‘Bedroom tax’ will hit 3,000 families (From Thisisdorset)

“We simply don’t have enough one and two bedroom properties in our housing stock for people to downsize." What a load of bull,most properties being built are 2 bedroom (well 1 bedroom and a box room) and its larger properties that social housing is crying out for. The only way this statement can be taken as true is if "because we have sod all housing" is added on to the end.

How much will the royal family have to pay I wonder ?

“We simply don’t have enough one and two bedroom properties in our housing stock for people to downsize."

Well, that's fine. Only apply the surcharge if you actually have the property available to downsize the occupants considered to be underoccupying.

However, there are flaws in this scheme. The underoccupancy criteria does not take into account medical conditions where people are required to have their own room, for example. So people who have, say, two kids of an age where the book says they can share, but need their own room for proper care, get mugged because they supposedly have a 'spare' room.

If you want a spare unused bedroom then buy your own house and stop wanting others to subsidise your life.
Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenant buy the subsidised house they lived in so blame her for the lack of smaller council houses.

H2o-hara wrote:
How much will the royal family have to pay I wonder ?

Which social housing association are the royal family with? Think I might sign up!!

I thought that if you apply to downsize then you don't have to pay this.
The council has no smaller properties for you to move to so apply to downsize even if you don't want to move.
All stick, no carrot. If the council had built a few blocks of decently sized one bedders then offered these they would have had more success.
This legislation had nothing to do with freeing up larger properties, just saving money, **** the consequences, poorly thought out as well. Just say you want to downsize and save, no chance of being offered a non-existent property.
By the way, I am not a tennant, just someone who believes people/children deserve homes, not temporary accomodation.
A comment from one woman elsewhere said it all, she said she would get around this by having a few more kids and has already got pregnant in anticipation.
Tory=incompetent, clueless!

Let them get away with this and they will tax you for having a bathroom then a kitchen, this care for the rich and dam the poor approach will throw this country to the dark age of poverty and slum living, if it hasn't already done so.

I know social housing tenants get a smooth ride,
but only some of them get beach huts you know.
this is most unfair
give all of them a beach hut I say.
look after their children
they need fresh air ..

This is NOT A TAX.

Disabled people should be made to downsize before adaptions are made to a property.

I know a couple who live in a four bed house, split over three floors and have had it adapted for one of them who has a slight disability. They have stair lift, walk in shower room, doors have been widened etc, yet they live on their own with no children!!

People like that should have been made to downsize to a suitable smaller property, which could then be adapted to their needs - and before you all start shouting - no they don't have carers or anyone else staying over at night ........ of their three spare bedrooms, one is used for computers, one as a storage room and the other is a toy room for when their grandkids visit!

I bet my last quid these people will somehow manage to get away with not paying the extra money for spare rooms by claiming they need them for essential use, as they have already made it plain they are not going to move :o/

I don't agree with the tax in principle, because it will simply not achieve what it sets out to do and that is forcing people to downsize.

"Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenants buy the subsidised house they lived in"
.
And a recent report shows that 30% of those are now in the hands of private landlords!
.
Including 40 owned by the son of Thatcher’s Housing Minister Ian Gow.
.
Remind me why I still hate Thatcher!

nobull wrote:
This is NOT A TAX.

Exactly, this is typical of people jumping on a bandwagon.
.
I live in a small house and would love to be able to live in larger house but because I have to pay so much tax to pay for housing benefits and support heavily subsidised social housing rents I can't afford to move.
.

twynham wrote:
"Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenants buy the subsidised house they lived in"
.
And a recent report shows that 30% of those are now in the hands of private landlords!
.
Including 40 owned by the son of Thatcher’s Housing Minister Ian Gow.
.
Remind me why I still hate Thatcher!

Exactly! Shameful isn't it!

I quite agree that Mrs Thatcher killed the council house idea – the worst thing she ever did and I could never work out how it was a right wing policy and that idiot of a leader we have is doing the same.

I also agree that this bill has not been well thought out and that there should be safe guards built into it for those who really need it but how much longer must the tax payer keep forking out for the rest.

As a house holder, if I could no longer afford the mortgage etc. I would have no option but to down size and not assume others would bail me out.

Like BmthNewshound and others, I too would love to live in a larger house.

Again, it MUST be noted that this is NOT a tax.
For members of the Echo and others who are also getting confused, tax is when money is taken away. Benefit is when money is given.
This is a reduction in benefit - you are still being given money which has been taken from the tax payer.

