbour (single parent with 17 year old lay about son) is occupy'ing a 3 bed private rental paid for by housing benefit.

In all honesty the bedroom tax is too little too late to shift people like this, statments like they are being forced further into poverty are a joke given the life styles some of these people live..........if they gave up some of the luxuries they all seem to have the money they do receive would go further when paying for items they need.
"On average they are £20 per week worse off, the highest cut of any region, and around 7,000 are being hit by at least £25 per week" How they they be worse off, they have in fact earned nothing so in reality they are still better off but only not as better off as they are use too. "He said: “In the year 2014 it is a national scandal. It is a situation where they are forcing people to move who have lived in the same homes for many years. The Government is treating people’s home as commodities rather than homes.” " They are accommodated at the expense of the taxpayer, they dont have homes, some occupying places of residence larger than most working class can afford to buy. If they no longer require the space then they should be re-accommodated to smaller dwellings, why should the tax payer be expected to continue to pay for their comfort. "Conservative Stockton South MP James Wharton said hundreds of thousands of people are on waiting list for homes while hundreds of thousands more have properties bigger than they needs, which are paid for by the taxpayer. " This is something that needs to change as a matter of urgency, as a taxpayer with a mortgage it really annoys me that my next door neighbour (single parent with 17 year old lay about son) is occupy'ing a 3 bed private rental paid for by housing benefit. In all honesty the bedroom tax is too little too late to shift people like this, statments like they are being forced further into poverty are a joke given the life styles some of these people live..........if they gave up some of the luxuries they all seem to have the money they do receive would go further when paying for items they need. MartinMo
  • Score: 5

2:25pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Robert_ says...

Exercise your right to not vote at the next election. It makes no difference.
Exercise your right to not vote at the next election. It makes no difference. Robert_
  • Score: -5

2:43pm Tue 22 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

if they gave up some of the luxuries they all seem to have the money they do receive would go further when paying for items they need.

There is that word again MM, "seem". Do all the folk you talk of have, these luxuries, or do they "seem" to have?
if they gave up some of the luxuries they all seem to have the money they do receive would go further when paying for items they need. There is that word again MM, "seem". Do all the folk you talk of have, these luxuries, or do they "seem" to have? tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -15

4:11pm Tue 22 Apr 14

bambara says...

"The cost of moving house is estimated at £6000" so at the £12 a month bedroom tax they would have to be in the house with a spare bedroom for 6000/12 = 500 months, or in simpler terms over 41 years before the gain of moving offsets the costs. (ignoring any interest rates.)

But the government still thinks it is fair and reasonable to force them to move.
Is the government going to pay the £6000 removal costs for people who by definition have no money to pay it with themselves?
If so would they like to explain how they expect the figures to add up?
"The cost of moving house is estimated at £6000" so at the £12 a month bedroom tax they would have to be in the house with a spare bedroom for 6000/12 = 500 months, or in simpler terms over 41 years before the gain of moving offsets the costs. (ignoring any interest rates.) But the government still thinks it is fair and reasonable to force them to move. Is the government going to pay the £6000 removal costs for people who by definition have no money to pay it with themselves? If so would they like to explain how they expect the figures to add up? bambara
  • Score: 1

5:12pm Tue 22 Apr 14

DarloXman says...

Everyone should be able to live wherever they want with whatever size house they want - with just one proviso - they should pay for it themselves!

Those who are genuinely unable to support themselves for reasons such as disability should be supported by the state and provided with a property that matches their needs (not wants) . This would not including single mothers who should be given no special privileges - like property, you can have as many children as you like - provided you pay for them!
Everyone should be able to live wherever they want with whatever size house they want - with just one proviso - they should pay for it themselves! Those who are genuinely unable to support themselves for reasons such as disability should be supported by the state and provided with a property that matches their needs (not wants) . This would not including single mothers who should be given no special privileges - like property, you can have as many children as you like - provided you pay for them! DarloXman
  • Score: 15

6:03pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Robert_ says...

""The cost of moving house is estimated at £6000"

Absolute nonsense. Moving to Australia maybe. Even then not 6 grand surely!
""The cost of moving house is estimated at £6000" Absolute nonsense. Moving to Australia maybe. Even then not 6 grand surely! Robert_
  • Score: 5

9:48pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Border Terrier says...

MartinMo wrote:
"On average they are £20 per week worse off, the highest cut of any region, and around 7,000 are being hit by at least £25 per week"

How they they be worse off, they have in fact earned nothing so in reality they are still better off but only not as better off as they are use too.

"He said: “In the year 2014 it is a national scandal. It is a situation where they are forcing people to move who have lived in the same homes for many years. The Government is treating people’s home as commodities rather than homes.” "

They are accommodated at the expense of the taxpayer, they dont have homes, some occupying places of residence larger than most working class can afford to buy. If they no longer require the space then they should be re-accommodated to smaller dwellings, why should the tax payer be expected to continue to pay for their comfort.

"Conservative Stockton South MP James Wharton said hundreds of thousands of people are on waiting list for homes while hundreds of thousands more have properties bigger than they needs, which are paid for by the taxpayer. "

This is something that needs to change as a matter of urgency, as a taxpayer with a mortgage it really annoys me that my next door neighbour (single parent with 17 year old lay about son) is occupy'ing a 3 bed private rental paid for by housing benefit.

In all honesty the bedroom tax is too little too late to shift people like this, statments like they are being forced further into poverty are a joke given the life styles some of these people live..........if they gave up some of the luxuries they all seem to have the money they do receive would go further when paying for items they need.
"Strange" But very true!
[quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: "On average they are £20 per week worse off, the highest cut of any region, and around 7,000 are being hit by at least £25 per week" How they they be worse off, they have in fact earned nothing so in reality they are still better off but only not as better off as they are use too. "He said: “In the year 2014 it is a national scandal. It is a situation where they are forcing people to move who have lived in the same homes for many years. The Government is treating people’s home as commodities rather than homes.” " They are accommodated at the expense of the taxpayer, they dont have homes, some occupying places of residence larger than most working class can afford to buy. If they no longer require the space then they should be re-accommodated to smaller dwellings, why should the tax payer be expected to continue to pay for their comfort. "Conservative Stockton South MP James Wharton said hundreds of thousands of people are on waiting list for homes while hundreds of thousands more have properties bigger than they needs, which are paid for by the taxpayer. " This is something that needs to change as a matter of urgency, as a taxpayer with a mortgage it really annoys me that my next door neighbour (single parent with 17 year old lay about son) is occupy'ing a 3 bed private rental paid for by housing benefit. In all honesty the bedroom tax is too little too late to shift people like this, statments like they are being forced further into poverty are a joke given the life styles some of these people live..........if they gave up some of the luxuries they all seem to have the money they do receive would go further when paying for items they need.[/p][/quote]"Strange" But very true! Border Terrier
  • Score: -2

8:52am Wed 23 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
if they gave up some of the luxuries they all seem to have the money they do receive would go further when paying for items they need.

There is that word again MM, "seem". Do all the folk you talk of have, these luxuries, or do they "seem" to have?
I use the word "seem" because it would be unfair and wrong of me to state that they all infact do have access to luxury items but I will word it this way for you.

Luxury items = TV-Sky TV/Virgin-home phone-mobile phone-computer-other household electrical items (discluding cooking implements)-alcohol-
tobacco products-take away foods-car-home broadband-designer label clothes-drugs-gaming devices

The list can be quite extensive. Now I have never seen or heard of a family on benefits not having had any of the above.

Requirements = shelter-warmth-cloth
es-food-fresh water

When you can show me a family that has nothing but what is required then the echoe can delete my posts on this subject.

Decent working class taxpayers are forced to live on the threshold of poverty so those on benefits can live well above all they require. When I know someone on benefits wearing labelled clothes, using mobiles, picking up take away meals, drinking, smoking or even posting comments on social media sites my first thought is that they are in receipt of too much cash.

If they cannot afford these items themselves everyone else should not be expected to pay for them to have it.
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: if they gave up some of the luxuries they all seem to have the money they do receive would go further when paying for items they need. There is that word again MM, "seem". Do all the folk you talk of have, these luxuries, or do they "seem" to have?[/p][/quote]I use the word "seem" because it would be unfair and wrong of me to state that they all infact do have access to luxury items but I will word it this way for you. Luxury items = TV-Sky TV/Virgin-home phone-mobile phone-computer-other household electrical items (discluding cooking implements)-alcohol- tobacco products-take away foods-car-home broadband-designer label clothes-drugs-gaming devices The list can be quite extensive. Now I have never seen or heard of a family on benefits not having had any of the above. Requirements = shelter-warmth-cloth es-food-fresh water When you can show me a family that has nothing but what is required then the echoe can delete my posts on this subject. Decent working class taxpayers are forced to live on the threshold of poverty so those on benefits can live well above all they require. When I know someone on benefits wearing labelled clothes, using mobiles, picking up take away meals, drinking, smoking or even posting comments on social media sites my first thought is that they are in receipt of too much cash. If they cannot afford these items themselves everyone else should not be expected to pay for them to have it. MartinMo
  • Score: 6

11:56am Wed 23 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

To have so much info on benefit recipients, I can only assume you are an ex member of MI 5, the Stazi, or some other such secret organisation!! Are you? Or do you think your "generalised" claims, are given substance in and by, the general air, of the demonization of benefit claimants. Or is it really, that you are a sad, petty, vindictive little know all, who uses the demonization of others, with generalised pap, to big oneself up?
Don't bother answering, as it will merely be more hyperbole and cant and to tell you truthfully, I've had about as much as I can comfortably stomach!!!
To have so much info on benefit recipients, I can only assume you are an ex member of MI 5, the Stazi, or some other such secret organisation!! Are you? Or do you think your "generalised" claims, are given substance in and by, the general air, of the demonization of benefit claimants. Or is it really, that you are a sad, petty, vindictive little know all, who uses the demonization of others, with generalised pap, to big oneself up? Don't bother answering, as it will merely be more hyperbole and cant and to tell you truthfully, I've had about as much as I can comfortably stomach!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -3

2:58pm Wed 23 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

So you are unable to respond to any of my comments in a manner which would back up your arguements so you resort to petty slander, how sad.

I dont think in my last post I claimed to have info on benefit recipients, I simply listed items classed as luxuries and stated that I personally, out of all the people I know whom are in receipt of benefits as their only source of financial income do in fact posses nearly all items on that list.

My point is that working taxpayers on low income but earning just enough to prevent them claiming any form of top benefit are forced through taxation to live poverish lives.

At no point did I ever big myself up, I in fact struggle to make ends meet from one month to the next, at times going without myself to make sure my family do not . I think I have earned to right to be **** off seeing my tax £s being used to better the life of some able bodied workshy parasite on society.
So you are unable to respond to any of my comments in a manner which would back up your arguements so you resort to petty slander, how sad. I dont think in my last post I claimed to have info on benefit recipients, I simply listed items classed as luxuries and stated that I personally, out of all the people I know whom are in receipt of benefits as their only source of financial income do in fact posses nearly all items on that list. My point is that working taxpayers on low income but earning just enough to prevent them claiming any form of top benefit are forced through taxation to live poverish lives. At no point did I ever big myself up, I in fact struggle to make ends meet from one month to the next, at times going without myself to make sure my family do not . I think I have earned to right to be **** off seeing my tax £s being used to better the life of some able bodied workshy parasite on society. MartinMo
  • Score: 4

4:18pm Wed 23 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

. I think I have earned to right to be **** off seeing my tax £s being used to better the life of some able bodied workshy parasite on society.

Now, why bring the Royal Family into it?
. I think I have earned to right to be **** off seeing my tax £s being used to better the life of some able bodied workshy parasite on society. Now, why bring the Royal Family into it? tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -4

5:01pm Wed 23 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Now I have never seen or heard of a family on benefits not having had any of the above

Do you know every family on benefits?
Do you know for certain, that if they possess these items now, they were not purchased at at a time of employment?

More generalised pap, I'm afraid MM!
Now I have never seen or heard of a family on benefits not having had any of the above Do you know every family on benefits? Do you know for certain, that if they possess these items now, they were not purchased at at a time of employment? More generalised pap, I'm afraid MM! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Wed 23 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

if they gave up some of the luxuries they all seem to have

You use this term to infer that "all" 'benefit claimants', do have so-called luxuries. That is your word "all", by the way!

You also state;
"I use the word "seem" because it would be unfair and wrong of me to state that they all infact do have access to luxury items but I will word it this way for you." Indeed it is unfair and wrong of you to state "all", but state "all", is indeed what you actually do!!!

You also arrogantly state;
"When you can show me a family that has nothing but what is required then the echoe can delete my posts on this subject". So no one is allowed any of the items you state are luxuries? How do you know, definitively, that they "all" have these items in the first place?
Secondly, how do you definitively know, that these items were not purchased prior to receipt of benefits?
Finally, do you know, for definite, that none of these benefit claimants are not some of the hundreds of thousands, nay millions of employed benefit recipients, forced to claim them, because of obscenely structured employment and low wages?
It is not I, but rather you, who use slander! You do not stop at slandering one person however, but thousands. How petty, vindictive and arrogant does that make you? Very, is the word you are looking for!!!
if they gave up some of the luxuries they all seem to have You use this term to infer that "all" 'benefit claimants', do have so-called luxuries. That is your word "all", by the way! You also state; "I use the word "seem" because it would be unfair and wrong of me to state that they all infact do have access to luxury items but I will word it this way for you." Indeed it is unfair and wrong of you to state "all", but state "all", is indeed what you actually do!!! You also arrogantly state; "When you can show me a family that has nothing but what is required then the echoe can delete my posts on this subject". So no one is allowed any of the items you state are luxuries? How do you know, definitively, that they "all" have these items in the first place? Secondly, how do you definitively know, that these items were not purchased prior to receipt of benefits? Finally, do you know, for definite, that none of these benefit claimants are not some of the hundreds of thousands, nay millions of employed benefit recipients, forced to claim them, because of obscenely structured employment and low wages? It is not I, but rather you, who use slander! You do not stop at slandering one person however, but thousands. How petty, vindictive and arrogant does that make you? Very, is the word you are looking for!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -3

5:35pm Wed 23 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Most people can point to one or two people, they "think" are swinging the lead. What disassociates many posters on this site, however, is that they claim, "all" claimants of benefits are scrounging, scum bags. Whether the evidence bears this out or not.
As long as this continues, I will continue to express my opinion of how the likes of you, appear to me. You call it slander, I call it considered and structured, personal opinion!
Most people can point to one or two people, they "think" are swinging the lead. What disassociates many posters on this site, however, is that they claim, "all" claimants of benefits are scrounging, scum bags. Whether the evidence bears this out or not. As long as this continues, I will continue to express my opinion of how the likes of you, appear to me. You call it slander, I call it considered and structured, personal opinion! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -5

6:32pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Red rose lad says...

I'm sorry if I pop your self-opinionated bubble Puddled but calling someone a "sad, petty, vindictive little know it all" does not come across as "considered and structured personal opinion". In fact it comes across as the exact opposite. Take a moment and let the bile chill,
I'm sorry if I pop your self-opinionated bubble Puddled but calling someone a "sad, petty, vindictive little know it all" does not come across as "considered and structured personal opinion". In fact it comes across as the exact opposite. Take a moment and let the bile chill, Red rose lad
  • Score: 3

6:45pm Wed 23 Apr 14

punkrocker says...

how many mps have spare bedrooms at tax payers expense. same for royalty.
attack these scroungers as were all supposed to be in it together.
how many mps have spare bedrooms at tax payers expense. same for royalty. attack these scroungers as were all supposed to be in it together. punkrocker
  • Score: 3

10:51pm Wed 23 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Red rose lad wrote:
I'm sorry if I pop your self-opinionated bubble Puddled but calling someone a "sad, petty, vindictive little know it all" does not come across as "considered and structured personal opinion". In fact it comes across as the exact opposite. Take a moment and let the bile chill,
I considered the unsubstantiated rhetoric, of a person who posts on this site. I read "all" of his/her posts. I considered them in the round and their reflection of opinion on this site and the "right wing, (all benefit claimants are scrounging, tab smoking, alcohol drinking, drug taking, losers) Press. Found that, although, in a few cases, one could make a case for the certitude of these claims, in the vast majority of cases, this was simply "not true"!
The people you should exhort to, "let the bile chill", are not me, nor people of a similar mind set, but those that "parrot fashion", regurgitate the lies and nonsense, that are spouted about ordinary people, whose only crime, is being victim to an ideological witch-hunt, born of a totally mismanaged and unmanageable social system. where the perpetrators of said mismanagement, the bankers and their mates, as well as governments, are giving themselves ever greater rewards, for their own failures.
On reflection, I think I'll stick to my original statement and assessment and ignore your suggestion!
[quote][p][bold]Red rose lad[/bold] wrote: I'm sorry if I pop your self-opinionated bubble Puddled but calling someone a "sad, petty, vindictive little know it all" does not come across as "considered and structured personal opinion". In fact it comes across as the exact opposite. Take a moment and let the bile chill,[/p][/quote]I considered the unsubstantiated rhetoric, of a person who posts on this site. I read "all" of his/her posts. I considered them in the round and their reflection of opinion on this site and the "right wing, (all benefit claimants are scrounging, tab smoking, alcohol drinking, drug taking, losers) Press. Found that, although, in a few cases, one could make a case for the certitude of these claims, in the vast majority of cases, this was simply "not true"! The people you should exhort to, "let the bile chill", are not me, nor people of a similar mind set, but those that "parrot fashion", regurgitate the lies and nonsense, that are spouted about ordinary people, whose only crime, is being victim to an ideological witch-hunt, born of a totally mismanaged and unmanageable social system. where the perpetrators of said mismanagement, the bankers and their mates, as well as governments, are giving themselves ever greater rewards, for their own failures. On reflection, I think I'll stick to my original statement and assessment and ignore your suggestion! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -2

7:40am Thu 24 Apr 14

Jonn says...

Quote: Conservative Stockton South MP James Wharton said hundreds of thousands of people are on waiting list for homes while hundreds of thousands more have properties bigger than they needs, which are paid for by the taxpayer.
This statement makes no sense. There may be hundreds of thousands on waiting lists for homes but it does not mean they cannot get a home because hundreds of thousands are living in a property bigger than their needs!
There is a shortage of houses, that's the problem, idiot.
Quote: Conservative Stockton South MP James Wharton said hundreds of thousands of people are on waiting list for homes while hundreds of thousands more have properties bigger than they needs, which are paid for by the taxpayer. This statement makes no sense. There may be hundreds of thousands on waiting lists for homes but it does not mean they cannot get a home because hundreds of thousands are living in a property bigger than their needs! There is a shortage of houses, that's the problem, idiot. Jonn
  • Score: 2

9:37am Thu 24 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

The shortage of Social Sector Housing, started with the Thatcher government in the 80's and the bringing in of RTB. Housing stock was lost through sales but regulations prevented local authorities from using revenues generated, (that went into the councils coffers) on new builds, to replace depleted stock. I do not know the precise reason for this decision from central government but if I was to hazard a guess, I would be minded to put forward the theory that it had an ideological basis, vis a vis, the desire to get rid of the state owned rented sector, which was such an anchor on private rent prices and thereby allow the private rented sector, free rein, to increase rents higher and thus generate larger incomes for the private landlords, without the drag on prices of the public sector rented stock.
The shortage of Social Sector Housing, started with the Thatcher government in the 80's and the bringing in of RTB. Housing stock was lost through sales but regulations prevented local authorities from using revenues generated, (that went into the councils coffers) on new builds, to replace depleted stock. I do not know the precise reason for this decision from central government but if I was to hazard a guess, I would be minded to put forward the theory that it had an ideological basis, vis a vis, the desire to get rid of the state owned rented sector, which was such an anchor on private rent prices and thereby allow the private rented sector, free rein, to increase rents higher and thus generate larger incomes for the private landlords, without the drag on prices of the public sector rented stock. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -2

10:15am Thu 24 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

TPM, I find reading your posts very uninformative and relatively amusing. You always seem to get your knickers in a twist on specific words rather than phrases.