The window tax all over again, I can understand if a couple have a house with five or six bedrooms but to do this to a couple because they have two bedrooms is absolutely stupid, where are they intending to move these people to if they haven't got enough housing already, how much has it cost to employ all of these extra advisers I wonder.
It seems to be the poorest in this country are on the receiving end of a witch hunt by this Tory government.

The poorest amongst us don't need all this aggravation you know
they need compassion and reassurance
and more cash in this cold spell.
Turn the Bournemouth night clubs into drop-in shelters,

Where do they get the figures of £609 and £1,249 from, surely that's not the difference between a 2 bedroom place and a 1 bedroom for housing benefit, also does the affect people who are not receiving benefits, if so then this is a tax irrespective of what corngoat says above.
This is simply hitting the people who can least afford any more reduction in cash coming into the house hold. .

nobull wrote:
This is NOT A TAX.

This is the Poll Tax under another name.
If you remember,Thatcher said you have to pay for the property wether you are an elderly single person in a large house (several bedrooms) or a family in a large /small house using all bedrooms. With the community tax and now this the bedroom tax,they have covered it more than the Poll Tax.
Clever Government=stupid short memory people.

seems dave and his millionnaire friends have really taken Thatchers Victorian values to new extremes- reward the rich , penalise the poor and get one section of the working class to demonise the other so they don't notice what is really going on - come on dave surely all those kids of single mothers could be used to stack shelves after school or maybe you could force people in wheelchairs to tow a broom behind them or their benefit is cut? words fail me .

I understand there is a strict code that defines the difference between a bedroom and a boxroom that was laid down by the gov some time ago. If any so called bedrooms fall below the stated size requirements they cannot legally be deemed a bedroom thus if challenged the council cannot legally include boxrooms in this plan

Social housing tenants have had it far too easy for far too long and it's about time they were made to pay their share instead of being continually subsidised by the taxpayer.

Why on earth should they not contribute to the cost of extra bedrooms - private tenants have had to for years. Bring it on I say.

This is a reduction in benefit not a Tax.
And in respect to 'Poll Tax', this was one occasion when council charge was equally distributed amongst all who received the services.
Those ex council houses now held by landlords represent the upward mobility taken by those who purchased them, as they sell and purchase for improvement.
For which comments a await the lynch mob.

corngoat wrote:
Again, it MUST be noted that this is NOT a tax.
For members of the Echo and others who are also getting confused, tax is when money is taken away. Benefit is when money is given.
This is a reduction in benefit - you are still being given money which has been taken from the tax payer.

Very well said. Why should people many of whom choose a life on benefits be better off in many different ways than people who work. If you live in social housing and wish to keep your spare bedroom all you have to do is get a job.

coster wrote:
This is a reduction in benefit not a Tax.
And in respect to 'Poll Tax', this was one occasion when council charge was equally distributed amongst all who received the services.
Those ex council houses now held by landlords represent the upward mobility taken by those who purchased them, as they sell and purchase for improvement.
For which comments a await the lynch mob.

It is a tax if it applies to people who are not in receipt of any benefits.

people forget this applies to people who work on low wages who by government regulation state because of there miniamal wages they by law are entitled to a small amount of benifit to enable them to live at a certain standard of living, this new legislation will put them below regulated requirements stated by this government thus causing additional cost in giving it with one hand paying back with other .................. only people who gain overpaid civil servents

justsayithowitis wrote:

corngoat wrote:
Again, it MUST be noted that this is NOT a tax.
For members of the Echo and others who are also getting confused, tax is when money is taken away. Benefit is when money is given.
This is a reduction in benefit - you are still being given money which has been taken from the tax payer.

Very well said. Why should people many of whom choose a life on benefits be better off in many different ways than people who work. If you live in social housing and wish to keep your spare bedroom all you have to do is get a job.

Well said. Agree 100%.

upyourpipe wrote:

coster wrote:
This is a reduction in benefit not a Tax.
And in respect to 'Poll Tax', this was one occasion when council charge was equally distributed amongst all who received the services.
Those ex council houses now held by landlords represent the upward mobility taken by those who purchased them, as they sell and purchase for improvement.
For which comments a await the lynch mob.

It is a tax if it applies to people who are not in receipt of any benefits.

That's a good point. It would be interesting to know what % of tenants in social housing are receiving housing benefit.

simcal wrote:

upyourpipe wrote:

coster wrote:
This is a reduction in benefit not a Tax.
And in respect to 'Poll Tax', this was one occasion when council charge was equally distributed amongst all who received the services.
Those ex council houses now held by landlords represent the upward mobility taken by those who purchased them, as they sell and purchase for improvement.
For which comments a await the lynch mob.

It is a tax if it applies to people who are not in receipt of any benefits.

That's a good point. It would be interesting to know what % of tenants in social housing are receiving housing benefit.

A fairly high proportion I'd say. It's possible to find out by requesting the information from the council under the Freedom of Information Act.

Those who are paying their own rents - very cheap in comparison to the private rented sector - will not be affected by this 'tax' (which isn't a tax), it is only those receiving benefits who will be liable to pay for the extra bedrooms (via reduction in benefit) they do not need - and quite right too.

I'd like to live in canford cliffs, drive a BMW M5, ride a ducati1199, be married to a super model, and have 14 children, unfortunately I work for a living so have to live within my means.

I think the reduction in benefits is very justified because at the moment people are rewarded for having more children financially, and don't pay the going rate for rent. The benefits system is corrupt where people are worse off working.

Dexterwest wrote:
I'd like to live in canford cliffs, drive a BMW M5, ride a ducati1199, be married to a super model, and have 14 children, unfortunately I work for a living so have to live within my means.

I think the reduction in benefits is very justified because at the moment people are rewarded for having more children financially, and don't pay the going rate for rent. The benefits system is corrupt where people are worse off working.

So if I've understood correctly those that live in canford cliffs, drive a BMW M5, ride a ducati1199, married to a super model, and have 14 children are people that are worse off working.

I told you capitalism wasn't working.

BournemouthMum wrote:

simcal wrote:

upyourpipe wrote:

coster wrote:
This is a reduction in benefit not a Tax.
And in respect to 'Poll Tax', this was one occasion when council charge was equally distributed amongst all who received the services.
Those ex council houses now held by landlords represent the upward mobility taken by those who purchased them, as they sell and purchase for improvement.
For which comments a await the lynch mob.

It is a tax if it applies to people who are not in receipt of any benefits.

That's a good point. It would be interesting to know what % of tenants in social housing are receiving housing benefit.

A fairly high proportion I'd say. It's possible to find out by requesting the information from the council under the Freedom of Information Act.

Those who are paying their own rents - very cheap in comparison to the private rented sector - will not be affected by this 'tax' (which isn't a tax), it is only those receiving benefits who will be liable to pay for the extra bedrooms (via reduction in benefit) they do not need - and quite right too.

This story doesn't actually say that only people on benefits will be affected, it says " plans to penalise social housing residents with surplus bedrooms will affect almost 3,000 local families", so does that mean anyone in social housing who have a spare room or only those in social housing that receives benefits but has spare bedrooms.

This is from the National Housing Federation:

The benefit reduction will affect:

Separated parents who share the care of their children and who may have been allocated an extra bedroom to reflect this.

Couples who use their ‘spare’ bedroom when recovering from an illness or operation

Foster carers because foster children are not counted as part of the household for benefit purposes

Parents whose children visit but are not part of the household

Families with disabled children

Disabled people including people living in adapted or specially designed properties.


BTW Those receiving housing benefit, including low-paid workers of which there are many and rent from the private or social sector already get a penalty for having more bedrooms than needed. E.g a couple in a two bed flat get paid the single bed flat rate.

aerolover wrote:
If you want a spare unused bedroom then buy your own house and stop wanting others to subsidise your life.
Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenant buy the subsidised house they lived in so blame her for the lack of smaller council houses.

And don't forget Thatcher made it illegal for councils to use the income from the sales to build new housing. This is in the "right to buy" act. Thus lighting the fuse of the housing problem we have today.

Plus she deregulated the banks and allowed building societies to become banks, that led to the banking crisis.

And the Tories wonder why people hate them!!

upyourpipe wrote:
Where do they get the figures of £609 and £1,249 from, surely that's not the difference between a 2 bedroom place and a 1 bedroom for housing benefit, also does the affect people who are not receiving benefits, if so then this is a tax irrespective of what corngoat says above.
This is simply hitting the people who can least afford any more reduction in cash coming into the house hold. .