At no point do I state that "all" people on benefits have these items which you continue to imply, the phrase I used was "all seem to have". This is rather open eneded, like saying you may do something does not mean you are in fact going too.

Once again I did not claim to know everyone on benefits or their circumstances which lead to them being on benefits. I stated that those whom I know that are on benefits (some have never worked a day in their lifes) have most if not all of the items on that list.

As for the Royals, could not agree more as I have never been a Royalist.

This month my payslip showed that £601 was taken from from salary (£413 Tax and £187 NI). I could have used that £413 to better the lifes of my own family, put towards buying a bigger house so I could have a spare bedroom and basically prevent me struggling month after month trying to make ends meet. But apparently my it's acceptable for my kids to go without even though I work as long as a nation we look after the poor whether they are sick,aged or just lazy.

On topic, bedroom tax, gets the big thumbs up from me, why should tax payers continue to pay for houses accupied by those on benefits which exceeds their requirements. Its about time tax £s got used to better the country and not just the lives of those on benefits.
TPM, I find reading your posts very uninformative and relatively amusing. You always seem to get your knickers in a twist on specific words rather than phrases. At no point do I state that "all" people on benefits have these items which you continue to imply, the phrase I used was "all seem to have". This is rather open eneded, like saying you may do something does not mean you are in fact going too. Once again I did not claim to know everyone on benefits or their circumstances which lead to them being on benefits. I stated that those whom I know that are on benefits (some have never worked a day in their lifes) have most if not all of the items on that list. As for the Royals, could not agree more as I have never been a Royalist. This month my payslip showed that £601 was taken from from salary (£413 Tax and £187 NI). I could have used that £413 to better the lifes of my own family, put towards buying a bigger house so I could have a spare bedroom and basically prevent me struggling month after month trying to make ends meet. But apparently my it's acceptable for my kids to go without even though I work as long as a nation we look after the poor whether they are sick,aged or just lazy. On topic, bedroom tax, gets the big thumbs up from me, why should tax payers continue to pay for houses accupied by those on benefits which exceeds their requirements. Its about time tax £s got used to better the country and not just the lives of those on benefits. MartinMo
  • Score: 4

11:14am Thu 24 Apr 14

Jonn says...

MartinMo wrote:
TPM, I find reading your posts very uninformative and relatively amusing. You always seem to get your knickers in a twist on specific words rather than phrases.

At no point do I state that "all" people on benefits have these items which you continue to imply, the phrase I used was "all seem to have". This is rather open eneded, like saying you may do something does not mean you are in fact going too.

Once again I did not claim to know everyone on benefits or their circumstances which lead to them being on benefits. I stated that those whom I know that are on benefits (some have never worked a day in their lifes) have most if not all of the items on that list.

As for the Royals, could not agree more as I have never been a Royalist.

This month my payslip showed that £601 was taken from from salary (£413 Tax and £187 NI). I could have used that £413 to better the lifes of my own family, put towards buying a bigger house so I could have a spare bedroom and basically prevent me struggling month after month trying to make ends meet. But apparently my it's acceptable for my kids to go without even though I work as long as a nation we look after the poor whether they are sick,aged or just lazy.

On topic, bedroom tax, gets the big thumbs up from me, why should tax payers continue to pay for houses accupied by those on benefits which exceeds their requirements. Its about time tax £s got used to better the country and not just the lives of those on benefits.
Did you have concerns about these people living in properties exceeding their requirements before the bedroom tax was introduced?
Did you know that out of the 660,000 households affected, 440,000 are disabled, many with adapted properties and needing extra space for overnight carers or machinery such as dialysis machines etc..?
Do you know that the Government announced this policy was to 'free up' larger properties even though their own impact assessment concluded the amount expected to move was negligible? After 1 year ,96% haven't moved.
It appears you have all been lied to.
[quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: TPM, I find reading your posts very uninformative and relatively amusing. You always seem to get your knickers in a twist on specific words rather than phrases. At no point do I state that "all" people on benefits have these items which you continue to imply, the phrase I used was "all seem to have". This is rather open eneded, like saying you may do something does not mean you are in fact going too. Once again I did not claim to know everyone on benefits or their circumstances which lead to them being on benefits. I stated that those whom I know that are on benefits (some have never worked a day in their lifes) have most if not all of the items on that list. As for the Royals, could not agree more as I have never been a Royalist. This month my payslip showed that £601 was taken from from salary (£413 Tax and £187 NI). I could have used that £413 to better the lifes of my own family, put towards buying a bigger house so I could have a spare bedroom and basically prevent me struggling month after month trying to make ends meet. But apparently my it's acceptable for my kids to go without even though I work as long as a nation we look after the poor whether they are sick,aged or just lazy. On topic, bedroom tax, gets the big thumbs up from me, why should tax payers continue to pay for houses accupied by those on benefits which exceeds their requirements. Its about time tax £s got used to better the country and not just the lives of those on benefits.[/p][/quote]Did you have concerns about these people living in properties exceeding their requirements before the bedroom tax was introduced? Did you know that out of the 660,000 households affected, 440,000 are disabled, many with adapted properties and needing extra space for overnight carers or machinery such as dialysis machines etc..? Do you know that the Government announced this policy was to 'free up' larger properties even though their own impact assessment concluded the amount expected to move was negligible? After 1 year ,96% haven't moved. It appears you have all been lied to. Jonn
  • Score: -3

12:17pm Thu 24 Apr 14

DarloXman says...

The removal of the "extra bedroom subsidy" is just one element of the many needed welfare reforms.

The benefit system that was established under the Blair/Brown Labour government created incentives for many not to provide for themselves - but to breed - and then they will have a comfortable long term lifestyle provided by the state - at no cost to, nor with any effort required from themselves! The has created an entitlement culture where those who are contributing nothing know of no other times and now demand their rights!

This was never what Bevan intended and it is not something that is fair on the taxpayer, nor can it be afforded - Blair/Brown only financed it by their inept borrowing!. The welfare system should support those of us who fall on hard times to help us back onto our feet and also those who are genuinely unable to provide for themselves long term - but should not be a long term option of choice.

The "left" are full of criticism of any changes to the system - yet always fail to say how they would provide an affordable and fair system - to both the receiver of state support and the tax payers who have to pay for it!

The "right" have been very slow in implementing the necessary changes and also have made a mess of some of the new legislation but at least they are trying to go in the necessary direction.
The removal of the "extra bedroom subsidy" is just one element of the many needed welfare reforms. The benefit system that was established under the Blair/Brown Labour government created incentives for many not to provide for themselves - but to breed - and then they will have a comfortable long term lifestyle provided by the state - at no cost to, nor with any effort required from themselves! The has created an entitlement culture where those who are contributing nothing know of no other times and now demand their rights! This was never what Bevan intended and it is not something that is fair on the taxpayer, nor can it be afforded - Blair/Brown only financed it by their inept borrowing!. The welfare system should support those of us who fall on hard times to help us back onto our feet and also those who are genuinely unable to provide for themselves long term - but should not be a long term option of choice. The "left" are full of criticism of any changes to the system - yet always fail to say how they would provide an affordable and fair system - to both the receiver of state support and the tax payers who have to pay for it! The "right" have been very slow in implementing the necessary changes and also have made a mess of some of the new legislation but at least they are trying to go in the necessary direction. DarloXman
  • Score: 6

12:41pm Thu 24 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
The shortage of Social Sector Housing, started with the Thatcher government in the 80's and the bringing in of RTB. Housing stock was lost through sales but regulations prevented local authorities from using revenues generated, (that went into the councils coffers) on new builds, to replace depleted stock. I do not know the precise reason for this decision from central government but if I was to hazard a guess, I would be minded to put forward the theory that it had an ideological basis, vis a vis, the desire to get rid of the state owned rented sector, which was such an anchor on private rent prices and thereby allow the private rented sector, free rein, to increase rents higher and thus generate larger incomes for the private landlords, without the drag on prices of the public sector rented stock.
I think that the information is fairly available, councils were told to pay of borrowings before rebuilding more homes.
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: The shortage of Social Sector Housing, started with the Thatcher government in the 80's and the bringing in of RTB. Housing stock was lost through sales but regulations prevented local authorities from using revenues generated, (that went into the councils coffers) on new builds, to replace depleted stock. I do not know the precise reason for this decision from central government but if I was to hazard a guess, I would be minded to put forward the theory that it had an ideological basis, vis a vis, the desire to get rid of the state owned rented sector, which was such an anchor on private rent prices and thereby allow the private rented sector, free rein, to increase rents higher and thus generate larger incomes for the private landlords, without the drag on prices of the public sector rented stock.[/p][/quote]I think that the information is fairly available, councils were told to pay of borrowings before rebuilding more homes. laboursfoe
  • Score: 1

12:42pm Thu 24 Apr 14

bambara says...

Unemployment benefit accounts for approximately £5 billion out of over £150 Billion of the UK benefits bill.

£1 in every 30.

The rest is made up of pensions, disability benefits and benefits for those in work but being paid poverty wages by the employers.

The unemployed are a drop in the ocean, but they are a good way of distracting the voters from the real parasites, those who are avoiding many times the total bill for the unemployed in tax every year.
Unemployment benefit accounts for approximately £5 billion out of over £150 Billion of the UK benefits bill. £1 in every 30. The rest is made up of pensions, disability benefits and benefits for those in work but being paid poverty wages by the employers. The unemployed are a drop in the ocean, but they are a good way of distracting the voters from the real parasites, those who are avoiding many times the total bill for the unemployed in tax every year. bambara
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Thu 24 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

Jonn wrote:
MartinMo wrote:
TPM, I find reading your posts very uninformative and relatively amusing. You always seem to get your knickers in a twist on specific words rather than phrases.

At no point do I state that "all" people on benefits have these items which you continue to imply, the phrase I used was "all seem to have". This is rather open eneded, like saying you may do something does not mean you are in fact going too.

Once again I did not claim to know everyone on benefits or their circumstances which lead to them being on benefits. I stated that those whom I know that are on benefits (some have never worked a day in their lifes) have most if not all of the items on that list.

As for the Royals, could not agree more as I have never been a Royalist.

This month my payslip showed that £601 was taken from from salary (£413 Tax and £187 NI). I could have used that £413 to better the lifes of my own family, put towards buying a bigger house so I could have a spare bedroom and basically prevent me struggling month after month trying to make ends meet. But apparently my it's acceptable for my kids to go without even though I work as long as a nation we look after the poor whether they are sick,aged or just lazy.

On topic, bedroom tax, gets the big thumbs up from me, why should tax payers continue to pay for houses accupied by those on benefits which exceeds their requirements. Its about time tax £s got used to better the country and not just the lives of those on benefits.
Did you have concerns about these people living in properties exceeding their requirements before the bedroom tax was introduced?
Did you know that out of the 660,000 households affected, 440,000 are disabled, many with adapted properties and needing extra space for overnight carers or machinery such as dialysis machines etc..?
Do you know that the Government announced this policy was to 'free up' larger properties even though their own impact assessment concluded the amount expected to move was negligible? After 1 year ,96% haven't moved.
It appears you have all been lied to.
I had concerns that families were being put up in B&B's because there were not homes with enough bedrooms available.

Spare Room Subsidy was designed to address the balance hat but instead it is being used by beneficiaries to smokescreen it as an attack on the poor and mask that not enough social house building was completed in the boom years.
[quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: TPM, I find reading your posts very uninformative and relatively amusing. You always seem to get your knickers in a twist on specific words rather than phrases. At no point do I state that "all" people on benefits have these items which you continue to imply, the phrase I used was "all seem to have". This is rather open eneded, like saying you may do something does not mean you are in fact going too. Once again I did not claim to know everyone on benefits or their circumstances which lead to them being on benefits. I stated that those whom I know that are on benefits (some have never worked a day in their lifes) have most if not all of the items on that list. As for the Royals, could not agree more as I have never been a Royalist. This month my payslip showed that £601 was taken from from salary (£413 Tax and £187 NI). I could have used that £413 to better the lifes of my own family, put towards buying a bigger house so I could have a spare bedroom and basically prevent me struggling month after month trying to make ends meet. But apparently my it's acceptable for my kids to go without even though I work as long as a nation we look after the poor whether they are sick,aged or just lazy. On topic, bedroom tax, gets the big thumbs up from me, why should tax payers continue to pay for houses accupied by those on benefits which exceeds their requirements. Its about time tax £s got used to better the country and not just the lives of those on benefits.[/p][/quote]Did you have concerns about these people living in properties exceeding their requirements before the bedroom tax was introduced? Did you know that out of the 660,000 households affected, 440,000 are disabled, many with adapted properties and needing extra space for overnight carers or machinery such as dialysis machines etc..? Do you know that the Government announced this policy was to 'free up' larger properties even though their own impact assessment concluded the amount expected to move was negligible? After 1 year ,96% haven't moved. It appears you have all been lied to.[/p][/quote]I had concerns that families were being put up in B&B's because there were not homes with enough bedrooms available. Spare Room Subsidy was designed to address the balance hat but instead it is being used by beneficiaries to smokescreen it as an attack on the poor and mask that not enough social house building was completed in the boom years. laboursfoe
  • Score: 2

1:08pm Thu 24 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

John says:

Did you have concerns about these people living in properties exceeding their requirements before the bedroom tax was introduced?
Did you know that out of the 660,000 households affected, 440,000 are disabled, many with adapted properties and needing extra space for overnight carers or machinery such as dialysis machines etc..?
Do you know that the Government announced this policy was to 'free up' larger properties even though their own impact assessment concluded the amount expected to move was negligible? After 1 year ,96% haven't moved.
It appears you have all been lied to.

To your first question, yes, I was in fact raised through my complete child hood in the benefit culture. I watched my parents squander the benefit cheques on tobacco products and alcohol whilst occupying a 4 bed house due to having 5 kids. This behaviour disgusted me through my young teenage years and I swore blind to be better than that. Oddly enough, even after we grew older and left home and then my parents marriage broke up my father still took up residence until his dying day in that 4 bed home.

Do dialysis machines require a room of their own? If someone is in such bad health they require 24/7 carer then surely they would be better housed in a purpose built environment such as care homes.

And if they dont move they pay for the extra space that most working class taxpayers can only dream of having in their own bought and paid for homes.

It gets quite tiresome having people bleating about how hard done by those on benefits are, try working for a living in this Robin Hood culture, watching you hard earned cash being stolen from under your nose and not a thing you can do to prevent it happening without facing some sort of punishment. It only makes it worse when you see your money being given to some lazy yob who claims it's not enough whilst holding his £500 mobile phone, wearing brand new nike trainers standing outside the local kebab shop waiting for his £30 food order.
John says: Did you have concerns about these people living in properties exceeding their requirements before the bedroom tax was introduced? Did you know that out of the 660,000 households affected, 440,000 are disabled, many with adapted properties and needing extra space for overnight carers or machinery such as dialysis machines etc..? Do you know that the Government announced this policy was to 'free up' larger properties even though their own impact assessment concluded the amount expected to move was negligible? After 1 year ,96% haven't moved. It appears you have all been lied to. To your first question, yes, I was in fact raised through my complete child hood in the benefit culture. I watched my parents squander the benefit cheques on tobacco products and alcohol whilst occupying a 4 bed house due to having 5 kids. This behaviour disgusted me through my young teenage years and I swore blind to be better than that. Oddly enough, even after we grew older and left home and then my parents marriage broke up my father still took up residence until his dying day in that 4 bed home. Do dialysis machines require a room of their own? If someone is in such bad health they require 24/7 carer then surely they would be better housed in a purpose built environment such as care homes. And if they dont move they pay for the extra space that most working class taxpayers can only dream of having in their own bought and paid for homes. It gets quite tiresome having people bleating about how hard done by those on benefits are, try working for a living in this Robin Hood culture, watching you hard earned cash being stolen from under your nose and not a thing you can do to prevent it happening without facing some sort of punishment. It only makes it worse when you see your money being given to some lazy yob who claims it's not enough whilst holding his £500 mobile phone, wearing brand new nike trainers standing outside the local kebab shop waiting for his £30 food order. MartinMo
  • Score: 2

1:20pm Thu 24 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Did you have concerns about these people living in properties exceeding their requirements before the bedroom tax was introduced?
Did you know that out of the 660,000 households affected, 440,000 are disabled, many with adapted properties and needing extra space for overnight carers or machinery such as dialysis machines etc..?
Do you know that the Government announced this policy was to 'free up' larger properties even though their own impact assessment concluded the amount expected to move was negligible? After 1 year ,96% haven't moved.
It appears you have all been lied to.