You are asked to downsize if you are receiving benefits. If you work you are paying for your house anyway. People on benefits who rent privately will only be able to rent a property with the amount of bedrooms that are needed. Why should social housing be any different

Oh what a tangled web we weave, your a married couple in a two bedroom house who become elderly and frail lived there all these years and now because you have a spare bedroom for family use you are penalised despite your frail and infirm, maybe receiving benefits to help with rent and council tax and now your going to have to take a cut or ' downsize' ie move ..wrong wrong wrong . Anyone who supports this notion is as uncaring as the Thatcherites among us.

Dexterwest wrote:
I'd like to live in canford cliffs, drive a BMW M5, ride a ducati1199, be married to a super model, and have 14 children, unfortunately I work for a living so have to live within my means.

I think the reduction in benefits is very justified because at the moment people are rewarded for having more children financially, and don't pay the going rate for rent. The benefits system is corrupt where people are worse off working.

Best thing to do is give up work, have 14 children and you will get everything given to you. This country needs sorting out

Hessenford wrote:
The window tax all over again, I can understand if a couple have a house with five or six bedrooms but to do this to a couple because they have two bedrooms is absolutely stupid, where are they intending to move these people to if they haven't got enough housing already, how much has it cost to employ all of these extra advisers I wonder.
It seems to be the poorest in this country are on the receiving end of a witch hunt by this Tory government.

If people are on benefits and rent privately they would not be able to have a spare bedroom paid for by taxpayers so why should people in social housing be any different. I do not understand why people think private renters and social ones should be treated differently. If you want a spare bedroom then it's quite simple. Get a job

upyourpipe wrote:

BournemouthMum wrote:

simcal wrote:

upyourpipe wrote:

coster wrote:
This is a reduction in benefit not a Tax.
And in respect to 'Poll Tax', this was one occasion when council charge was equally distributed amongst all who received the services.
Those ex council houses now held by landlords represent the upward mobility taken by those who purchased them, as they sell and purchase for improvement.
For which comments a await the lynch mob.

It is a tax if it applies to people who are not in receipt of any benefits.

That's a good point. It would be interesting to know what % of tenants in social housing are receiving housing benefit.

A fairly high proportion I'd say. It's possible to find out by requesting the information from the council under the Freedom of Information Act.

Those who are paying their own rents - very cheap in comparison to the private rented sector - will not be affected by this 'tax' (which isn't a tax), it is only those receiving benefits who will be liable to pay for the extra bedrooms (via reduction in benefit) they do not need - and quite right too.

This story doesn't actually say that only people on benefits will be affected, it says " plans to penalise social housing residents with surplus bedrooms will affect almost 3,000 local families", so does that mean anyone in social housing who have a spare room or only those in social housing that receives benefits but has spare bedrooms.

Only those on benefits.

only three posts before mrs thatcher was brought into it, 30 odd years after she stepped down. can i remind the cloth caps that labour had 13 years in which to change mrs thatchers policies. labour could have changed every single thing that mrs thatcher did. council houses could have been built, mines could have been re opened. unions could have ruled again. but did labour do it? no.
concil houses are not built because councils dont want them. social housing is now in the hands of housing associations. and they build plenty.

justsayithowitis wrote:

Dexterwest wrote:
I'd like to live in canford cliffs, drive a BMW M5, ride a ducati1199, be married to a super model, and have 14 children, unfortunately I work for a living so have to live within my means.

I think the reduction in benefits is very justified because at the moment people are rewarded for having more children financially, and don't pay the going rate for rent. The benefits system is corrupt where people are worse off working.

Best thing to do is give up work, have 14 children and you will get everything given to you. This country needs sorting out

I take it you know my neighbours well then?

I would think that anyone who has a house in this category, would be using the third bedroom, whether it is a box room or not.
If they were to rent it out, that would be wrong too in the councils eyes. Give these people a break.

This change only includes those of working age. How many social houses with spare bedrooms are occupied by retired people on benefits who don't want to or cannot move to smaller properties?

Dexterwest wrote:
I'd like to live in canford cliffs, drive a BMW M5, ride a ducati1199, be married to a super model, and have 14 children, unfortunately I work for a living so have to live within my means.

I think the reduction in benefits is very justified because at the moment people are rewarded for having more children financially, and don't pay the going rate for rent. The benefits system is corrupt where people are worse off working.

Your super model wouldn't be much of a super model after she'd had 14 children, and how would you fit all those children into a BMW M5?

Lol!

Your point is very true though. Lots of things I'd like but can't afford, so why on earth should a social housing tenant on benefits be entitled to extra rooms paid for by other people (tax payers)? I think it's a very fair system being introduced.

RageAgainstTheMachin
e wrote:

justsayithowitis wrote:

Dexterwest wrote:
I'd like to live in canford cliffs, drive a BMW M5, ride a ducati1199, be married to a super model, and have 14 children, unfortunately I work for a living so have to live within my means.

I think the reduction in benefits is very justified because at the moment people are rewarded for having more children financially, and don't pay the going rate for rent. The benefits system is corrupt where people are worse off working.

Best thing to do is give up work, have 14 children and you will get everything given to you. This country needs sorting out

I take it you know my neighbours well then?

I know my neighbours

OKANAGAN 1 wrote:
I would think that anyone who has a house in this category, would be using the third bedroom, whether it is a box room or not.
If they were to rent it out, that would be wrong too in the councils eyes. Give these people a break.

Not true. I know of a mum and her adult daughter who were given a 3 bedroom council house. Mother has since died and daughter still lives in the house on her own. Also lots of people have spare rooms because their children have grown up and moved out. Why shouldn't these houses be freed up for families

if you have a spare room in your house under 70sq ft. then it cannot be classed as a bedroom under the housing act 1985 section 326, instead its a box room and you cannot be charged for a spare room on this room
This Bedroom Tax issue has made me look into the housing act :- IN my Mind most Councils have illigally collected Council Tax based upon our so called Three Bedroom Houses Read this :-

The controversial adjustment to benefits dubbed a ‘bedroom tax’ in the press threatens the income of many living on state benefits. The policy has already hit technical problems, as the original plan was to get those living in ‘under-occupied’ houses to move to smaller accommodation to free up space for families. This has hit the very real issue that there is nowhere near sufficient smaller accommodation for those under-occupying to go to.

Other more technical problems are now beginning to appear which might cause local authorities headaches. One in particular might be a real legal headache. Traditionally a house is described by how many bedroom it has. A typical local authority dwelling will have three bedrooms, but in many cases the three rooms will vary considerably in size.

Most of this type of houses have what is known as a box-room and this has traditionally been the sleeping accommodation of the children. These rooms by their nature have a small but adequate floor space and will usually easily accommodate a singe bed or bunks.

Under section 326 of the Housing Act 1985, it is quite possible that these rooms are not bedrooms at all. Section 326 deals with The Space Standard and requires a certain floor area per ‘person’ in the house. The floor area that can be occupied by an adult must be above 70 sq ft and very few box rooms are that size.

The Housing Act tells us that a room below 70 sq ft is suitable for half a person and a child under ten is apparently such a fraction. So returning to under-occupancy, an empty box room might attract the ‘tax’, but can it be legally sustained?

The problem for any local authority wanting to enforce this is that if the box-room is a bedroom, then any family with a child reaching the age of ten, who currently sleeps in the box room, will be over-occupying the property and the council will be breaching the space standard in the Housing Act.

If the box-room is not a bedroom, then any individual or perhaps couple occupying such a house might not be under-occupying it.

The problem is obvious; many houses will be occupied by mum and dad in their bedroom, big sister in the second bedroom and little 9-year-old (half person) brother in the box-room. On his 10th birthday they must move to a bigger house.

The single person in the two bedroom property occupying the main bedroom cannot take in an adult lodger in the box-room because it violates the space standard and if they leave it empty, they might have to pay the ‘bedroom tax’.

The local authorities will undoubtedly be hearing more about this in the next few months and the definition of ‘bedrooms’ and ‘occupancy’ might become a big problem for them.

if you have a spare room in your house under 70sq ft. then it cannot be classed as a bedroom under the housing act 1985 section 326, instead its a box room and you cannot be charged for a spare room on this room

live-and-let-live wrote:
only three posts before mrs thatcher was brought into it, 30 odd years after she stepped down. can i remind the cloth caps that labour had 13 years in which to change mrs thatchers policies. labour could have changed every single thing that mrs thatcher did. council houses could have been built, mines could have been re opened. unions could have ruled again. but did labour do it? no.
concil houses are not built because councils dont want them. social housing is now in the hands of housing associations. and they build plenty.