John, these are the inconvenient truths that some on here do not wish to hear. Another is, that far from saving money, (which was and is a lie) the spare room supplement costs money. Someone moved out of "social housing", because of extra rooms, will more likely than not, have to find accommodation in the private rented sector. Whilst in no way subsidised, rent in the social housing sector, are a lot less than in the "private rental sector", where even for 1 bedroom accommodation, the costs are a lot more.
It may be inconvenient for the likes of MartinMo to admit but smaller accommodation, ie 1 bedroom accommodation, either does not exist, or is at premium!
In the area in which I live, a whole estate, The lawns in Seaham, comprised totally of one bedroom houses, was demolished some 10 or so years ago. Some 600/700 houses in total. they were hard to let, many stood empty, and the cost of securing them and maintenance, problematic. Another consideration, an enlightened view, that people should have the space to have a relative, or carer stay with them. That in a so-called civilised society, this was the way to go. A view shared, at that time, across the political spectrum. This is no longer the case. The demonization of those less fortunate, is the order of the day.
As I have said, the spare room subsidy, will not save money, nor free up space for "larger families", the relevant housing to enable downsizing does not exist, one bedroom accommodation that does exist in the private sector, which is few and far between, costing considerably more, than even 2 or 3 bedroom accommodation in the "Social Housing Sector".
These are "facts", indisputable and in the public domain.
MM, you may say,
TPM, I find reading your posts very uninformative and relatively amusing, that is your interpretation! Far from finding your posts and those from others with a similar bent, amusing, I find them worrying, disturbing and not a little scary, using as they do, apocryphal and anecdotal claims, put forward as "fact"!
The specific to the general, some swinging the lead, to all up to no good! I cannot, in good conscience, stand by and allow this nonsense to go unremarked, nor I suspect, as is proved by other posts above, will others!!!
Did you have concerns about these people living in properties exceeding their requirements before the bedroom tax was introduced? Did you know that out of the 660,000 households affected, 440,000 are disabled, many with adapted properties and needing extra space for overnight carers or machinery such as dialysis machines etc..? Do you know that the Government announced this policy was to 'free up' larger properties even though their own impact assessment concluded the amount expected to move was negligible? After 1 year ,96% haven't moved. It appears you have all been lied to. John, these are the inconvenient truths that some on here do not wish to hear. Another is, that far from saving money, (which was and is a lie) the spare room supplement costs money. Someone moved out of "social housing", because of extra rooms, will more likely than not, have to find accommodation in the private rented sector. Whilst in no way subsidised, rent in the social housing sector, are a lot less than in the "private rental sector", where even for 1 bedroom accommodation, the costs are a lot more. It may be inconvenient for the likes of MartinMo to admit but smaller accommodation, ie 1 bedroom accommodation, either does not exist, or is at premium! In the area in which I live, a whole estate, The lawns in Seaham, comprised totally of one bedroom houses, was demolished some 10 or so years ago. Some 600/700 houses in total. they were hard to let, many stood empty, and the cost of securing them and maintenance, problematic. Another consideration, an enlightened view, that people should have the space to have a relative, or carer stay with them. That in a so-called civilised society, this was the way to go. A view shared, at that time, across the political spectrum. This is no longer the case. The demonization of those less fortunate, is the order of the day. As I have said, the spare room subsidy, will not save money, nor free up space for "larger families", the relevant housing to enable downsizing does not exist, one bedroom accommodation that does exist in the private sector, which is few and far between, costing considerably more, than even 2 or 3 bedroom accommodation in the "Social Housing Sector". These are "facts", indisputable and in the public domain. MM, you may say, TPM, I find reading your posts very uninformative and relatively amusing, that is your interpretation! Far from finding your posts and those from others with a similar bent, amusing, I find them worrying, disturbing and not a little scary, using as they do, apocryphal and anecdotal claims, put forward as "fact"! The specific to the general, some swinging the lead, to all up to no good! I cannot, in good conscience, stand by and allow this nonsense to go unremarked, nor I suspect, as is proved by other posts above, will others!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -4

1:22pm Thu 24 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

bambara wrote:
Unemployment benefit accounts for approximately £5 billion out of over £150 Billion of the UK benefits bill.

£1 in every 30.

The rest is made up of pensions, disability benefits and benefits for those in work but being paid poverty wages by the employers.

The unemployed are a drop in the ocean, but they are a good way of distracting the voters from the real parasites, those who are avoiding many times the total bill for the unemployed in tax every year.
You will find though that unemployment benefit in a lot of cases walks hand in hand with child allowance, child tax credits, housing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental care, school meals, exempt coucil tax.

With that in mind and taking the uk average family size as 2 adults (both claiming) and 2 kids occupying 3 bed homes (most now at private rental costing) you will find that the amount paid to pensions, disability benefits and benefits for those in work but being paid poverty wages by the employers is a hell of a lot less.
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Unemployment benefit accounts for approximately £5 billion out of over £150 Billion of the UK benefits bill. £1 in every 30. The rest is made up of pensions, disability benefits and benefits for those in work but being paid poverty wages by the employers. The unemployed are a drop in the ocean, but they are a good way of distracting the voters from the real parasites, those who are avoiding many times the total bill for the unemployed in tax every year.[/p][/quote]You will find though that unemployment benefit in a lot of cases walks hand in hand with child allowance, child tax credits, housing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental care, school meals, exempt coucil tax. With that in mind and taking the uk average family size as 2 adults (both claiming) and 2 kids occupying 3 bed homes (most now at private rental costing) you will find that the amount paid to pensions, disability benefits and benefits for those in work but being paid poverty wages by the employers is a hell of a lot less. MartinMo
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Thu 24 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

TPM

The truths are:
We live in a Robin Hood Culture but over the years the poor have turned against Robin for not stealing enough for them.

Parents teach a child to stand on thier own 2 feet, the benefit system does completely the opposite.

The only way out of poverty should be to work your way out.

People who work for their living should be allowed to keep a lot more of what they earn and only be expected to pay for what they themselves or their family require.

Segmented fresh water blood sucking worms take offence at those on benefits being called leeches.

Benefits are not entitlements, they are charity.

Beggars cannot be choosers.
TPM The truths are: We live in a Robin Hood Culture but over the years the poor have turned against Robin for not stealing enough for them. Parents teach a child to stand on thier own 2 feet, the benefit system does completely the opposite. The only way out of poverty should be to work your way out. People who work for their living should be allowed to keep a lot more of what they earn and only be expected to pay for what they themselves or their family require. Segmented fresh water blood sucking worms take offence at those on benefits being called leeches. Benefits are not entitlements, they are charity. Beggars cannot be choosers. MartinMo
  • Score: 4

1:45pm Thu 24 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

laboursfoe wrote:
tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
The shortage of Social Sector Housing, started with the Thatcher government in the 80's and the bringing in of RTB. Housing stock was lost through sales but regulations prevented local authorities from using revenues generated, (that went into the councils coffers) on new builds, to replace depleted stock. I do not know the precise reason for this decision from central government but if I was to hazard a guess, I would be minded to put forward the theory that it had an ideological basis, vis a vis, the desire to get rid of the state owned rented sector, which was such an anchor on private rent prices and thereby allow the private rented sector, free rein, to increase rents higher and thus generate larger incomes for the private landlords, without the drag on prices of the public sector rented stock.
I think that the information is fairly available, councils were told to pay of borrowings before rebuilding more homes.
Sorry LF, but you are incorrect. Easington District Council, which is the area within which I reside, had no such debts to pay off in the mid 80's. The monies, were kept in the HRA, (housing revenue account) and the Council was specifically prevented from spending money on new build housing.
Selling off stock and providing no replacement, has us in the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in today. A state of affairs, which was all so unnecessary and entirely predictable. Act in haste, repent at leisure , may be an entirely appropriate metaphor, but does no good whatsoever, either to those unable to find sufficiently large accommodation for their needs, nor to those unable to downsize because of the unavailability of relevant accommodation, but who are nonetheless punished and fined (that is an entirely appropriate wording of the situation of the "bedroom tax"), for factors outside of their control.
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: The shortage of Social Sector Housing, started with the Thatcher government in the 80's and the bringing in of RTB. Housing stock was lost through sales but regulations prevented local authorities from using revenues generated, (that went into the councils coffers) on new builds, to replace depleted stock. I do not know the precise reason for this decision from central government but if I was to hazard a guess, I would be minded to put forward the theory that it had an ideological basis, vis a vis, the desire to get rid of the state owned rented sector, which was such an anchor on private rent prices and thereby allow the private rented sector, free rein, to increase rents higher and thus generate larger incomes for the private landlords, without the drag on prices of the public sector rented stock.[/p][/quote]I think that the information is fairly available, councils were told to pay of borrowings before rebuilding more homes.[/p][/quote]Sorry LF, but you are incorrect. Easington District Council, which is the area within which I reside, had no such debts to pay off in the mid 80's. The monies, were kept in the HRA, (housing revenue account) and the Council was specifically prevented from spending money on new build housing. Selling off stock and providing no replacement, has us in the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in today. A state of affairs, which was all so unnecessary and entirely predictable. Act in haste, repent at leisure , may be an entirely appropriate metaphor, but does no good whatsoever, either to those unable to find sufficiently large accommodation for their needs, nor to those unable to downsize because of the unavailability of relevant accommodation, but who are nonetheless punished and fined (that is an entirely appropriate wording of the situation of the "bedroom tax"), for factors outside of their control. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 1

1:58pm Thu 24 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

MartinMo, you state "You will find though that unemployment benefit in a lot of cases walks hand in hand with child allowance, child tax credits, housing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental care, school meals, exempt coucil tax."
Why have you not mentioned in your diatribe that, as many, if not more people who are employed, also qualify for child benefit, housing and council tax benefits, in some cases free school meals, working tax credits. If earning less than a prescribed amount, help with prescription costs etc? I will ask again, why have you not mention this? Does it not fit in with your narrow minded, view of benefit claimants, as idle, scrounging loafers? Benefit claimants who are actually employed, sort of dents your argument, re benefit claimants, does it not!!!
MartinMo, you state "You will find though that unemployment benefit in a lot of cases walks hand in hand with child allowance, child tax credits, housing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental care, school meals, exempt coucil tax." Why have you not mentioned in your diatribe that, as many, if not more people who are employed, also qualify for child benefit, housing and council tax benefits, in some cases free school meals, working tax credits. If earning less than a prescribed amount, help with prescription costs etc? I will ask again, why have you not mention this? Does it not fit in with your narrow minded, view of benefit claimants, as idle, scrounging loafers? Benefit claimants who are actually employed, sort of dents your argument, re benefit claimants, does it not!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -1

2:00pm Thu 24 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
The shortage of Social Sector Housing, started with the Thatcher government in the 80's and the bringing in of RTB. Housing stock was lost through sales but regulations prevented local authorities from using revenues generated, (that went into the councils coffers) on new builds, to replace depleted stock. I do not know the precise reason for this decision from central government but if I was to hazard a guess, I would be minded to put forward the theory that it had an ideological basis, vis a vis, the desire to get rid of the state owned rented sector, which was such an anchor on private rent prices and thereby allow the private rented sector, free rein, to increase rents higher and thus generate larger incomes for the private landlords, without the drag on prices of the public sector rented stock.
I think that the information is fairly available, councils were told to pay of borrowings before rebuilding more homes.
Sorry LF, but you are incorrect. Easington District Council, which is the area within which I reside, had no such debts to pay off in the mid 80's. The monies, were kept in the HRA, (housing revenue account) and the Council was specifically prevented from spending money on new build housing.
Selling off stock and providing no replacement, has us in the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in today. A state of affairs, which was all so unnecessary and entirely predictable. Act in haste, repent at leisure , may be an entirely appropriate metaphor, but does no good whatsoever, either to those unable to find sufficiently large accommodation for their needs, nor to those unable to downsize because of the unavailability of relevant accommodation, but who are nonetheless punished and fined (that is an entirely appropriate wording of the situation of the "bedroom tax"), for factors outside of their control.
Ok, I accept Easington.

How was that money spent and why was there no action post 1997?

My remote office was Peterlee from 2000 to 2006 and I used to pop over often, I used to see the area and saw that the estates popping up were all private. However as most of the work was agency based people had no hope of owning and many still rented.

So umiak housing was prime for this area but completely overlooked.
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: The shortage of Social Sector Housing, started with the Thatcher government in the 80's and the bringing in of RTB. Housing stock was lost through sales but regulations prevented local authorities from using revenues generated, (that went into the councils coffers) on new builds, to replace depleted stock. I do not know the precise reason for this decision from central government but if I was to hazard a guess, I would be minded to put forward the theory that it had an ideological basis, vis a vis, the desire to get rid of the state owned rented sector, which was such an anchor on private rent prices and thereby allow the private rented sector, free rein, to increase rents higher and thus generate larger incomes for the private landlords, without the drag on prices of the public sector rented stock.[/p][/quote]I think that the information is fairly available, councils were told to pay of borrowings before rebuilding more homes.[/p][/quote]Sorry LF, but you are incorrect. Easington District Council, which is the area within which I reside, had no such debts to pay off in the mid 80's. The monies, were kept in the HRA, (housing revenue account) and the Council was specifically prevented from spending money on new build housing. Selling off stock and providing no replacement, has us in the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in today. A state of affairs, which was all so unnecessary and entirely predictable. Act in haste, repent at leisure , may be an entirely appropriate metaphor, but does no good whatsoever, either to those unable to find sufficiently large accommodation for their needs, nor to those unable to downsize because of the unavailability of relevant accommodation, but who are nonetheless punished and fined (that is an entirely appropriate wording of the situation of the "bedroom tax"), for factors outside of their control.[/p][/quote]Ok, I accept Easington. How was that money spent and why was there no action post 1997? My remote office was Peterlee from 2000 to 2006 and I used to pop over often, I used to see the area and saw that the estates popping up were all private. However as most of the work was agency based people had no hope of owning and many still rented. So umiak housing was prime for this area but completely overlooked. laboursfoe
  • Score: 1

2:47pm Thu 24 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Apart from knowing categorically, that the monies raised from RTB, were not to be used on new build housing, I cannot remember the specifics of spending over 30 years ago.
As for why there was no action taken post the 97 election, I have nary a clue. But being an opponent of Labour, both old and new varieties, this is hardly surprising. What I can and do say, is that the actions, or rather inactions, of successive administrations, have led us to the sorry state of affairs we have today, in Social housing specifically but also in housing, in general.
Apart from knowing categorically, that the monies raised from RTB, were not to be used on new build housing, I cannot remember the specifics of spending over 30 years ago. As for why there was no action taken post the 97 election, I have nary a clue. But being an opponent of Labour, both old and new varieties, this is hardly surprising. What I can and do say, is that the actions, or rather inactions, of successive administrations, have led us to the sorry state of affairs we have today, in Social housing specifically but also in housing, in general. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -2

2:57pm Thu 24 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

Tpm

I in fact do mention those claiming benefits whilst working. However there is in fact a big difference in those whom get top up benefitsdue to low income and those in receipt of working tax credits.

To back this up I previously stated in an earlier post that that month my salary was hit for £414 (actual figure discluding pence) and £187 NI. In addition to this another £96 will be deducted as council tax from my bank as a direct debit. In total thats £697 stolen at source from my monthly earnings. Now I receive £40 as working tax credit but in what way is this a benefit, it was taken from me in the first place. If I was to receive a payment of £731 as working tax credit then and only then could I be accused of receiving £40 in benefits.
Tpm I in fact do mention those claiming benefits whilst working. However there is in fact a big difference in those whom get top up benefitsdue to low income and those in receipt of working tax credits. To back this up I previously stated in an earlier post that that month my salary was hit for £414 (actual figure discluding pence) and £187 NI. In addition to this another £96 will be deducted as council tax from my bank as a direct debit. In total thats £697 stolen at source from my monthly earnings. Now I receive £40 as working tax credit but in what way is this a benefit, it was taken from me in the first place. If I was to receive a payment of £731 as working tax credit then and only then could I be accused of receiving £40 in benefits. MartinMo
  • Score: -2

3:10pm Thu 24 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

On topic though, it's not about available housing and disappearing estates. My main arguement is why should the nations tax payers be expected to continue to pay to house the individuals occupying homes larger than their requirements.

Why should they have extra rooms for visiting friends or family to stay in at the expense of someone else. I have friends and family, some of them travel great distances to visit but I dont have any spare rooms in the home I pay for so where do they stay, in benefit paid for bed and breakfast/hotels at the tax payers expense.
When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax.
On topic though, it's not about available housing and disappearing estates. My main arguement is why should the nations tax payers be expected to continue to pay to house the individuals occupying homes larger than their requirements. Why should they have extra rooms for visiting friends or family to stay in at the expense of someone else. I have friends and family, some of them travel great distances to visit but I dont have any spare rooms in the home I pay for so where do they stay, in benefit paid for bed and breakfast/hotels at the tax payers expense. When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax. MartinMo
  • Score: 1

3:38pm Thu 24 Apr 14

RealLivin says...

Quoted from the article above
“In London the issue is the extortionate cost of housing, to buy or to rent, exceeding the benefit cap."

“In the North-East it is the ‘bedroom tax’ that is causing particular hardship as our housing stock is dominated by two and three bedroom family homes with very few flats and apartments."

“There are simply not the smaller properties for people to downsize into and tenants are caught in the ‘bedroom tax’ poverty trap.”

I would love a beach front property on some millionaires row, but until that lottery win comes in I am stuck where I am and I would not think once let alone twice about asking others to pay for it.

If you cant afford to live in London move out, if you are on long term benefits your rent should cease to be paid by the state, the upshot of this is either wages will rise until workers can afford to move into London or business will move out. But this London issue was "fixed" by this bedroom tax and then forcibly rolled out across other areas where the problem did not exist or there were underlying issues that meant this wont work, as in not enough smaller housing, therefore the poverty trap is closed and very difficult to get out of.

Again spend the money where it will do the most good, paying one house rent in London would cover 2 or three up in the north east if not more, it makes business sense to spend your money in the north east you will get more for it. The same should apply every where, but those in genuine hardship need to be given the chance to get back on their feet before being forced out, this should also apply to those who own their homes, ie mortgages put on hold for a period with no interest penalties, else we have homes repossessed and sat empty while the ex occupants are in B&B at tax payers expenses waiting for a council house that is not coming because there aren't any.

We could spend years and the entire budget of the benefits system fixing it, however the most cost effective way is to create real permanent jobs with real living wages and this is what the government must take the lead in . If people can afford to come off benefits then we only have the scroungers left and thats easily dealt with. The benefits system is there to assist those hard up, out of work or unable to work through no fault of their own, it is NOT a life style.
Quoted from the article above “In London the issue is the extortionate cost of housing, to buy or to rent, exceeding the benefit cap." “In the North-East it is the ‘bedroom tax’ that is causing particular hardship as our housing stock is dominated by two and three bedroom family homes with very few flats and apartments." “There are simply not the smaller properties for people to downsize into and tenants are caught in the ‘bedroom tax’ poverty trap.” I would love a beach front property on some millionaires row, but until that lottery win comes in I am stuck where I am and I would not think once let alone twice about asking others to pay for it. If you cant afford to live in London move out, if you are on long term benefits your rent should cease to be paid by the state, the upshot of this is either wages will rise until workers can afford to move into London or business will move out. But this London issue was "fixed" by this bedroom tax and then forcibly rolled out across other areas where the problem did not exist or there were underlying issues that meant this wont work, as in not enough smaller housing, therefore the poverty trap is closed and very difficult to get out of. Again spend the money where it will do the most good, paying one house rent in London would cover 2 or three up in the north east if not more, it makes business sense to spend your money in the north east you will get more for it. The same should apply every where, but those in genuine hardship need to be given the chance to get back on their feet before being forced out, this should also apply to those who own their homes, ie mortgages put on hold for a period with no interest penalties, else we have homes repossessed and sat empty while the ex occupants are in B&B at tax payers expenses waiting for a council house that is not coming because there aren't any. We could spend years and the entire budget of the benefits system fixing it, however the most cost effective way is to create real permanent jobs with real living wages and this is what the government must take the lead in . If people can afford to come off benefits then we only have the scroungers left and thats easily dealt with. The benefits system is there to assist those hard up, out of work or unable to work through no fault of their own, it is NOT a life style. RealLivin
  • Score: 2

4:38pm Thu 24 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

MartinMo wrote:
On topic though, it's not about available housing and disappearing estates. My main arguement is why should the nations tax payers be expected to continue to pay to house the individuals occupying homes larger than their requirements.