So anyone not a Tory is a cloth cap? How stereotypical from a Tory perspective. And I suppose anyone in a union is a militant left wing revolutionary. As soon as anyone criticises the Thatcher regime the Conservative view is that we should put up and shut up..like I said support the rich and dam the poor pure Thatcherism.

boverboy wrote:
This change only includes those of working age. How many social houses with spare bedrooms are occupied by retired people on benefits who don't want to or cannot move to smaller properties?

I don't give a **** if someone 'wants' to move or not.

If, when I retire, I cannot afford my present home, nobody will care whether I 'want' to move but I may 'have' to move to somewhere that I can afford, meanwhile still paying tax to subsidise those who have benefitted from charitable contributions from tax payers.

Housing associations will have to build
more three bed houses then or help
the elderly to find a suitable smaller
property, how about Yorkshire there's
a nice place to live!

If they don't do this they will just find another way to get money out of people. I am going to be effected by this "bedroom tax" as I have a 4 bed house with three teenagers and have been told I am classed as over-occupied, I was then told that come July I am no longer over occupying my house as my daughter turns 16 and is entitled to her own room. I am not going to move for the sake of 3 months bang in the middle of her exams. Plus it can take up to that time to arrange an exchange anyway.....off to measure youngest bedroom now as it is small with no room for a wardrobe ....so thanks for the info on that !

leogril wrote:
If they don't do this they will just find another way to get money out of people. I am going to be effected by this "bedroom tax" as I have a 4 bed house with three teenagers and have been told I am classed as over-occupied, I was then told that come July I am no longer over occupying my house as my daughter turns 16 and is entitled to her own room. I am not going to move for the sake of 3 months bang in the middle of her exams. Plus it can take up to that time to arrange an exchange anyway.....off to measure youngest bedroom now as it is small with no room for a wardrobe ....so thanks for the info on that !

If you were working you wouldn't have a problem. No one can make you move out of a property you are paying for

justsayithowitis wrote:

leogril wrote:
If they don't do this they will just find another way to get money out of people. I am going to be effected by this "bedroom tax" as I have a 4 bed house with three teenagers and have been told I am classed as over-occupied, I was then told that come July I am no longer over occupying my house as my daughter turns 16 and is entitled to her own room. I am not going to move for the sake of 3 months bang in the middle of her exams. Plus it can take up to that time to arrange an exchange anyway.....off to measure youngest bedroom now as it is small with no room for a wardrobe ....so thanks for the info on that !

If you were working you wouldn't have a problem. No one can make you move out of a property you are paying for

I do work but my wages are not large and still get help with my rent so this has effected my family income.

Council houses are pretty rare these days, I think bournemoith and poole are the only areas in the south that still have them. All the other areas sold theirs to housing associations. These businesses increased rents radically, reduced services and staff, like the purbeck housing trust who messed up so badly they where nominated the worst social housing management in the uk.
When people get social housing they are led to believe they have a home, after braving the sick private landlords milking them for substandard, cold, often damp pits. Naturally they are overjoyed , now they have a home with no chance of instant eviction, so they improve the property, work on their garden in the knowledge that they will enjoy the fruits of their labours.
Then after paying years of rent, probably more than the house cost to build, they have an accident/get ill and guess what, the benefits capped at just enough to live on have to go to the landlord. Stay warm, eat, or move out.
If these properties are no longer the tennants homes but billets for disadvantaged people with children then the social housing provider surely will become responsible for decorating and garden maintainance.
Then the actual policy seems unworkable when there are no smaller properties to move to and it is even debatable as to what constitutes a bedroom.
Policy of this kind will solve nothing, create no new housing and cost so much more than it saves. Councils and HA are already spending out hiring more staff to cope with the fallout.
All this does is reveal the mentality of these politicians, they're showing their true colours.
The Torys have acheived so much, a new sense of gloom and dispondancy has settled on the land, congratulations all who voted them in.

I wonder how many on benefits will decide to have another child to avoid leaving their home. A child that will be the financial responsiblility of the state thus vasting increasing the financial costs. An unintended consequence that will make this another failed Tory policy.

I hear that some councils are defining the living room as another bedroom as the law does not recognize what a living room is.

I wonder how many people that could potentially bring in to the group being effected by a reduction in rent paid.

I personally know a paraplegic who due to his injuries has to sleep in a specially built bed with tilting facilities. It is impossible for his wife to sleep in the same bed with him, they need their second bedroom.

The law makes no allowance for his situation which is not of his doing. For long periods of the day he has to be in bed as he has a degenerative wastage of his lower back so could not manage in an unadaptive house.

They are going to have to suffer this lose in housing benefit and have no alternative way to find the difference in funds as in his area the council will not be setting up a fund to offset the lose of benefit amount.

I think this is an example of how badly thought out the new rules on reduction of housing benefit are.

Can i remind some of you that not everyone on benefits is not working. I cared for my disabled son for 20 years and when he went into supported living I spent 6 months trying to get a job to support my family and when I finally got one it was minimum wage and part-time so therefore still get some help from the government but at least i am trying to do something to support my family and still continue to find full time employment. Unfortunately most places don't want to employ someone in there 40's with next to no work record cos they chose to care for there disabled child.but that does not stop me trying! So please stop assuming that the 3000 families effected are all unemployed as many of them could be the same position as myself!

leogril wrote:
Can i remind some of you that not everyone on benefits is not working. I cared for my disabled son for 20 years and when he went into supported living I spent 6 months trying to get a job to support my family and when I finally got one it was minimum wage and part-time so therefore still get some help from the government but at least i am trying to do something to support my family and still continue to find full time employment. Unfortunately most places don't want to employ someone in there 40's with next to no work record cos they chose to care for there disabled child.but that does not stop me trying! So please stop assuming that the 3000 families effected are all unemployed as many of them could be the same position as myself!

Anyone who cares for their disabled child is an exceptional person and should be totally exempt from any benefit cuts including the 'bedroom tax'.

BournemouthMum wrote:

leogril wrote:
Can i remind some of you that not everyone on benefits is not working. I cared for my disabled son for 20 years and when he went into supported living I spent 6 months trying to get a job to support my family and when I finally got one it was minimum wage and part-time so therefore still get some help from the government but at least i am trying to do something to support my family and still continue to find full time employment. Unfortunately most places don't want to employ someone in there 40's with next to no work record cos they chose to care for there disabled child.but that does not stop me trying! So please stop assuming that the 3000 families effected are all unemployed as many of them could be the same position as myself!

Anyone who cares for their disabled child is an exceptional person and should be totally exempt from any benefit cuts including the 'bedroom tax'.

Tell posh boy Cameron that. He's selectively deaf and blind.

Surely the answer is to take in a paying lodger, i did this when i was hard up and it definitely helped .

After all there is a shortage of housing there will be plenty of people looking for a room .

Housing in this area has been short supply in this area for as long as i remember and that is nearly 30 years ago

Fascism...meet Socialism.

Thank God I have my Second Amendment rights.

Time_Traveller wrote:
Disabled people should be made to downsize before adaptions are made to a property.

I know a couple who live in a four bed house, split over three floors and have had it adapted for one of them who has a slight disability. They have stair lift, walk in shower room, doors have been widened etc, yet they live on their own with no children!!

People like that should have been made to downsize to a suitable smaller property, which could then be adapted to their needs - and before you all start shouting - no they don't have carers or anyone else staying over at night ........ of their three spare bedrooms, one is used for computers, one as a storage room and the other is a toy room for when their grandkids visit!

I bet my last quid these people will somehow manage to get away with not paying the extra money for spare rooms by claiming they need them for essential use, as they have already made it plain they are not going to move :o/

I don't agree with the tax in principle, because it will simply not achieve what it sets out to do and that is forcing people to downsize.

What you dont say in your example is whether this couple are in receipt of the relevant benefits which this article refers to. They may have just had help from the NHS/social care etc regards the disability issue. If thats the case then we or the government have no right to tell them to downsize or make them pay more council tax.

BournemouthMum wrote:

simcal wrote:

upyourpipe wrote:

coster wrote: This is a reduction in benefit not a Tax. And in respect to 'Poll Tax', this was one occasion when council charge was equally distributed amongst all who received the services. Those ex council houses now held by landlords represent the upward mobility taken by those who purchased them, as they sell and purchase for improvement. For which comments a await the lynch mob.

It is a tax if it applies to people who are not in receipt of any benefits.

That's a good point. It would be interesting to know what % of tenants in social housing are receiving housing benefit.