Why should they have extra rooms for visiting friends or family to stay in at the expense of someone else. I have friends and family, some of them travel great distances to visit but I dont have any spare rooms in the home I pay for so where do they stay, in benefit paid for bed and breakfast/hotels at the tax payers expense.
When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax.
Lets get this right. The difference in rent, between 3 and 2 bedroomed houses, then 2 and 1 bedroomed houses is approximately £6 to £12 , depending upon which comparison one is talking about.
As private rent levels have increased year on year, well above those in the social sector, moving from a 3 bedroom social housing house, to a 2 bedroom private rental house, would cost the "taxpayer" a lot more than the £12 involved if the swap was from these properties, both in the Social Rental Sector. A comparison that is also applicable to 2 to 1 bedroomed houses. As their is a severe dearth of 1 bedroomed accommodation in both sectors, in this instance this is a moot point.
You simply cannot, or simply refuse, to get your head around these examples.
The real nub of your mindset however, is revealed in the final sentence of your post, which I quote above, but which bears citing again; "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax.
So there you have it, directly from you, no inferences or supposition, from outside sources. It is envy, pure and simple. You will 'change your tune on the "bedroom tax" ', when you get the same recompense, as others you take issue with! Not whether the tax is fair or not. Not whether the tax is working or not. But when "you" get yours dibs at the pie. Well I'll be a hornswaggled pig! If that don't beat all. All your ducking and diving on this thread and it was envy, all the time, pure and simple!!!
[quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: On topic though, it's not about available housing and disappearing estates. My main arguement is why should the nations tax payers be expected to continue to pay to house the individuals occupying homes larger than their requirements. Why should they have extra rooms for visiting friends or family to stay in at the expense of someone else. I have friends and family, some of them travel great distances to visit but I dont have any spare rooms in the home I pay for so where do they stay, in benefit paid for bed and breakfast/hotels at the tax payers expense. When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote]Lets get this right. The difference in rent, between 3 and 2 bedroomed houses, then 2 and 1 bedroomed houses is approximately £6 to £12 , depending upon which comparison one is talking about. As private rent levels have increased year on year, well above those in the social sector, moving from a 3 bedroom social housing house, to a 2 bedroom private rental house, would cost the "taxpayer" a lot more than the £12 involved if the swap was from these properties, both in the Social Rental Sector. A comparison that is also applicable to 2 to 1 bedroomed houses. As their is a severe dearth of 1 bedroomed accommodation in both sectors, in this instance this is a moot point. You simply cannot, or simply refuse, to get your head around these examples. The real nub of your mindset however, is revealed in the final sentence of your post, which I quote above, but which bears citing again; "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax. So there you have it, directly from you, no inferences or supposition, from outside sources. It is envy, pure and simple. You will 'change your tune on the "bedroom tax" ', when you get the same recompense, as others you take issue with! Not whether the tax is fair or not. Not whether the tax is working or not. But when "you" get yours dibs at the pie. Well I'll be a hornswaggled pig! If that don't beat all. All your ducking and diving on this thread and it was envy, all the time, pure and simple!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -3

4:52pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Jonn says...

MartinMo wrote:
Tpm

I in fact do mention those claiming benefits whilst working. However there is in fact a big difference in those whom get top up benefitsdue to low income and those in receipt of working tax credits.

To back this up I previously stated in an earlier post that that month my salary was hit for £414 (actual figure discluding pence) and £187 NI. In addition to this another £96 will be deducted as council tax from my bank as a direct debit. In total thats £697 stolen at source from my monthly earnings. Now I receive £40 as working tax credit but in what way is this a benefit, it was taken from me in the first place. If I was to receive a payment of £731 as working tax credit then and only then could I be accused of receiving £40 in benefits.
You claim working tax credit, but that's a benefit? Surely that walks hand in hand with child allowance, child tax credits, housing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental care, school meals, exempt/reduced council tax etc.........
[quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: Tpm I in fact do mention those claiming benefits whilst working. However there is in fact a big difference in those whom get top up benefitsdue to low income and those in receipt of working tax credits. To back this up I previously stated in an earlier post that that month my salary was hit for £414 (actual figure discluding pence) and £187 NI. In addition to this another £96 will be deducted as council tax from my bank as a direct debit. In total thats £697 stolen at source from my monthly earnings. Now I receive £40 as working tax credit but in what way is this a benefit, it was taken from me in the first place. If I was to receive a payment of £731 as working tax credit then and only then could I be accused of receiving £40 in benefits.[/p][/quote]You claim working tax credit, but that's a benefit? Surely that walks hand in hand with child allowance, child tax credits, housing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental care, school meals, exempt/reduced council tax etc......... Jonn
  • Score: -1

4:56pm Thu 24 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

John, from the horses mouth, as I've cited above, it's envy and jealousy, pure and simple. I don't think there is anything left to be said!
John, from the horses mouth, as I've cited above, it's envy and jealousy, pure and simple. I don't think there is anything left to be said! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -3

5:14pm Thu 24 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
John, from the horses mouth, as I've cited above, it's envy and jealousy, pure and simple. I don't think there is anything left to be said!
Envy and jealousy??? There's nothing I would want more than to be holed up in a council house..

Get real!!! No one wants to be in that position but if you are there and it is a comfortable situation then they are bound to be content.

I personally know of a builder and his wife that live in a council house, they go away on breaks every six weeks or so, drive a three year old car and have the life of Reilly. The sacrifice is that they live is a rough as hell area, but they get maintenance provided for their property, low rent, council tax benefits and recently had new double glazing and a brand new boiler.

Am I jealous?? No, I'm bl00dy astounded that they use the resources that there are more worthy and needy people than them deserve and require.
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: John, from the horses mouth, as I've cited above, it's envy and jealousy, pure and simple. I don't think there is anything left to be said![/p][/quote]Envy and jealousy??? There's nothing I would want more than to be holed up in a council house.. Get real!!! No one wants to be in that position but if you are there and it is a comfortable situation then they are bound to be content. I personally know of a builder and his wife that live in a council house, they go away on breaks every six weeks or so, drive a three year old car and have the life of Reilly. The sacrifice is that they live is a rough as hell area, but they get maintenance provided for their property, low rent, council tax benefits and recently had new double glazing and a brand new boiler. Am I jealous?? No, I'm bl00dy astounded that they use the resources that there are more worthy and needy people than them deserve and require. laboursfoe
  • Score: 4

5:25pm Thu 24 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Actually LF, if you had read the 5 or 6 posts above, you will see I am in no way referring to yourself. I am, in actual fact, repeating the words verbatim, of MartinMo. So please attend to what is said and to whom!
As for the builder, living in a "council" house. Rents on Social housing are not as low as people would lead us to believe. It is simply that the rents from this sector, are not set at a level the landlord can get away with but at fair and equitable levels. As for council tax benefits, if incomes are over a certain level, this benefit is not payable. If it is below a certain level, then benefit is paid incrementally. Benefit is not paid just because one is a social sector tenant but on income! Hope this clears up any misunderstanding?
Actually LF, if you had read the 5 or 6 posts above, you will see I am in no way referring to yourself. I am, in actual fact, repeating the words verbatim, of MartinMo. So please attend to what is said and to whom! As for the builder, living in a "council" house. Rents on Social housing are not as low as people would lead us to believe. It is simply that the rents from this sector, are not set at a level the landlord can get away with but at fair and equitable levels. As for council tax benefits, if incomes are over a certain level, this benefit is not payable. If it is below a certain level, then benefit is paid incrementally. Benefit is not paid just because one is a social sector tenant but on income! Hope this clears up any misunderstanding? tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -4

5:44pm Thu 24 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

Apologies, I misunderstood that comment as directed at a group of posters rather than an individual. Thanks for clarifying.

This builder I know takes as many cash jobs as he can get away with and works his banking/accounts favourably to ensure his income is minimised. This must happen up and down the country, not only is it tax avoidance but it is also incorrectly claiming valuable resources. I find it hard to stomach but what can you say.
Apologies, I misunderstood that comment as directed at a group of posters rather than an individual. Thanks for clarifying. This builder I know takes as many cash jobs as he can get away with and works his banking/accounts favourably to ensure his income is minimised. This must happen up and down the country, not only is it tax avoidance but it is also incorrectly claiming valuable resources. I find it hard to stomach but what can you say. laboursfoe
  • Score: 1

7:15pm Thu 24 Apr 14

bambara says...

"You will find though that unemployment benefit in a lot of cases walks hand in hand with child allowance, child tax credits, housing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental care, school meals, exempt coucil tax.

With that in mind and taking the uk average family size as 2 adults (both claiming) and 2 kids occupying 3 bed homes (most now at private rental costing) you will find that the amount paid to pensions, disability benefits nd benefits for those in work but being paid poverty wages by the employers is a hell of a lot less"

Incorrect,
Of £150 Billion Benefits bill 50% Approx is Pensions
Approx 50% of the remainder is disability related.
Much of the rest goes to the working poor, to subsidise poorly paid jobs.

Even if the unemployed all got jobs tomorrow on minimum wage the "child allowance, child tax credits, housing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental care, school meals, exempt coucil tax." would remain.

So given that 2 out of 3 of those impacted by the bedroom tax are disabled, and as such really not in a position to move house without the aid of a removals firm, how do you propose they find the extra £6000 required to move into a smaller home out of their benefits?
"You will find though that unemployment benefit in a lot of cases walks hand in hand with child allowance, child tax credits, housing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental care, school meals, exempt coucil tax. With that in mind and taking the uk average family size as 2 adults (both claiming) and 2 kids occupying 3 bed homes (most now at private rental costing) you will find that the amount paid to pensions, disability benefits nd benefits for those in work but being paid poverty wages by the employers is a hell of a lot less" Incorrect, Of £150 Billion Benefits bill 50% Approx is Pensions Approx 50% of the remainder is disability related. Much of the rest goes to the working poor, to subsidise poorly paid jobs. Even if the unemployed all got jobs tomorrow on minimum wage the "child allowance, child tax credits, housing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental care, school meals, exempt coucil tax." would remain. So given that 2 out of 3 of those impacted by the bedroom tax are disabled, and as such really not in a position to move house without the aid of a removals firm, how do you propose they find the extra £6000 required to move into a smaller home out of their benefits? bambara
  • Score: 1

7:26pm Thu 24 Apr 14

bambara says...

Note laboursfoe
"This builder I know takes as many cash jobs as he can get away with and works his banking/accounts favourably to ensure his income is minimised. This must happen up and down the country, not only is it tax avoidance but it is also incorrectly claiming valuable resources. I find it hard to stomach but what can you say."

What you can say is - Hello is that the Inland Revenue? I have some information for you regarding a person I believe to be breaking the law...
Note laboursfoe "This builder I know takes as many cash jobs as he can get away with and works his banking/accounts favourably to ensure his income is minimised. This must happen up and down the country, not only is it tax avoidance but it is also incorrectly claiming valuable resources. I find it hard to stomach but what can you say." What you can say is - Hello is that the Inland Revenue? I have some information for you regarding a person I believe to be breaking the law... bambara
  • Score: 3

9:15pm Thu 24 Apr 14

DarloXman says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
John, from the horses mouth, as I've cited above, it's envy and jealousy, pure and simple. I don't think there is anything left to be said!
Of course it's not envy nor jealousy - it is simply a case of injustice, unfairness!

Why should someone work hard and then be asked to pay tax to provide someone who chooses not to work a better standard of living than the worker? Why? Please tell me why that is fair to the tax paying worker?

I'm of course not talking about those in genuine need of support - I'm talking about those who choose not to work or through their own actions/behaviour make themselves unemployable!
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: John, from the horses mouth, as I've cited above, it's envy and jealousy, pure and simple. I don't think there is anything left to be said![/p][/quote]Of course it's not envy nor jealousy - it is simply a case of injustice, unfairness! Why should someone work hard and then be asked to pay tax to provide someone who chooses not to work a better standard of living than the worker? Why? Please tell me why that is fair to the tax paying worker? I'm of course not talking about those in genuine need of support - I'm talking about those who choose not to work or through their own actions/behaviour make themselves unemployable! DarloXman
  • Score: 3

10:56pm Thu 24 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

laboursfoe wrote:
Apologies, I misunderstood that comment as directed at a group of posters rather than an individual. Thanks for clarifying.

This builder I know takes as many cash jobs as he can get away with and works his banking/accounts favourably to ensure his income is minimised. This must happen up and down the country, not only is it tax avoidance but it is also incorrectly claiming valuable resources. I find it hard to stomach but what can you say.
I can say, LF, it is totally wrong, hard to stomach and just because it is perpetrated by someone, who would consider himself one of the lads, no less unconscionable. Because this guy is not "uber" wealthy, makes it no less objectionable and I hope he gets his "just deserts" If on top of tax evasion, by his fraudulent returns, he also qualifies himself for "council tax rebate", his actions are doubly deplorable!
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: Apologies, I misunderstood that comment as directed at a group of posters rather than an individual. Thanks for clarifying. This builder I know takes as many cash jobs as he can get away with and works his banking/accounts favourably to ensure his income is minimised. This must happen up and down the country, not only is it tax avoidance but it is also incorrectly claiming valuable resources. I find it hard to stomach but what can you say.[/p][/quote]I can say, LF, it is totally wrong, hard to stomach and just because it is perpetrated by someone, who would consider himself one of the lads, no less unconscionable. Because this guy is not "uber" wealthy, makes it no less objectionable and I hope he gets his "just deserts" If on top of tax evasion, by his fraudulent returns, he also qualifies himself for "council tax rebate", his actions are doubly deplorable! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -1

11:11pm Thu 24 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

DarloXman wrote:
tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
John, from the horses mouth, as I've cited above, it's envy and jealousy, pure and simple. I don't think there is anything left to be said!
Of course it's not envy nor jealousy - it is simply a case of injustice, unfairness!

Why should someone work hard and then be asked to pay tax to provide someone who chooses not to work a better standard of living than the worker? Why? Please tell me why that is fair to the tax paying worker?

I'm of course not talking about those in genuine need of support - I'm talking about those who choose not to work or through their own actions/behaviour make themselves unemployable!
Darlo, you are not really following the posts are you? Bambara has provided you with the figures, figures which you obviously choose to ignore! I have provided you with a "direct" quotation, from MartinMo himself! It is self explanatory and obvious and means what I said. He would not oppose the "bedroom tax", if he were getting his "cut" in some way. How hypocritical and two-faced is that. Unless your grasp of English has slipped, it is "envy and jealousy" and there are no two ways about it!
Lets recap, he said and I quote "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax." No argument regarding meaning, nor any other excuse, he said, explicitly, what he meant. End of discussion!
[quote][p][bold]DarloXman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: John, from the horses mouth, as I've cited above, it's envy and jealousy, pure and simple. I don't think there is anything left to be said![/p][/quote]Of course it's not envy nor jealousy - it is simply a case of injustice, unfairness! Why should someone work hard and then be asked to pay tax to provide someone who chooses not to work a better standard of living than the worker? Why? Please tell me why that is fair to the tax paying worker? I'm of course not talking about those in genuine need of support - I'm talking about those who choose not to work or through their own actions/behaviour make themselves unemployable![/p][/quote]Darlo, you are not really following the posts are you? Bambara has provided you with the figures, figures which you obviously choose to ignore! I have provided you with a "direct" quotation, from MartinMo himself! It is self explanatory and obvious and means what I said. He would not oppose the "bedroom tax", if he were getting his "cut" in some way. How hypocritical and two-faced is that. Unless your grasp of English has slipped, it is "envy and jealousy" and there are no two ways about it! Lets recap, he said and I quote "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax." No argument regarding meaning, nor any other excuse, he said, explicitly, what he meant. End of discussion! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -4

11:18pm Thu 24 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
Apologies, I misunderstood that comment as directed at a group of posters rather than an individual. Thanks for clarifying.

This builder I know takes as many cash jobs as he can get away with and works his banking/accounts favourably to ensure his income is minimised. This must happen up and down the country, not only is it tax avoidance but it is also incorrectly claiming valuable resources. I find it hard to stomach but what can you say.
I can say, LF, it is totally wrong, hard to stomach and just because it is perpetrated by someone, who would consider himself one of the lads, no less unconscionable. Because this guy is not "uber" wealthy, makes it no less objectionable and I hope he gets his "just deserts" If on top of tax evasion, by his fraudulent returns, he also qualifies himself for "council tax rebate", his actions are doubly deplorable!
Exactly, I think a tip off is coming.
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: Apologies, I misunderstood that comment as directed at a group of posters rather than an individual. Thanks for clarifying. This builder I know takes as many cash jobs as he can get away with and works his banking/accounts favourably to ensure his income is minimised. This must happen up and down the country, not only is it tax avoidance but it is also incorrectly claiming valuable resources. I find it hard to stomach but what can you say.[/p][/quote]I can say, LF, it is totally wrong, hard to stomach and just because it is perpetrated by someone, who would consider himself one of the lads, no less unconscionable. Because this guy is not "uber" wealthy, makes it no less objectionable and I hope he gets his "just deserts" If on top of tax evasion, by his fraudulent returns, he also qualifies himself for "council tax rebate", his actions are doubly deplorable![/p][/quote]Exactly, I think a tip off is coming. laboursfoe
  • Score: 2

11:35pm Thu 24 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

laboursfoe wrote:
tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
Apologies, I misunderstood that comment as directed at a group of posters rather than an individual. Thanks for clarifying.

This builder I know takes as many cash jobs as he can get away with and works his banking/accounts favourably to ensure his income is minimised. This must happen up and down the country, not only is it tax avoidance but it is also incorrectly claiming valuable resources. I find it hard to stomach but what can you say.
I can say, LF, it is totally wrong, hard to stomach and just because it is perpetrated by someone, who would consider himself one of the lads, no less unconscionable. Because this guy is not "uber" wealthy, makes it no less objectionable and I hope he gets his "just deserts" If on top of tax evasion, by his fraudulent returns, he also qualifies himself for "council tax rebate", his actions are doubly deplorable!
Exactly, I think a tip off is coming.
Yes, if we hold the wealthy to account for duplicity, can we treat those who claim to be one of "us", to any lesser standards? I think not!!!
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: Apologies, I misunderstood that comment as directed at a group of posters rather than an individual. Thanks for clarifying. This builder I know takes as many cash jobs as he can get away with and works his banking/accounts favourably to ensure his income is minimised. This must happen up and down the country, not only is it tax avoidance but it is also incorrectly claiming valuable resources. I find it hard to stomach but what can you say.[/p][/quote]I can say, LF, it is totally wrong, hard to stomach and just because it is perpetrated by someone, who would consider himself one of the lads, no less unconscionable. Because this guy is not "uber" wealthy, makes it no less objectionable and I hope he gets his "just deserts" If on top of tax evasion, by his fraudulent returns, he also qualifies himself for "council tax rebate", his actions are doubly deplorable![/p][/quote]Exactly, I think a tip off is coming.[/p][/quote]Yes, if we hold the wealthy to account for duplicity, can we treat those who claim to be one of "us", to any lesser standards? I think not!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 0

7:57am Fri 25 Apr 14

DarloXman says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
DarloXman wrote:
tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
John, from the horses mouth, as I've cited above, it's envy and jealousy, pure and simple. I don't think there is anything left to be said!
Of course it's not envy nor jealousy - it is simply a case of injustice, unfairness!

Why should someone work hard and then be asked to pay tax to provide someone who chooses not to work a better standard of living than the worker? Why? Please tell me why that is fair to the tax paying worker?

I'm of course not talking about those in genuine need of support - I'm talking about those who choose not to work or through their own actions/behaviour make themselves unemployable!
Darlo, you are not really following the posts are you? Bambara has provided you with the figures, figures which you obviously choose to ignore! I have provided you with a "direct" quotation, from MartinMo himself! It is self explanatory and obvious and means what I said. He would not oppose the "bedroom tax", if he were getting his "cut" in some way. How hypocritical and two-faced is that. Unless your grasp of English has slipped, it is "envy and jealousy" and there are no two ways about it!
Lets recap, he said and I quote "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax." No argument regarding meaning, nor any other excuse, he said, explicitly, what he meant. End of discussion!
What has Bambara's figures got to do with demonstrating that it is not unfair for a working person to have to pay tax to provide someone who chooses not to work a better lifestyle that what they have?

So you decide not to answer that question - no surprise as you can't!

Martinmo was clearly speaking figuratively - he was using "I" when he meant "everyone"! If that is not obvious to you I suggest you do as you suggest and end your discussion there!
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarloXman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: John, from the horses mouth, as I've cited above, it's envy and jealousy, pure and simple. I don't think there is anything left to be said![/p][/quote]Of course it's not envy nor jealousy - it is simply a case of injustice, unfairness! Why should someone work hard and then be asked to pay tax to provide someone who chooses not to work a better standard of living than the worker? Why? Please tell me why that is fair to the tax paying worker? I'm of course not talking about those in genuine need of support - I'm talking about those who choose not to work or through their own actions/behaviour make themselves unemployable![/p][/quote]Darlo, you are not really following the posts are you? Bambara has provided you with the figures, figures which you obviously choose to ignore! I have provided you with a "direct" quotation, from MartinMo himself! It is self explanatory and obvious and means what I said. He would not oppose the "bedroom tax", if he were getting his "cut" in some way. How hypocritical and two-faced is that. Unless your grasp of English has slipped, it is "envy and jealousy" and there are no two ways about it! Lets recap, he said and I quote "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax." No argument regarding meaning, nor any other excuse, he said, explicitly, what he meant. End of discussion![/p][/quote]What has Bambara's figures got to do with demonstrating that it is not unfair for a working person to have to pay tax to provide someone who chooses not to work a better lifestyle that what they have? So you decide not to answer that question - no surprise as you can't! Martinmo was clearly speaking figuratively - he was using "I" when he meant "everyone"! If that is not obvious to you I suggest you do as you suggest and end your discussion there! DarloXman
  • Score: 3

8:33am Fri 25 Apr 14

bambara says...

"who chooses not to work "
Very much a loaded comment that one.
It would be unfair to ask anyone to pay to fund the lifestyle of a person who chooses not to work.
But that is not what we are required to pay tax for.
We are required to pay tax to (amongst many other things) prevent those who 'are unable to find work, or too old or infrim to be able to work'.
The fact that there are some criminals who deliberately milk the system does not absolve us of the moral responsibility to look after those in need.
It is no more the case that everyone who is unemployed is "choosing not to work" than it is the case that ALL politicians are fiddling expenses, or ALL bankers fiddled the LIBOR rates, or all builders are working cash in hand and evading tax, or indeed that all UKIP voters are racists.
"who chooses not to work " Very much a loaded comment that one. It would be unfair to ask anyone to pay to fund the lifestyle of a person who chooses not to work. But that is not what we are required to pay tax for. We are required to pay tax to (amongst many other things) prevent those who 'are unable to find work, or too old or infrim to be able to work'. The fact that there are some criminals who deliberately milk the system does not absolve us of the moral responsibility to look after those in need. It is no more the case that everyone who is unemployed is "choosing not to work" than it is the case that ALL politicians are fiddling expenses, or ALL bankers fiddled the LIBOR rates, or all builders are working cash in hand and evading tax, or indeed that all UKIP voters are racists. bambara
  • Score: -5

8:39am Fri 25 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

John/TPM

Look up the term benefit, now in what possible way does £40 working tax credit a month and £33 a week child allowance (already used up in the cost of school meals and uniform) benefit me when in order to receive this I am loosing £700 + a month through taxation.

TPM

I like the way you don't even think twice when posting rental differences when you state "it will cost the taxpayer".
This is my point exactly, why should it cost the tax payer anything to house those out of work and those with no intention of ever working when most taxpayers are forced to stuggle from one pay cheques to the next paying their own mortgage/rent.

You are quick to defend all those on benefits but seem to forget those are actually adversely affected by this countries benefit culture, people like myself who work and earn just enough before tax to be classed as not requiring beneficial aide but after tax are forced to live below the poverty line.

Its not envy or jealousy as you claim, I have had enough of being forced, yes forced because I don't remeber ever been given the choice if I would like to donate to a charity which places the countries benefit claimants into housing, gives them money to spend on what most class as luxury items.

Give the working tax payer a choice of where the tax £s go, I can garuntee there would be a lot less in the benefit pot. This nation is not as charitable as some would like to think and thats why taxes are forced upon us.

But you have this diluded belief that its fair to take from those whom work for a living and freely give it to those who don't whether they need it or not.
John/TPM Look up the term benefit, now in what possible way does £40 working tax credit a month and £33 a week child allowance (already used up in the cost of school meals and uniform) benefit me when in order to receive this I am loosing £700 + a month through taxation. TPM I like the way you don't even think twice when posting rental differences when you state "it will cost the taxpayer". This is my point exactly, why should it cost the tax payer anything to house those out of work and those with no intention of ever working when most taxpayers are forced to stuggle from one pay cheques to the next paying their own mortgage/rent. You are quick to defend all those on benefits but seem to forget those are actually adversely affected by this countries benefit culture, people like myself who work and earn just enough before tax to be classed as not requiring beneficial aide but after tax are forced to live below the poverty line. Its not envy or jealousy as you claim, I have had enough of being forced, yes forced because I don't remeber ever been given the choice if I would like to donate to a charity which places the countries benefit claimants into housing, gives them money to spend on what most class as luxury items. Give the working tax payer a choice of where the tax £s go, I can garuntee there would be a lot less in the benefit pot. This nation is not as charitable as some would like to think and thats why taxes are forced upon us. But you have this diluded belief that its fair to take from those whom work for a living and freely give it to those who don't whether they need it or not. MartinMo
  • Score: 3

8:45am Fri 25 Apr 14

DarloXman says...

bambara wrote:
"who chooses not to work "
Very much a loaded comment that one.
It would be unfair to ask anyone to pay to fund the lifestyle of a person who chooses not to work.
But that is not what we are required to pay tax for.
We are required to pay tax to (amongst many other things) prevent those who 'are unable to find work, or too old or infrim to be able to work'.
The fact that there are some criminals who deliberately milk the system does not absolve us of the moral responsibility to look after those in need.
It is no more the case that everyone who is unemployed is "choosing not to work" than it is the case that ALL politicians are fiddling expenses, or ALL bankers fiddled the LIBOR rates, or all builders are working cash in hand and evading tax, or indeed that all UKIP voters are racists.
I never said "all", I never did, never would - I just said those who choose not to work, or those who by their attitude/behaviour make themselves unemployable.

Some suggest that no one fit's this category - yet many of us know several examples of people and families who do.

Anyone who is genuinely unable to support themselves should be supported by the state to a fair standard - it is those who are capable of supporting themselves but choose not to that I object to supporting.
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: "who chooses not to work " Very much a loaded comment that one. It would be unfair to ask anyone to pay to fund the lifestyle of a person who chooses not to work. But that is not what we are required to pay tax for. We are required to pay tax to (amongst many other things) prevent those who 'are unable to find work, or too old or infrim to be able to work'. The fact that there are some criminals who deliberately milk the system does not absolve us of the moral responsibility to look after those in need. It is no more the case that everyone who is unemployed is "choosing not to work" than it is the case that ALL politicians are fiddling expenses, or ALL bankers fiddled the LIBOR rates, or all builders are working cash in hand and evading tax, or indeed that all UKIP voters are racists.[/p][/quote]I never said "all", I never did, never would - I just said those who choose not to work, or those who by their attitude/behaviour make themselves unemployable. Some suggest that no one fit's this category - yet many of us know several examples of people and families who do. Anyone who is genuinely unable to support themselves should be supported by the state to a fair standard - it is those who are capable of supporting themselves but choose not to that I object to supporting. DarloXman
  • Score: 8

8:51am Fri 25 Apr 14

Jonn says...

bambara wrote:
"who chooses not to work "
Very much a loaded comment that one.
It would be unfair to ask anyone to pay to fund the lifestyle of a person who chooses not to work.
But that is not what we are required to pay tax for.
We are required to pay tax to (amongst many other things) prevent those who 'are unable to find work, or too old or infrim to be able to work'.
The fact that there are some criminals who deliberately milk the system does not absolve us of the moral responsibility to look after those in need.
It is no more the case that everyone who is unemployed is "choosing not to work" than it is the case that ALL politicians are fiddling expenses, or ALL bankers fiddled the LIBOR rates, or all builders are working cash in hand and evading tax, or indeed that all UKIP voters are racists.
Well said.
This Government have given the impression that millions are sitting at home doing nothing and living the high life funded by benefits.
I don't know anyone who 'chooses not to work'. I don't know anyone who has become unemployed, signed on and just lived the life of riley for years.
From memory, Governments own stats show 50% of people who sign on find a job within 6 months and most find a job within a year. There are those who have been on JSA for 2 to 5 years but its literally about 5000 people, not millions as the Government likes to suggest.
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: "who chooses not to work " Very much a loaded comment that one. It would be unfair to ask anyone to pay to fund the lifestyle of a person who chooses not to work. But that is not what we are required to pay tax for. We are required to pay tax to (amongst many other things) prevent those who 'are unable to find work, or too old or infrim to be able to work'. The fact that there are some criminals who deliberately milk the system does not absolve us of the moral responsibility to look after those in need. It is no more the case that everyone who is unemployed is "choosing not to work" than it is the case that ALL politicians are fiddling expenses, or ALL bankers fiddled the LIBOR rates, or all builders are working cash in hand and evading tax, or indeed that all UKIP voters are racists.[/p][/quote]Well said. This Government have given the impression that millions are sitting at home doing nothing and living the high life funded by benefits. I don't know anyone who 'chooses not to work'. I don't know anyone who has become unemployed, signed on and just lived the life of riley for years. From memory, Governments own stats show 50% of people who sign on find a job within 6 months and most find a job within a year. There are those who have been on JSA for 2 to 5 years but its literally about 5000 people, not millions as the Government likes to suggest. Jonn
  • Score: -6

8:55am Fri 25 Apr 14

Jonn says...

MartinMo wrote:
John/TPM

Look up the term benefit, now in what possible way does £40 working tax credit a month and £33 a week child allowance (already used up in the cost of school meals and uniform) benefit me when in order to receive this I am loosing £700 + a month through taxation.

TPM

I like the way you don't even think twice when posting rental differences when you state "it will cost the taxpayer".
This is my point exactly, why should it cost the tax payer anything to house those out of work and those with no intention of ever working when most taxpayers are forced to stuggle from one pay cheques to the next paying their own mortgage/rent.

You are quick to defend all those on benefits but seem to forget those are actually adversely affected by this countries benefit culture, people like myself who work and earn just enough before tax to be classed as not requiring beneficial aide but after tax are forced to live below the poverty line.

Its not envy or jealousy as you claim, I have had enough of being forced, yes forced because I don't remeber ever been given the choice if I would like to donate to a charity which places the countries benefit claimants into housing, gives them money to spend on what most class as luxury items.

Give the working tax payer a choice of where the tax £s go, I can garuntee there would be a lot less in the benefit pot. This nation is not as charitable as some would like to think and thats why taxes are forced upon us.

But you have this diluded belief that its fair to take from those whom work for a living and freely give it to those who don't whether they need it or not.
The Government chooses to call it a benefit, they indiscriminantly call people on benefits scroungers.
What makes you so special?
[quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: John/TPM Look up the term benefit, now in what possible way does £40 working tax credit a month and £33 a week child allowance (already used up in the cost of school meals and uniform) benefit me when in order to receive this I am loosing £700 + a month through taxation. TPM I like the way you don't even think twice when posting rental differences when you state "it will cost the taxpayer". This is my point exactly, why should it cost the tax payer anything to house those out of work and those with no intention of ever working when most taxpayers are forced to stuggle from one pay cheques to the next paying their own mortgage/rent. You are quick to defend all those on benefits but seem to forget those are actually adversely affected by this countries benefit culture, people like myself who work and earn just enough before tax to be classed as not requiring beneficial aide but after tax are forced to live below the poverty line. Its not envy or jealousy as you claim, I have had enough of being forced, yes forced because I don't remeber ever been given the choice if I would like to donate to a charity which places the countries benefit claimants into housing, gives them money to spend on what most class as luxury items. Give the working tax payer a choice of where the tax £s go, I can garuntee there would be a lot less in the benefit pot. This nation is not as charitable as some would like to think and thats why taxes are forced upon us. But you have this diluded belief that its fair to take from those whom work for a living and freely give it to those who don't whether they need it or not.[/p][/quote]The Government chooses to call it a benefit, they indiscriminantly call people on benefits scroungers. What makes you so special? Jonn
  • Score: -4

9:37am Fri 25 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

Apparently myself and many others in my position are anything but special, what makes an average family on full benefits more deserving than that from a working household, for example:

If benefits are in fact an entitlement then child tax credit should be awarded to households with kids but in fact only households on benefits receive this at a rate of £330 (2013 figure) per month for 2 kids. So kids from a working family background are penalised but not only force as the household income is lessened through taxation, this in your eyes is fair.

Job seekers allowance is ill namedas it is not paid to everyone seeking employment, I continueously seek new employment opertunities but receive nothing and there are those out there amongst the unemployed whom have got that accustomed to receiving cash for doing absolutely nothing they have no intention of getting off their backsides.

Your question should be, what makes these people so special that they think making a life at the cost of others is acceptable social behaviour.
Apparently myself and many others in my position are anything but special, what makes an average family on full benefits more deserving than that from a working household, for example: If benefits are in fact an entitlement then child tax credit should be awarded to households with kids but in fact only households on benefits receive this at a rate of £330 (2013 figure) per month for 2 kids. So kids from a working family background are penalised but not only force as the household income is lessened through taxation, this in your eyes is fair. Job seekers allowance is ill namedas it is not paid to everyone seeking employment, I continueously seek new employment opertunities but receive nothing and there are those out there amongst the unemployed whom have got that accustomed to receiving cash for doing absolutely nothing they have no intention of getting off their backsides. Your question should be, what makes these people so special that they think making a life at the cost of others is acceptable social behaviour. MartinMo
  • Score: 4

9:51am Fri 25 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

In addition, I would give up the receipt of any form charitable government payment (can't call them benefits because in my case they are anything but) in exchange for a massive drop in income tax.

I am all for helping those in genuine need but the line has to be drawn there. If people want the luxury items in life then they need to be forced to learn to stand on their own 2 feet again.

If someone needs food then give them food, don't give the enough money to buy a mobile phone/contract, a takeaway menu with cash left over to subsidise any addictions they may have.

If they need shelter and warmth it does not mean they need their own with spare rooms.
In addition, I would give up the receipt of any form charitable government payment (can't call them benefits because in my case they are anything but) in exchange for a massive drop in income tax. I am all for helping those in genuine need but the line has to be drawn there. If people want the luxury items in life then they need to be forced to learn to stand on their own 2 feet again. If someone needs food then give them food, don't give the enough money to buy a mobile phone/contract, a takeaway menu with cash left over to subsidise any addictions they may have. If they need shelter and warmth it does not mean they need their own with spare rooms. MartinMo
  • Score: 4

11:07am Fri 25 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

MartinMo states; "Its not envy or jealousy as you claim". I'll restate your own words again, "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax."
You'll change your mind, re the bedroom tax (when the government supply 'you' with free extra accommodation). So if you get, you'll change your mind on the bedroom tax? That's envy and jealousy, pure and simple! You don't get, you are against. You get and you change your stance! Wriggle as much ads you like but you said it, it's there in black and white!!!
MartinMo states; "Its not envy or jealousy as you claim". I'll restate your own words again, "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax." You'll change your mind, re the bedroom tax (when the government supply 'you' with free extra accommodation). So if you get, you'll change your mind on the bedroom tax? That's envy and jealousy, pure and simple! You don't get, you are against. You get and you change your stance! Wriggle as much ads you like but you said it, it's there in black and white!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -5

11:31am Fri 25 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

DarloXman, you ask;
What has Bambara's figures got to do with demonstrating that it is not unfair for a working person to have to pay tax to provide someone who chooses not to work a better lifestyle that what they have?
Bambara's figures prove that the vast and I do mean vast, amount of benefit payments do not, in fact, go to people who are scamming the system but to the elderly, the sick and disabled and to those actually in work! The latter to subsidise employers who get away with paying disgustingly low wages and who have no shame or conscience in doing so.
It has been stated that I do not condemn those falsely claiming benefits! In a post above I stated; "Yes, if we hold the wealthy to account for duplicity, can we treat those who claim to be one of "us", to any lesser standards? I think not!!!" So I have and did. What has not been done, however, is that those who stress "benefit cheats", have never added that benefit cheats make up a tiny per cent of benefit recipients. Thus giving the allusion that this practice is rampant and more widespread than is, in actual fact, the case.
DarloXman, you ask; What has Bambara's figures got to do with demonstrating that it is not unfair for a working person to have to pay tax to provide someone who chooses not to work a better lifestyle that what they have? Bambara's figures prove that the vast and I do mean vast, amount of benefit payments do not, in fact, go to people who are scamming the system but to the elderly, the sick and disabled and to those actually in work! The latter to subsidise employers who get away with paying disgustingly low wages and who have no shame or conscience in doing so. It has been stated that I do not condemn those falsely claiming benefits! In a post above I stated; "Yes, if we hold the wealthy to account for duplicity, can we treat those who claim to be one of "us", to any lesser standards? I think not!!!" So I have and did. What has not been done, however, is that those who stress "benefit cheats", have never added that benefit cheats make up a tiny per cent of benefit recipients. Thus giving the allusion that this practice is rampant and more widespread than is, in actual fact, the case. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -7

12:23pm Fri 25 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
MartinMo states; "Its not envy or jealousy as you claim". I'll restate your own words again, "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax."
You'll change your mind, re the bedroom tax (when the government supply 'you' with free extra accommodation). So if you get, you'll change your mind on the bedroom tax? That's envy and jealousy, pure and simple! You don't get, you are against. You get and you change your stance! Wriggle as much ads you like but you said it, it's there in black and white!!!
Rather lame attempt at trying to push your pointless arguement.

I don't need to wiggle around anything as the point I tried to put across would in fact never happen. Nobody will pay for me to have an extra room in my home as a spare and I definately would not expect them too, so to be treated fairly, why should I as a taxpayer be expected to pay for someone else to have an extra room just because they can't afford it themselves.

If I want a bigger home to have a spare room and will have to pay it myself, the fact I don't is because I can't afford it at present. So it is not envy (blah de blah) as you state but more a case of fairness, if no one else is expected to pay for me to live in a bigger property why should I be expected to pay for someone else. More to the more, why in general is the well being and welfare of the able bodied out of work/never held down a job the responsibilty of those whom leasrnt to stand on their own 2 feet.

In fact, I may be jealous, I would love to sit on my **** day after day and live a life at the expense of others..............
......then again, nope, I have a higher morality level than that.
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: MartinMo states; "Its not envy or jealousy as you claim". I'll restate your own words again, "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax." You'll change your mind, re the bedroom tax (when the government supply 'you' with free extra accommodation). So if you get, you'll change your mind on the bedroom tax? That's envy and jealousy, pure and simple! You don't get, you are against. You get and you change your stance! Wriggle as much ads you like but you said it, it's there in black and white!!![/p][/quote]Rather lame attempt at trying to push your pointless arguement. I don't need to wiggle around anything as the point I tried to put across would in fact never happen. Nobody will pay for me to have an extra room in my home as a spare and I definately would not expect them too, so to be treated fairly, why should I as a taxpayer be expected to pay for someone else to have an extra room just because they can't afford it themselves. If I want a bigger home to have a spare room and will have to pay it myself, the fact I don't is because I can't afford it at present. So it is not envy (blah de blah) as you state but more a case of fairness, if no one else is expected to pay for me to live in a bigger property why should I be expected to pay for someone else. More to the more, why in general is the well being and welfare of the able bodied out of work/never held down a job the responsibilty of those whom leasrnt to stand on their own 2 feet. In fact, I may be jealous, I would love to sit on my **** day after day and live a life at the expense of others.............. ......then again, nope, I have a higher morality level than that. MartinMo
  • Score: 4

12:40pm Fri 25 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

John/TPM

For the benefit (no pun intended) of myself and others on this discussion of the same frame of mind as myself can you one of you answer the question you always seem to tip toe around.

Is it fair that that taxation adversely effects the lifestyle of a working class family to the point where they struggle each month to makes ends meet in order to better the life of those unwilling to to find employment or are just so uneducated they are unemployable. Do you think it's fair that in many cases these lay abouts are able to life a higher quality of life through benefits than a family who have worked their entire lives.
John/TPM For the benefit (no pun intended) of myself and others on this discussion of the same frame of mind as myself can you one of you answer the question you always seem to tip toe around. Is it fair that that taxation adversely effects the lifestyle of a working class family to the point where they struggle each month to makes ends meet in order to better the life of those unwilling to to find employment or are just so uneducated they are unemployable. Do you think it's fair that in many cases these lay abouts are able to life a higher quality of life through benefits than a family who have worked their entire lives. MartinMo
  • Score: 2

12:42pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Jonn says...

MartinMo wrote:
Apparently myself and many others in my position are anything but special, what makes an average family on full benefits more deserving than that from a working household, for example:

If benefits are in fact an entitlement then child tax credit should be awarded to households with kids but in fact only households on benefits receive this at a rate of £330 (2013 figure) per month for 2 kids. So kids from a working family background are penalised but not only force as the household income is lessened through taxation, this in your eyes is fair.

Job seekers allowance is ill namedas it is not paid to everyone seeking employment, I continueously seek new employment opertunities but receive nothing and there are those out there amongst the unemployed whom have got that accustomed to receiving cash for doing absolutely nothing they have no intention of getting off their backsides.

Your question should be, what makes these people so special that they think making a life at the cost of others is acceptable social behaviour.
Job Seekers is ill named, yes. 800,000 people on the work programme receive JSA which is an out of work benefit but not classed as unemployed anymore. That's Government fiddling the stats to hide the true state of the economy.
[quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: Apparently myself and many others in my position are anything but special, what makes an average family on full benefits more deserving than that from a working household, for example: If benefits are in fact an entitlement then child tax credit should be awarded to households with kids but in fact only households on benefits receive this at a rate of £330 (2013 figure) per month for 2 kids. So kids from a working family background are penalised but not only force as the household income is lessened through taxation, this in your eyes is fair. Job seekers allowance is ill namedas it is not paid to everyone seeking employment, I continueously seek new employment opertunities but receive nothing and there are those out there amongst the unemployed whom have got that accustomed to receiving cash for doing absolutely nothing they have no intention of getting off their backsides. Your question should be, what makes these people so special that they think making a life at the cost of others is acceptable social behaviour.[/p][/quote]Job Seekers is ill named, yes. 800,000 people on the work programme receive JSA which is an out of work benefit but not classed as unemployed anymore. That's Government fiddling the stats to hide the true state of the economy. Jonn
  • Score: -2

12:49pm Fri 25 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

Jonn wrote:
MartinMo wrote:
Apparently myself and many others in my position are anything but special, what makes an average family on full benefits more deserving than that from a working household, for example:

If benefits are in fact an entitlement then child tax credit should be awarded to households with kids but in fact only households on benefits receive this at a rate of £330 (2013 figure) per month for 2 kids. So kids from a working family background are penalised but not only force as the household income is lessened through taxation, this in your eyes is fair.

Job seekers allowance is ill namedas it is not paid to everyone seeking employment, I continueously seek new employment opertunities but receive nothing and there are those out there amongst the unemployed whom have got that accustomed to receiving cash for doing absolutely nothing they have no intention of getting off their backsides.

Your question should be, what makes these people so special that they think making a life at the cost of others is acceptable social behaviour.
Job Seekers is ill named, yes. 800,000 people on the work programme receive JSA which is an out of work benefit but not classed as unemployed anymore. That's Government fiddling the stats to hide the true state of the economy.
Somewhat off topic but true.

The are many things adding to the decline of the nations economy but which out the following has the greater adverse effect on it.

Tax collection - not enough income through taxation of the working class to balance the out going.

Current benefit system structure - far too much money being spent on benefit handouts with no way of recouping expenditure fairly.
[quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: Apparently myself and many others in my position are anything but special, what makes an average family on full benefits more deserving than that from a working household, for example: If benefits are in fact an entitlement then child tax credit should be awarded to households with kids but in fact only households on benefits receive this at a rate of £330 (2013 figure) per month for 2 kids. So kids from a working family background are penalised but not only force as the household income is lessened through taxation, this in your eyes is fair. Job seekers allowance is ill namedas it is not paid to everyone seeking employment, I continueously seek new employment opertunities but receive nothing and there are those out there amongst the unemployed whom have got that accustomed to receiving cash for doing absolutely nothing they have no intention of getting off their backsides. Your question should be, what makes these people so special that they think making a life at the cost of others is acceptable social behaviour.[/p][/quote]Job Seekers is ill named, yes. 800,000 people on the work programme receive JSA which is an out of work benefit but not classed as unemployed anymore. That's Government fiddling the stats to hide the true state of the economy.[/p][/quote]Somewhat off topic but true. The are many things adding to the decline of the nations economy but which out the following has the greater adverse effect on it. Tax collection - not enough income through taxation of the working class to balance the out going. Current benefit system structure - far too much money being spent on benefit handouts with no way of recouping expenditure fairly. MartinMo
  • Score: 5

1:00pm Fri 25 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

MartinMo wrote:
John/TPM

For the benefit (no pun intended) of myself and others on this discussion of the same frame of mind as myself can you one of you answer the question you always seem to tip toe around.

Is it fair that that taxation adversely effects the lifestyle of a working class family to the point where they struggle each month to makes ends meet in order to better the life of those unwilling to to find employment or are just so uneducated they are unemployable. Do you think it's fair that in many cases these lay abouts are able to life a higher quality of life through benefits than a family who have worked their entire lives.
For the umpteenth time, the vast majority of benefits are paid to the elderly, disabled, those who are actually, in employment.
For the umpteenth time, those who "milk" the system, are a tiny fraction of benefit claimants, those "unwilling", to find employment, are included in, "those who milk the system", wouldn't you agree?
As for your question, "Do you think it's fair that in many cases these lay abouts are able to life a higher quality of life through benefits than a family who have worked their entire lives." No! However, you have yet to concede the "fact", that layabouts, scroungers call them what you will, make up a tiny fraction of benefit claimants. Would you like to do so now?
[quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: John/TPM For the benefit (no pun intended) of myself and others on this discussion of the same frame of mind as myself can you one of you answer the question you always seem to tip toe around. Is it fair that that taxation adversely effects the lifestyle of a working class family to the point where they struggle each month to makes ends meet in order to better the life of those unwilling to to find employment or are just so uneducated they are unemployable. Do you think it's fair that in many cases these lay abouts are able to life a higher quality of life through benefits than a family who have worked their entire lives.[/p][/quote]For the umpteenth time, the vast majority of benefits are paid to the elderly, disabled, those who are actually, in employment. For the umpteenth time, those who "milk" the system, are a tiny fraction of benefit claimants, those "unwilling", to find employment, are included in, "those who milk the system", wouldn't you agree? As for your question, "Do you think it's fair that in many cases these lay abouts are able to life a higher quality of life through benefits than a family who have worked their entire lives." No! However, you have yet to concede the "fact", that layabouts, scroungers call them what you will, make up a tiny fraction of benefit claimants. Would you like to do so now? tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -1

1:12pm Fri 25 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

The are many things adding to the decline of the nations economy but which out the following has the greater adverse effect on it.

Tax collection - not enough income through taxation of the working class to balance the out going.

Current benefit system structure - far too much money being spent on benefit handouts with no way of recouping expenditure fairly.

As the vast and I do mean vast majority of benefit expenditure is for groups I've outlined quite a few times ie the elderly, disabled, those actually in employment, what do you propose to do, to cut the "far too much money being spent on benefit handouts"? Cut money to the elderly, cut money to the disabled, cut money to those in employment, whose only crime is to be employed by parsimonious, niggardly and cheap skate employers?
Or are you continuing to claim, against all evidence to the contrary, that the majority of benefit claimants are scroungers and this non existent majority, is where the benefit axe should fall?
The are many things adding to the decline of the nations economy but which out the following has the greater adverse effect on it. Tax collection - not enough income through taxation of the working class to balance the out going. Current benefit system structure - far too much money being spent on benefit handouts with no way of recouping expenditure fairly. As the vast and I do mean vast majority of benefit expenditure is for groups I've outlined quite a few times ie the elderly, disabled, those actually in employment, what do you propose to do, to cut the "far too much money being spent on benefit handouts"? Cut money to the elderly, cut money to the disabled, cut money to those in employment, whose only crime is to be employed by parsimonious, niggardly and cheap skate employers? Or are you continuing to claim, against all evidence to the contrary, that the majority of benefit claimants are scroungers and this non existent majority, is where the benefit axe should fall? tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -1

1:49pm Fri 25 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
The are many things adding to the decline of the nations economy but which out the following has the greater adverse effect on it.

Tax collection - not enough income through taxation of the working class to balance the out going.

Current benefit system structure - far too much money being spent on benefit handouts with no way of recouping expenditure fairly.

As the vast and I do mean vast majority of benefit expenditure is for groups I've outlined quite a few times ie the elderly, disabled, those actually in employment, what do you propose to do, to cut the "far too much money being spent on benefit handouts"? Cut money to the elderly, cut money to the disabled, cut money to those in employment, whose only crime is to be employed by parsimonious, niggardly and cheap skate employers?
Or are you continuing to claim, against all evidence to the contrary, that the majority of benefit claimants are scroungers and this non existent majority, is where the benefit axe should fall?
The axe should really fall on the administration required to run the complete tax and welfare system.

It seems madness to take money from someone through taxation for it to be handed back via benefits. Surely the sensible thing is to not tax low earners and have a top up welfare top up scheme which is paid via employer payroll.

Them the bulk of DWP admin could be used to effectively run Pensions, disability and JCP could deal effectively with Jobseekers.

Taking with the left and giving back with the right just adds a further layer of cost and administration. At one point DWP admin costs were nearly twice what it was paying out!!!
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: The are many things adding to the decline of the nations economy but which out the following has the greater adverse effect on it. Tax collection - not enough income through taxation of the working class to balance the out going. Current benefit system structure - far too much money being spent on benefit handouts with no way of recouping expenditure fairly. As the vast and I do mean vast majority of benefit expenditure is for groups I've outlined quite a few times ie the elderly, disabled, those actually in employment, what do you propose to do, to cut the "far too much money being spent on benefit handouts"? Cut money to the elderly, cut money to the disabled, cut money to those in employment, whose only crime is to be employed by parsimonious, niggardly and cheap skate employers? Or are you continuing to claim, against all evidence to the contrary, that the majority of benefit claimants are scroungers and this non existent majority, is where the benefit axe should fall?[/p][/quote]The axe should really fall on the administration required to run the complete tax and welfare system. It seems madness to take money from someone through taxation for it to be handed back via benefits. Surely the sensible thing is to not tax low earners and have a top up welfare top up scheme which is paid via employer payroll. Them the bulk of DWP admin could be used to effectively run Pensions, disability and JCP could deal effectively with Jobseekers. Taking with the left and giving back with the right just adds a further layer of cost and administration. At one point DWP admin costs were nearly twice what it was paying out!!! laboursfoe
  • Score: 2

2:05pm Fri 25 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

So the answer is no, it is not fair.

What would I like to do now? Do I have a choice, would be nice to be granted freedom of choice in regards to taxation. My only moral commitment should be to my wife, my kids and myself. Paying into a system designed to help the nations needy should be done through choice as many other charities are, not forced under threat of punishment. No family should be taxed on earnings which leaves them with an expendable income lower that the estimated cost of living. Government should not top up salaries as this enable employers to pay less. If no one is willing to work for peanuts then cheapskate companies will be forced to offer higher wages.

Now if you are asking me to choose between the quality of life I should through my earnings before taxation be able to give my wife and kids or improving the quality of life of the elderly,the sick/disabled, the unemployable and just plain lazy then the answer is simple. Give me the freedom of choice which this country claims I have a right too and my family will always win.

There are some things we should all pay for with no exceptions, improving the quality of life by force of those less fortunate should not be one of them.

One way to test the moral fibres of the nation, give workers the choice of donating to a benefits systems and see what happens.

Where should the axe fall?

Give the taxpayer the choice and find out. Speaking for myself, I would not donate another penny to uncontrollable benefit system if it would have an adverse effect on quality of life for my immediate family. Call me what you want, I doubt I can be faulted for wanting to look after the needs of my family before those of complete strangers.
So the answer is no, it is not fair. What would I like to do now? Do I have a choice, would be nice to be granted freedom of choice in regards to taxation. My only moral commitment should be to my wife, my kids and myself. Paying into a system designed to help the nations needy should be done through choice as many other charities are, not forced under threat of punishment. No family should be taxed on earnings which leaves them with an expendable income lower that the estimated cost of living. Government should not top up salaries as this enable employers to pay less. If no one is willing to work for peanuts then cheapskate companies will be forced to offer higher wages. Now if you are asking me to choose between the quality of life I should through my earnings before taxation be able to give my wife and kids or improving the quality of life of the elderly,the sick/disabled, the unemployable and just plain lazy then the answer is simple. Give me the freedom of choice which this country claims I have a right too and my family will always win. There are some things we should all pay for with no exceptions, improving the quality of life by force of those less fortunate should not be one of them. One way to test the moral fibres of the nation, give workers the choice of donating to a benefits systems and see what happens. Where should the axe fall? Give the taxpayer the choice and find out. Speaking for myself, I would not donate another penny to uncontrollable benefit system if it would have an adverse effect on quality of life for my immediate family. Call me what you want, I doubt I can be faulted for wanting to look after the needs of my family before those of complete strangers. MartinMo
  • Score: 0

9:19am Sat 26 Apr 14

boysibandit says...

a man next to me has been in the same 3 bedroom house for 40 years his family all now moved out he was made redundant and can't find work he is now 60 years old and struggling to make ends meet because of the bedroom tax ,he never goes out and doesn't have a mobile phone ,a one bed bungalow became available which he applied for it was given to two lads who hold parties and have music blasting all night so he 's stuck in limbo the councils need to sort the housing out and help people in his situation !!
a man next to me has been in the same 3 bedroom house for 40 years his family all now moved out he was made redundant and can't find work he is now 60 years old and struggling to make ends meet because of the bedroom tax ,he never goes out and doesn't have a mobile phone ,a one bed bungalow became available which he applied for it was given to two lads who hold parties and have music blasting all night so he 's stuck in limbo the councils need to sort the housing out and help people in his situation !! boysibandit
  • Score: 4

8:14pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Disgraceful that he had the same house for 40 years. The individual housing needs of social housing tenants should be reviewed every five years and once circumstances change the residual family members should be moved to housing more approrpriate to their needs. Such social houses are not 'theirs' - they have no given right to see such houses as 'theirs' - if they wish to have 'their' house they should own one. As for the two lads - simillarly disgraceful - social housing should be dependent upon behaviour. If they don't behave they should lose their subsidised housing and it should be given to those who are both deserving and respectful of what they are given (which should itself be on a temporary basis) until they can provide for themslves.
Disgraceful that he had the same house for 40 years. The individual housing needs of social housing tenants should be reviewed every five years and once circumstances change the residual family members should be moved to housing more approrpriate to their needs. Such social houses are not 'theirs' - they have no given right to see such houses as 'theirs' - if they wish to have 'their' house they should own one. As for the two lads - simillarly disgraceful - social housing should be dependent upon behaviour. If they don't behave they should lose their subsidised housing and it should be given to those who are both deserving and respectful of what they are given (which should itself be on a temporary basis) until they can provide for themslves. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 10

12:23am Sun 27 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
Disgraceful that he had the same house for 40 years. The individual housing needs of social housing tenants should be reviewed every five years and once circumstances change the residual family members should be moved to housing more approrpriate to their needs. Such social houses are not 'theirs' - they have no given right to see such houses as 'theirs' - if they wish to have 'their' house they should own one. As for the two lads - simillarly disgraceful - social housing should be dependent upon behaviour. If they don't behave they should lose their subsidised housing and it should be given to those who are both deserving and respectful of what they are given (which should itself be on a temporary basis) until they can provide for themslves.
I have read this post a few times and still cannot believe my own eyes. I cannot express in words, what I actually think of this post, nor of the person who has posted it. The reason being, I do not want to be banned from formulating and posting my opinion and have this site, left to the untender mercies of maggots like VOR. You pour forth your bile and venom and presumably think many others agree with the mental dregs that pass for your opinion. There is probably reason for the latter part of your letter but as for the former, who the **** do you think you are?
Why don't you **** off and get a life, more importantly, an understanding of the world you live in, before you pronounce your vile filth on here again!!! You smeg head
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: Disgraceful that he had the same house for 40 years. The individual housing needs of social housing tenants should be reviewed every five years and once circumstances change the residual family members should be moved to housing more approrpriate to their needs. Such social houses are not 'theirs' - they have no given right to see such houses as 'theirs' - if they wish to have 'their' house they should own one. As for the two lads - simillarly disgraceful - social housing should be dependent upon behaviour. If they don't behave they should lose their subsidised housing and it should be given to those who are both deserving and respectful of what they are given (which should itself be on a temporary basis) until they can provide for themslves.[/p][/quote]I have read this post a few times and still cannot believe my own eyes. I cannot express in words, what I actually think of this post, nor of the person who has posted it. The reason being, I do not want to be banned from formulating and posting my opinion and have this site, left to the untender mercies of maggots like VOR. You pour forth your bile and venom and presumably think many others agree with the mental dregs that pass for your opinion. There is probably reason for the latter part of your letter but as for the former, who the **** do you think you are? Why don't you **** off and get a life, more importantly, an understanding of the world you live in, before you pronounce your vile filth on here again!!! You smeg head tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -7

1:19am Sun 27 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

TP my old dear,
You clearly forget both yourself and the founding principles of social housing within this country. I shall not repeat them here as you are more than capable of going to a proper library.
Social housing is a resource of the nation to be used for those in need when they need assistance. The needs of people change over time - or would you disagree? If a chap had a four bedroom house provided by the state for him, his wife and three children that house accommodated his needs whilst he needed assistance.
If the children then leave that home he does not need such a house and his keeping of it (whilst others are cooped up in inadequate accommodation) is morally repugnant, selfish, and complete unreasonable.
Why? Because he will not allow others to benefit from that which he has benefited from. Thus, as the housing needs of individuals who rely on the tax based charity of others change, so too should the accommodation in which they live.
Further, if people are given - as they were - effective lifetime tenancies that are not reviewed as their situations alter there is no incentive for them to better themselves - shall I spend £50 a week on subsidised housing and have holidays or should I pay a market rent? The answer is, given your preferred use of colloquialisms, ' a no brainer'. The result, long term, an abuse of a system that should be there to support all in times of need as a temporary assistance.
Thus in this case the way forward is clear: kick the lads out of the bungalow for being unsuitable tenants, place the older gentleman into that accommodation, thirdly place a young deserving family that actually need all of the rooms in the larger house into it. Or would you disagree and suggest that such a solution is not an equitable use of resources?

As for who do I think I am - very simple: someone who wishes to see resources used efficiently so that they may benefit as many people as possible. That you do not wish to see as many people helped as could be is, of course, more of a comment on you - than on me.

ttfn, VOR
TP my old dear, You clearly forget both yourself and the founding principles of social housing within this country. I shall not repeat them here as you are more than capable of going to a proper library. Social housing is a resource of the nation to be used for those in need when they need assistance. The needs of people change over time - or would you disagree? If a chap had a four bedroom house provided by the state for him, his wife and three children that house accommodated his needs whilst he needed assistance. If the children then leave that home he does not need such a house and his keeping of it (whilst others are cooped up in inadequate accommodation) is morally repugnant, selfish, and complete unreasonable. Why? Because he will not allow others to benefit from that which he has benefited from. Thus, as the housing needs of individuals who rely on the tax based charity of others change, so too should the accommodation in which they live. Further, if people are given - as they were - effective lifetime tenancies that are not reviewed as their situations alter there is no incentive for them to better themselves - shall I spend £50 a week on subsidised housing and have holidays or should I pay a market rent? The answer is, given your preferred use of colloquialisms, ' a no brainer'. The result, long term, an abuse of a system that should be there to support all in times of need as a temporary assistance. Thus in this case the way forward is clear: kick the lads out of the bungalow for being unsuitable tenants, place the older gentleman into that accommodation, thirdly place a young deserving family that actually need all of the rooms in the larger house into it. Or would you disagree and suggest that such a solution is not an equitable use of resources? As for who do I think I am - very simple: someone who wishes to see resources used efficiently so that they may benefit as many people as possible. That you do not wish to see as many people helped as could be is, of course, more of a comment on you - than on me. ttfn, VOR Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 3

8:10am Sun 27 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Not at all VOR, It is a commentary on you! Nor do I think you have the beneficent intentions that your post above, would have people believe. As other posts on here have stated, there was no issue at all, until the obfuscating and attention shifting Tory theoretician, who thought up this ill conceived piece of legislation got to work. Your previous posts, on differing subjects, show quite clearly what kind of mind set you, as an individual have! I am just pleased this mind set is not as widespread as the more humane mind set of the majority. Or people would undoubtedly, if their circumstances were of a certain type, be living in state run dormitory accommodation! You know the type, it used to be called "The Workhouse"!!!
The simple fact is, there are not enough of the smaller dwellings available, to make this work. The petty, vindictive nature of this draconian measure, is there for all to see.
Finally, I most assuredly do not forget myself, as for this figmented founded principles garbage, if it existed in writing, and/or legislation, I doubt very much whether it would consent to the punishment of the disabled and vulnerable, that this asinine junk represents. However, I think the progenitors of this farce will have no concept of suffering, when they oversee this from their comfortable ivory towers.
Not at all VOR, It is a commentary on you! Nor do I think you have the beneficent intentions that your post above, would have people believe. As other posts on here have stated, there was no issue at all, until the obfuscating and attention shifting Tory theoretician, who thought up this ill conceived piece of legislation got to work. Your previous posts, on differing subjects, show quite clearly what kind of mind set you, as an individual have! I am just pleased this mind set is not as widespread as the more humane mind set of the majority. Or people would undoubtedly, if their circumstances were of a certain type, be living in state run dormitory accommodation! You know the type, it used to be called "The Workhouse"!!! The simple fact is, there are not enough of the smaller dwellings available, to make this work. The petty, vindictive nature of this draconian measure, is there for all to see. Finally, I most assuredly do not forget myself, as for this figmented founded principles garbage, if it existed in writing, and/or legislation, I doubt very much whether it would consent to the punishment of the disabled and vulnerable, that this asinine junk represents. However, I think the progenitors of this farce will have no concept of suffering, when they oversee this from their comfortable ivory towers. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -6

11:15am Sun 27 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

State run domitories are an excellent idea - it allows the people who need such assistance to be fed, water, and clothed. Further, it allows the enforcement of rules - no pregnancies for instance until one can fend for oneself. If the country were to return to a state wherein illegitimate children were seen for what they are, there would, in my opinion be far greater social care as chidlren need two parents.
As for the founding principles - it was quite clearly the state that housing benefits were not 'for all' and that one had to 'earn the right' to become a council tenant - an entirely sensible policy that promoted decency of behaviour.
And yes, I would agree that there is a shortage of one bedroom houses - better, resource-wise however, to have two people in a two bedroom house and a family in a four bedroom house rather than the other way. Moreover, that the Tories should come up with the policy does not surprise me at all. It was after all a Conservative run administration that first construced social housing in the UK.
State run domitories are an excellent idea - it allows the people who need such assistance to be fed, water, and clothed. Further, it allows the enforcement of rules - no pregnancies for instance until one can fend for oneself. If the country were to return to a state wherein illegitimate children were seen for what they are, there would, in my opinion be far greater social care as chidlren need two parents. As for the founding principles - it was quite clearly the state that housing benefits were not 'for all' and that one had to 'earn the right' to become a council tenant - an entirely sensible policy that promoted decency of behaviour. And yes, I would agree that there is a shortage of one bedroom houses - better, resource-wise however, to have two people in a two bedroom house and a family in a four bedroom house rather than the other way. Moreover, that the Tories should come up with the policy does not surprise me at all. It was after all a Conservative run administration that first construced social housing in the UK. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 7

2:56pm Sun 27 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

VOC, you state; "As for the founding principles - it was quite clearly the state that housing benefits were not 'for all' and that one had to 'earn the right' to become a council tenant -"! Where is your direct quotation to back this statement up? Oh, sorry, it doesn't and never did exist. By golly gosh, now there's not a surprise!!
As for this statement;

"State run domitories are an excellent idea - it allows the people who need such assistance to be fed, water, and clothed. Further, it allows the enforcement of rules - no pregnancies for instance until one can fend for oneself. If the country were to return to a state wherein illegitimate children were seen for what they are, there would, in my opinion be far greater social care as chidlren need two parents. "
Were you by chance, a slave owning, Christian minded bigot in an earlier incarnation? For forgive me but that is the very tone these things advocated and in exactly those tones!!!
Or do you think we are cattle, to be there and raised, for the benefit of "our" betters! as I further think "you" call workers having kids, as "breeding", which I actually know you do, you arrogant, narrow minded bigot.
VOC, you state; "As for the founding principles - it was quite clearly the state that housing benefits were not 'for all' and that one had to 'earn the right' to become a council tenant -"! Where is your direct quotation to back this statement up? Oh, sorry, it doesn't and never did exist. By golly gosh, now there's not a surprise!! As for this statement; "State run domitories are an excellent idea - it allows the people who need such assistance to be fed, water, and clothed. Further, it allows the enforcement of rules - no pregnancies for instance until one can fend for oneself. If the country were to return to a state wherein illegitimate children were seen for what they are, there would, in my opinion be far greater social care as chidlren need two parents. " Were you by chance, a slave owning, Christian minded bigot in an earlier incarnation? For forgive me but that is the very tone these things advocated and in exactly those tones!!! Or do you think we are cattle, to be there and raised, for the benefit of "our" betters! as I further think "you" call workers having kids, as "breeding", which I actually know you do, you arrogant, narrow minded bigot. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -6

3:09pm Sun 27 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

With regard to the first issue I refer you to the work of Daunton, and Pooley in the first instance or the Cabinet discussions on the issue.
As far as I am aware I was not a slave owning Christian bigot - and I never advocated making the people work for their accommodation without recompense. Indeed, I made no mention of their having to work for such accommodation at all. I apologise - it is an excellent idea - working for state accommodation would give the people purpose - thank you for furthering my original idea, it would also given them experience of work and a chance to experience what harder working taxpayers have to do to fund the former's somewhat louche lifestyle.
As for Christianity, it has served the country well as a guiding principle for legilsation even if the CoE leaves much to be desired. I certainly have 'no truck' with the idea of bring Sharia law into the country - in the same way that I would expect English people visiting the UAE to obey the laws of the latter.
Your concern as to the word 'breeding' is peculiar - all classes of people breed - its just that some pay for their offspring whereas others don't, and I am of the opinion that if you cannot afford to maintain your own children you should not have them. Now, whether that could/should be turned into a policy of 'thou wilt not have children unless one can afford them' is another debate. There is certainly ann argument that those who have long records of breeding at the taxpayers expense should be required to be sterilised after three children.
With regard to the first issue I refer you to the work of Daunton, and Pooley in the first instance or the Cabinet discussions on the issue. As far as I am aware I was not a slave owning Christian bigot - and I never advocated making the people work for their accommodation without recompense. Indeed, I made no mention of their having to work for such accommodation at all. I apologise - it is an excellent idea - working for state accommodation would give the people purpose - thank you for furthering my original idea, it would also given them experience of work and a chance to experience what harder working taxpayers have to do to fund the former's somewhat louche lifestyle. As for Christianity, it has served the country well as a guiding principle for legilsation even if the CoE leaves much to be desired. I certainly have 'no truck' with the idea of bring Sharia law into the country - in the same way that I would expect English people visiting the UAE to obey the laws of the latter. Your concern as to the word 'breeding' is peculiar - all classes of people breed - its just that some pay for their offspring whereas others don't, and I am of the opinion that if you cannot afford to maintain your own children you should not have them. Now, whether that could/should be turned into a policy of 'thou wilt not have children unless one can afford them' is another debate. There is certainly ann argument that those who have long records of breeding at the taxpayers expense should be required to be sterilised after three children. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 4

4:11pm Sun 27 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Well if you don't take the biscuit. You have proved nothing but your own insular, narrow, small minded and bigoted views. I think I've proved what I needed you to confirm! That you are indeed, exactly what I outlined in the second sentence above. That being the case, I have nothing further to say to the likes of you. You, as is your want, will take this to mean you have won the argument, so be it. Another bigot outed, that will suit me fine!!!
END OF.
Well if you don't take the biscuit. You have proved nothing but your own insular, narrow, small minded and bigoted views. I think I've proved what I needed you to confirm! That you are indeed, exactly what I outlined in the second sentence above. That being the case, I have nothing further to say to the likes of you. You, as is your want, will take this to mean you have won the argument, so be it. Another bigot outed, that will suit me fine!!! END OF. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -5

4:20pm Sun 27 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Ah, the old 'I have nothing further to add and no ability to defeat the logical, reasoned, and referenced argument, so I wil take my ball home with me' approach to life. I should have known.

It was of course you who suggested that they should work for the accommodation - I merely accepted the logic of your proposal.

Further, I only suggested that there was an argument regarding sterilisation as of course there is an argument (which oddly you seem to disagree with) that parents should be responsible for the produce of their own loins.

If such people can, as at present, breeed to their heart's content without any intention of ever lifting a finger to care for such products, then where is the incentive for them to stop and take responsibility? I suppose, if sterilisation is not the preferred option - compulsory adoption could be. Any views TP?
Ah, the old 'I have nothing further to add and no ability to defeat the logical, reasoned, and referenced argument, so I wil take my ball home with me' approach to life. I should have known. It was of course you who suggested that they should work for the accommodation - I merely accepted the logic of your proposal. Further, I only suggested that there was an argument regarding sterilisation as of course there is an argument (which oddly you seem to disagree with) that parents should be responsible for the produce of their own loins. If such people can, as at present, breeed to their heart's content without any intention of ever lifting a finger to care for such products, then where is the incentive for them to stop and take responsibility? I suppose, if sterilisation is not the preferred option - compulsory adoption could be. Any views TP? Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 5

8:52am Mon 28 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

All this comes down to is who should be pay for people to occupy social housing larger than their requirements.

Having a spare bedroom / extra living space is not a requirement, it is most definately a luxury and one which most working class households do not have.

We all seem to agree that it is in fact completely unfair to expect taxpayers to fit the bill, no point mentioning local councils or governmental bodies as this will in turn fall back onto the shoulders of the taxpayer.

For decades now this bill has been fronted by the tax payer and it's about time this changed. Who does that leave, well the individual/family occuppying the property of cfamily members of of the person occupying the property. If they want to remain in residence of properties greater than their requirements then its only fair that they pay for the extra space themselves. If they can't afford to pay then they have no rights to reside there.

I don't care about individual cases, the differences of rental and social housing prices, % of what benefits are paid out and to whom. My arguement is that it should not be the tax payers subsidising all these benefits through force of salary taxation if it adversely affects their quality of life......which in many cases it does.
All this comes down to is who should be pay for people to occupy social housing larger than their requirements. Having a spare bedroom / extra living space is not a requirement, it is most definately a luxury and one which most working class households do not have. We all seem to agree that it is in fact completely unfair to expect taxpayers to fit the bill, no point mentioning local councils or governmental bodies as this will in turn fall back onto the shoulders of the taxpayer. For decades now this bill has been fronted by the tax payer and it's about time this changed. Who does that leave, well the individual/family occuppying the property of cfamily members of of the person occupying the property. If they want to remain in residence of properties greater than their requirements then its only fair that they pay for the extra space themselves. If they can't afford to pay then they have no rights to reside there. I don't care about individual cases, the differences of rental and social housing prices, % of what benefits are paid out and to whom. My arguement is that it should not be the tax payers subsidising all these benefits through force of salary taxation if it adversely affects their quality of life......which in many cases it does. MartinMo
  • Score: 5

5:51pm Mon 28 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

For decades now this bill has been fronted by the tax payer and it's about time this changed. Who does that leave, well the individual/family occuppying the property of cfamily members of of the person occupying the property. If they want to remain in residence of properties greater than their requirements then its only fair that they pay for the extra space themselves.
The cost of an extra room? mmm gets out calculator!!! nope, cannot seem to find the evidence that having an "extra room" costs anyone anything. There is no spare room abacus that could or will prove it does. It is just one more of the invented reasons that Governments use, to set us against each other and for the bigots to use, to air their fetid, narrow minded viciousness, jealousy and envy.
For decades now this bill has been fronted by the tax payer and it's about time this changed. Who does that leave, well the individual/family occuppying the property of cfamily members of of the person occupying the property. If they want to remain in residence of properties greater than their requirements then its only fair that they pay for the extra space themselves. The cost of an extra room? mmm gets out calculator!!! nope, cannot seem to find the evidence that having an "extra room" costs anyone anything. There is no spare room abacus that could or will prove it does. It is just one more of the invented reasons that Governments use, to set us against each other and for the bigots to use, to air their fetid, narrow minded viciousness, jealousy and envy. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -1

5:54pm Mon 28 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

By the way MartinMo, I'm getting sick of your "whining, me, me, me attitude and posts. It's all about you isn't it?
By the way MartinMo, I'm getting sick of your "whining, me, me, me attitude and posts. It's all about you isn't it? tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -2

8:59am Tue 29 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
By the way MartinMo, I'm getting sick of your "whining, me, me, me attitude and posts. It's all about you isn't it?
"Yawn"

Since when was I every tax payer???????????????
????? Think your calculator may be broken.

As for your pointless post previous to your last, who said anything about tax payers paying for just the newly invented bedroom tax, I am on about social housing in general. If those in receipt of social housing benefits are made to pay back into the system for occupy'ing premises in excess of their needs this will lessen the impact on the benfits pot making more money available for those in genuine need. At no point do I think that this at any point would put extra cash back into my pocket, would be nice though to be able to keep a little more of what I earn.

Again this is not about jealousy or envy from those like myself as we stand to gain nothing from this, I am pushed more to believing your posts stem from jealousy and envy on your side, you hate to think of those around you being better off regardless of the fact they are in full time employment. You strongly believe that any one in work has a moral obligation to pay the way for those less fortunate or just plain lazy and you are strongly against any changes which adversely affect the lifestyle of those on benefits have grown accustomed too.

Me wanting more of my money for my family is perfectably acceptable whilst your attitude stems from envy, jealousy and greed which has turned you into a twisted and bitter individual.

I will continue to argue for what is rightfully the taxpayers (keeping what they earn) as I will no doubt expect you to continue to argue for what you believe is rightly the less fortunates (again, what the tax payer earns).
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: By the way MartinMo, I'm getting sick of your "whining, me, me, me attitude and posts. It's all about you isn't it?[/p][/quote]"Yawn" Since when was I every tax payer??????????????? ????? Think your calculator may be broken. As for your pointless post previous to your last, who said anything about tax payers paying for just the newly invented bedroom tax, I am on about social housing in general. If those in receipt of social housing benefits are made to pay back into the system for occupy'ing premises in excess of their needs this will lessen the impact on the benfits pot making more money available for those in genuine need. At no point do I think that this at any point would put extra cash back into my pocket, would be nice though to be able to keep a little more of what I earn. Again this is not about jealousy or envy from those like myself as we stand to gain nothing from this, I am pushed more to believing your posts stem from jealousy and envy on your side, you hate to think of those around you being better off regardless of the fact they are in full time employment. You strongly believe that any one in work has a moral obligation to pay the way for those less fortunate or just plain lazy and you are strongly against any changes which adversely affect the lifestyle of those on benefits have grown accustomed too. Me wanting more of my money for my family is perfectably acceptable whilst your attitude stems from envy, jealousy and greed which has turned you into a twisted and bitter individual. I will continue to argue for what is rightfully the taxpayers (keeping what they earn) as I will no doubt expect you to continue to argue for what you believe is rightly the less fortunates (again, what the tax payer earns). MartinMo
  • Score: 2

9:10am Tue 29 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
Ah, the old 'I have nothing further to add and no ability to defeat the logical, reasoned, and referenced argument, so I wil take my ball home with me' approach to life. I should have known.

It was of course you who suggested that they should work for the accommodation - I merely accepted the logic of your proposal.

Further, I only suggested that there was an argument regarding sterilisation as of course there is an argument (which oddly you seem to disagree with) that parents should be responsible for the produce of their own loins.

If such people can, as at present, breeed to their heart's content without any intention of ever lifting a finger to care for such products, then where is the incentive for them to stop and take responsibility? I suppose, if sterilisation is not the preferred option - compulsory adoption could be. Any views TP?
The main point people miss here is that those on full benefits do not have kids for the love of kids, they treat them as a source of income and therefore reproduce through greed alone.

Many eastern communities allow the birth of one child for the purpose of repopullation and require you to get permission from a local official before having additional kids. Permission is only granted based on the parents income therefore keeping more children out of poverty.....how can this be wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: Ah, the old 'I have nothing further to add and no ability to defeat the logical, reasoned, and referenced argument, so I wil take my ball home with me' approach to life. I should have known. It was of course you who suggested that they should work for the accommodation - I merely accepted the logic of your proposal. Further, I only suggested that there was an argument regarding sterilisation as of course there is an argument (which oddly you seem to disagree with) that parents should be responsible for the produce of their own loins. If such people can, as at present, breeed to their heart's content without any intention of ever lifting a finger to care for such products, then where is the incentive for them to stop and take responsibility? I suppose, if sterilisation is not the preferred option - compulsory adoption could be. Any views TP?[/p][/quote]The main point people miss here is that those on full benefits do not have kids for the love of kids, they treat them as a source of income and therefore reproduce through greed alone. Many eastern communities allow the birth of one child for the purpose of repopullation and require you to get permission from a local official before having additional kids. Permission is only granted based on the parents income therefore keeping more children out of poverty.....how can this be wrong. MartinMo
  • Score: 2

12:11pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

China is the only country I am aware of, where a limit of one child is imposed. So where are these, "many eastern communities"?
You continue to whinge and whine in your me, me, me way. Self, self, self, is what you do best. I will continue to put the obverse side of the coin.
As for envy and jealousy, you said; "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax.". Sounds like envy and jealousy to me!
China is the only country I am aware of, where a limit of one child is imposed. So where are these, "many eastern communities"? You continue to whinge and whine in your me, me, me way. Self, self, self, is what you do best. I will continue to put the obverse side of the coin. As for envy and jealousy, you said; "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax.". Sounds like envy and jealousy to me! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -1

1:21pm Tue 29 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
China is the only country I am aware of, where a limit of one child is imposed. So where are these, "many eastern communities"?
You continue to whinge and whine in your me, me, me way. Self, self, self, is what you do best. I will continue to put the obverse side of the coin.
As for envy and jealousy, you said; "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax.". Sounds like envy and jealousy to me!
Is it jealousy or my god given right to be treated fairly. How can it be jealousy when we both know unquestionably that the statement I made would in fact never happen. The fact you keep returning to that shows just how unconstructive and pathetic your arguement is and it is you whom displays the me, me me attitude, you just attempt to disguise it as though you are speaking up for the less fortunate.

You yourself stated that it is unfair that tax payers are continueouly "forced" to pay the way for the less fortunate and more so the just plain lazy but fail to come up with an alternative. This is because where else would the money come from if not stolen from the working class? If working class where given a choice as to whether or not to pay taxes towards certain benefits systems those less fortunate and those just lazy would find themselves falling on harder times, then looking back and for the first time in their lives actually be thankful for what they currently receive.

China yes, certain regions in Afghan is another which is generally enforced by the Taliban....you are not as worldly or as educated as you think.

I do love the way you like to make assumptions about people whom post on these sites, especially if they don't agree with any of the clap trap you spout.....they are biggots, they are jealous, they suffer from envy, they wwhing and whine...............
................it goes on.

So in fairness, here's an asumption I make based on your post, get off your lazy ****, stop wasting tax payers on internet subscriptions and use it instead to pay for the spare bedroon you want to keep hold off........I have no proof that you in fact fall into that catagory and would be wrong of me to continueously claim you do so quit with the pathetic name calling posts and try typing a constuctive arguement as to why you think this nation should continue to force the working class to pay into a benefit system which provides more than a claimant actually needs.
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: China is the only country I am aware of, where a limit of one child is imposed. So where are these, "many eastern communities"? You continue to whinge and whine in your me, me, me way. Self, self, self, is what you do best. I will continue to put the obverse side of the coin. As for envy and jealousy, you said; "When the government supply me with extra accommadation freely (tax payers expense) for visiting family ect then I will change my tune in regards to the bedroom tax.". Sounds like envy and jealousy to me![/p][/quote]Is it jealousy or my god given right to be treated fairly. How can it be jealousy when we both know unquestionably that the statement I made would in fact never happen. The fact you keep returning to that shows just how unconstructive and pathetic your arguement is and it is you whom displays the me, me me attitude, you just attempt to disguise it as though you are speaking up for the less fortunate. You yourself stated that it is unfair that tax payers are continueouly "forced" to pay the way for the less fortunate and more so the just plain lazy but fail to come up with an alternative. This is because where else would the money come from if not stolen from the working class? If working class where given a choice as to whether or not to pay taxes towards certain benefits systems those less fortunate and those just lazy would find themselves falling on harder times, then looking back and for the first time in their lives actually be thankful for what they currently receive. China yes, certain regions in Afghan is another which is generally enforced by the Taliban....you are not as worldly or as educated as you think. I do love the way you like to make assumptions about people whom post on these sites, especially if they don't agree with any of the clap trap you spout.....they are biggots, they are jealous, they suffer from envy, they wwhing and whine............... ................it goes on. So in fairness, here's an asumption I make based on your post, get off your lazy ****, stop wasting tax payers on internet subscriptions and use it instead to pay for the spare bedroon you want to keep hold off........I have no proof that you in fact fall into that catagory and would be wrong of me to continueously claim you do so quit with the pathetic name calling posts and try typing a constuctive arguement as to why you think this nation should continue to force the working class to pay into a benefit system which provides more than a claimant actually needs. MartinMo
  • Score: 3

5:48pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

More tan a claimant actually needs? interesting, if not totally wrong in the vast majority of cases. I to have seen the cases in the press, of individuals ripping off tens of thousands and in some cases, hundreds of thousands in benefits but abjure claims that this is the majority doing this and not just a very, very, small minority of cases.
Furthermore, I am quite worldly wise and have a breadth of knowledge. Knowledge which has never found evidence for your claim that the Afghan Taliban enforce a one child moratorium upon the citizens. As I say, in all my readings, only China categorically carries through this imposition.
As for assumptions re others, I make no assumptions, I used your own words, or do you speak merely to hear your own voice? Whether or not the situation you mentioned would ever come about, is irrelevant, but the underlying sentiment is not!
More tan a claimant actually needs? interesting, if not totally wrong in the vast majority of cases. I to have seen the cases in the press, of individuals ripping off tens of thousands and in some cases, hundreds of thousands in benefits but abjure claims that this is the majority doing this and not just a very, very, small minority of cases. Furthermore, I am quite worldly wise and have a breadth of knowledge. Knowledge which has never found evidence for your claim that the Afghan Taliban enforce a one child moratorium upon the citizens. As I say, in all my readings, only China categorically carries through this imposition. As for assumptions re others, I make no assumptions, I used your own words, or do you speak merely to hear your own voice? Whether or not the situation you mentioned would ever come about, is irrelevant, but the underlying sentiment is not! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 0

8:26am Wed 30 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

OK, I give in, have it your way, poor Albert can go without the much needed wheelchair so John, 22 year old, able bodied, never worked a day in his life can live in a 3 bed house with his wife and single kid. Poor Albert can get by without extra care assistance so John and his family can have a multi channel tv package, home broadband and computer, a mobile phone and contract for each family member plus leaving just enough cash to subsidise any alcohol/tobacco or drug addictions.

Live in denial all you want but in reality this is the truth of the matter. You would rather see the already over taxed working class pushed harder than see a benefit system reform designed to actually put the money to a more needy use. If any changes adversely affect the standard of life you have grown accustomed too then in your eyes they are bad. You are not fighting the cause for the benefit off the elderly or sick, you are doing it for yourself and no one else. Yes you state elderly and sick need more help/more money but not if that money comes from people like John.

You are all about yourself and your post show this.
OK, I give in, have it your way, poor Albert can go without the much needed wheelchair so John, 22 year old, able bodied, never worked a day in his life can live in a 3 bed house with his wife and single kid. Poor Albert can get by without extra care assistance so John and his family can have a multi channel tv package, home broadband and computer, a mobile phone and contract for each family member plus leaving just enough cash to subsidise any alcohol/tobacco or drug addictions. Live in denial all you want but in reality this is the truth of the matter. You would rather see the already over taxed working class pushed harder than see a benefit system reform designed to actually put the money to a more needy use. If any changes adversely affect the standard of life you have grown accustomed too then in your eyes they are bad. You are not fighting the cause for the benefit off the elderly or sick, you are doing it for yourself and no one else. Yes you state elderly and sick need more help/more money but not if that money comes from people like John. You are all about yourself and your post show this. MartinMo
  • Score: 1

12:04pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Sorry MM, you lie about me and moreover "slander" me! In my posts, I have never ever mentioned myself, unlike your good self, on this thread and others, which is a recurring theme in "your" posts.
Neither am I in denial. I fully agree that there are those who, take advantage, wrongly, of the benefits system and it should be "stopped". Where we part company, is that I contend, that it is a tiny minority who do this, whereas you continually put forward arguments that suggest that the "majority" are scrounging, idle, lowlifes. A view I believe is wrong and moreover, contemptible!
Sorry MM, you lie about me and moreover "slander" me! In my posts, I have never ever mentioned myself, unlike your good self, on this thread and others, which is a recurring theme in "your" posts. Neither am I in denial. I fully agree that there are those who, take advantage, wrongly, of the benefits system and it should be "stopped". Where we part company, is that I contend, that it is a tiny minority who do this, whereas you continually put forward arguments that suggest that the "majority" are scrounging, idle, lowlifes. A view I believe is wrong and moreover, contemptible! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -1

10:35am Thu 1 May 14

MartinMo says...

We both have different conceptions of what is taking advantage of the benefit system.

Yes, there are those whom fraudulantly claim benefits (this happens a lot more than you obviously believe) and these people should be stripped of any future claims, be forced to pay back what they have stolen or face jail time.

For me though it does not end there, if you are living above your means at the expense of others then reforms and cuts are needed.
If you need any of the following; food, water, shelter, clothing or medical aide then by no means would a begrudge you receive it.
However benefits paying for cars (all other requirements to run a car), sky/virgin tv packages, mobile phone including pay as you go or contract, home broadband, game consoles, alcohol, tobacco products, labelled/designer clothing and footwear or foods from take away establishments is a severe missuse of money. Non of the pre mentioned are essential are therefore any one benefits able to afford those items are definately taking the advantage of a system wrongly which in turn makes it harder for others to get what they may actually need, finally, this is not a tiny minority as the greater majority of those on benefits are living above their means and requirements.
We both have different conceptions of what is taking advantage of the benefit system. Yes, there are those whom fraudulantly claim benefits (this happens a lot more than you obviously believe) and these people should be stripped of any future claims, be forced to pay back what they have stolen or face jail time. For me though it does not end there, if you are living above your means at the expense of others then reforms and cuts are needed. If you need any of the following; food, water, shelter, clothing or medical aide then by no means would a begrudge you receive it. However benefits paying for cars (all other requirements to run a car), sky/virgin tv packages, mobile phone including pay as you go or contract, home broadband, game consoles, alcohol, tobacco products, labelled/designer clothing and footwear or foods from take away establishments is a severe missuse of money. Non of the pre mentioned are essential are therefore any one benefits able to afford those items are definately taking the advantage of a system wrongly which in turn makes it harder for others to get what they may actually need, finally, this is not a tiny minority as the greater majority of those on benefits are living above their means and requirements. MartinMo
  • Score: -1

12:29pm Thu 1 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

You miss one crucial and important point MM, this majority you continually level these charges at, were at one time "employed". Without a doubt, this "majority" are seeking to return to the world of employment. During this time, the majority of these surplus and unnecessary goods will have been purchased! What do you suggest! that everyone who becomes unemployed divests themselves of these items? Thereby forcing them to start again from scratch, when new employment is gained! I have no doubt, that you and others will claim that it is "not" the case, that these items were purchased during terms of employment, I however, would disagree. So we have an impasse, an impasse of interpretation, and subjective belief!!!
You miss one crucial and important point MM, this majority you continually level these charges at, were at one time "employed". Without a doubt, this "majority" are seeking to return to the world of employment. During this time, the majority of these surplus and unnecessary goods will have been purchased! What do you suggest! that everyone who becomes unemployed divests themselves of these items? Thereby forcing them to start again from scratch, when new employment is gained! I have no doubt, that you and others will claim that it is "not" the case, that these items were purchased during terms of employment, I however, would disagree. So we have an impasse, an impasse of interpretation, and subjective belief!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Thu 1 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

By the way, someone who has managed to acquire a car during employment, would be disadvantaged in a future search for employment, if they were forced to sell this means of transport!
By the way, someone who has managed to acquire a car during employment, would be disadvantaged in a future search for employment, if they were forced to sell this means of transport! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 0

3:16pm Thu 1 May 14

MartinMo says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
You miss one crucial and important point MM, this majority you continually level these charges at, were at one time "employed". Without a doubt, this "majority" are seeking to return to the world of employment. During this time, the majority of these surplus and unnecessary goods will have been purchased! What do you suggest! that everyone who becomes unemployed divests themselves of these items? Thereby forcing them to start again from scratch, when new employment is gained! I have no doubt, that you and others will claim that it is "not" the case, that these items were purchased during terms of employment, I however, would disagree. So we have an impasse, an impasse of interpretation, and subjective belief!!!
Another point is that "without a doubt", you could not put your hand on your heart and state as fact that your post is the undeniable truth.

My posts are a reflection of what I see every day, not what I have read on the net or seen on tv. I have family members and friends whom have made a living out of milking the benefit system and never worked a day in their lives. My younger brother is a prime example, living in a 4 bedroom house with his live in partner (not married) and four kids, all the household mod cons (luxuries), 2 running cars and a motorbike and to put the icing on the cake, financed a trip to spain for a week last summer. He blantantly refuses to find work unless he deems it worthwhile, leaves him substantially better off, in other words an annual income of over £27k after tax and NI. Given his level of education that is hardly likely but he is happy to live in a society which is happy to pay his..........why do you think we have so many immigrants wanting in. Not all those on benefits seem to have it this easy but the minority you keep going on about is not as minor as governments would like us to believe.
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: You miss one crucial and important point MM, this majority you continually level these charges at, were at one time "employed". Without a doubt, this "majority" are seeking to return to the world of employment. During this time, the majority of these surplus and unnecessary goods will have been purchased! What do you suggest! that everyone who becomes unemployed divests themselves of these items? Thereby forcing them to start again from scratch, when new employment is gained! I have no doubt, that you and others will claim that it is "not" the case, that these items were purchased during terms of employment, I however, would disagree. So we have an impasse, an impasse of interpretation, and subjective belief!!![/p][/quote]Another point is that "without a doubt", you could not put your hand on your heart and state as fact that your post is the undeniable truth. My posts are a reflection of what I see every day, not what I have read on the net or seen on tv. I have family members and friends whom have made a living out of milking the benefit system and never worked a day in their lives. My younger brother is a prime example, living in a 4 bedroom house with his live in partner (not married) and four kids, all the household mod cons (luxuries), 2 running cars and a motorbike and to put the icing on the cake, financed a trip to spain for a week last summer. He blantantly refuses to find work unless he deems it worthwhile, leaves him substantially better off, in other words an annual income of over £27k after tax and NI. Given his level of education that is hardly likely but he is happy to live in a society which is happy to pay his..........why do you think we have so many immigrants wanting in. Not all those on benefits seem to have it this easy but the minority you keep going on about is not as minor as governments would like us to believe. MartinMo
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Thu 1 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

MM, if what you say is true, re your brother and I have no reason to disbelieve you, a phone call to the local DSS would probably be advisable, if for no other reason than to check he is not on the fiddle. I too, know people on benefits, a couple are swinging the lead, the vast majority however, are not. Specifically, a man I know, who for the past six weeks, has been given 9 hours work in all this time. He turns up, after travelling for half an hour, works for approximately 45/ 90 minutes, that is on the days he isn't just sent home. That is his existence! I know of others who, whilst not being in such a parlous situation, are little better off. They all want more employment, more hours but are unable to find such like. This is the reality of so called life, for many people. Watching the news on Tuesday it was mentioned that there are now 1.4 million people on Zero Hours contracts. 1.4 million people not "guaranteed " even 1 hour of certain wages, what a way to exist!!!
I can put my hand on my heart and state, as a "fact" that the vast majority of people I know, who are unemployed, bought their goods and chattels when employed. Moreover, have tried everything to gain full-time or even part time, regular employment.
MM, if what you say is true, re your brother and I have no reason to disbelieve you, a phone call to the local DSS would probably be advisable, if for no other reason than to check he is not on the fiddle. I too, know people on benefits, a couple are swinging the lead, the vast majority however, are not. Specifically, a man I know, who for the past six weeks, has been given 9 hours work in all this time. He turns up, after travelling for half an hour, works for approximately 45/ 90 minutes, that is on the days he isn't just sent home. That is his existence! I know of others who, whilst not being in such a parlous situation, are little better off. They all want more employment, more hours but are unable to find such like. This is the reality of so called life, for many people. Watching the news on Tuesday it was mentioned that there are now 1.4 million people on Zero Hours contracts. 1.4 million people not "guaranteed " even 1 hour of certain wages, what a way to exist!!! I can put my hand on my heart and state, as a "fact" that the vast majority of people I know, who are unemployed, bought their goods and chattels when employed. Moreover, have tried everything to gain full-time or even part time, regular employment. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 0

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