A fairly high proportion I'd say. It's possible to find out by requesting the information from the council under the Freedom of Information Act. Those who are paying their own rents - very cheap in comparison to the private rented sector - will not be affected by this 'tax' (which isn't a tax), it is only those receiving benefits who will be liable to pay for the extra bedrooms (via reduction in benefit) they do not need - and quite right too.

Housing Associations do not come under the 'Freedom Of Information Act'.Submit a 'Subject Access Request' but some information will be redacted for confidentiality and data protection.

'Bedroom tax or second room subsidy, whatever you call it the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

In the private sector its called 'Local Housing Allowance' and that has been in force for some time.It was mean't to force lalndlords to reduce their rents in the private sector.Fat chance of that.

So while the squabbles continue maybe as taxpayers look deeper and see how much you are paying for Tobias Ellwood and Conor Burn to live in London while having homes in Bournemouth.

Its all a bit of a conundrum and its all
because of human frailty. I wonder if
some people live on another planet?
Before 1920 everyone either bought a
house or rented privately! Mind you
there were more slum housing, pity
that in the 60's they built the awful
high rise flats as seen in Poole.

Nice day eh?
Potia6 was really really drunk at the time......

The usual finger pointing at people on benefits, its probably hard to imagine for some that we do not all choose to go on benefits and it makes you wonder if these commenters actually begrudge working for a living.Its a boring story i know but in my case i had worked for 40 years since the age of 15 paid all my taxes etc only to become disabled through an illness that prevents me from working although i did try and the illness cost me 4 jobs and a very nice income.I live in a council house with three bedrooms my wife and i applied for a one bedroom bungalow many years ago but the council decided that they would modify this house for my requirements rather than downsize us.Not my choosing and not what we wanted, my health has deteriorated now and the upkeep of our house is more of a burden on my wife (who by the way works part-time) So we are not all spongers and we are not on our own in this type of situation so please do not infer otherwise

corngoat wrote:
Again, it MUST be noted that this is NOT a tax.
For members of the Echo and others who are also getting confused, tax is when money is taken away. Benefit is when money is given.
This is a reduction in benefit - you are still being given money which has been taken from the tax payer.

It's just a matter of semantics. What difference does it make whether I give you a benefit then take some tax back from it or I give you a benefit that's already been reduced?
 
Either way, it still hurts those at the poorest end of the economic spectrum. So I don't really see what your point is.

nosuchluck54 wrote:
The usual finger pointing at people on benefits, its probably hard to imagine for some that we do not all choose to go on benefits and it makes you wonder if these commenters actually begrudge working for a living.Its a boring story i know but in my case i had worked for 40 years since the age of 15 paid all my taxes etc only to become disabled through an illness that prevents me from working although i did try and the illness cost me 4 jobs and a very nice income.I live in a council house with three bedrooms my wife and i applied for a one bedroom bungalow many years ago but the council decided that they would modify this house for my requirements rather than downsize us.Not my choosing and not what we wanted, my health has deteriorated now and the upkeep of our house is more of a burden on my wife (who by the way works part-time) So we are not all spongers and we are not on our own in this type of situation so please do not infer otherwise

Well said! People automatically assumed this was about those choosing not to find work but others have been effected thanks to the new "bedroom tax" my family will be worse off, yet the government claim they want to get kids out of poverty...... perhaps he would like to explain to my children why my money has gone down again.....

Poor people who often live in dis-advantaged situations are being forced out of homes or the choice of being squeezed even more fore money they do not have. Disabled people having to give up adapted houses and old people leaving homes that they have memories and most importantly connections and ties with communities and family.

All for idealogical attack on the poor. The system is so inept in saving money it purports in saying this bedroom tax is needed to accomplish. Many people are forced into smaller yet more expensive accommodation in which Housing Benefit pays for.

The Government have already undertaken mass displacement of people hundreds of miles from homes and their lives in what is no more than social cleansing.

People are believing the mainstream news spin that is regurgitating Government/Corporate lies and attacking the most vulnerable people of our country, divide and rule tactics.

These jobs people should be jumping into ....just simply do not exist, and many are of minimum wage, low hours that enable people to not leave the benefit system behind. Greedy landlords hiking rents up is part of the problem leaving many people working but not receiving minimum wage.

Before people get grossly judgemental...rememb
er that no person is immune from illness, sickness, poverty and homelessness, if we can not stand up for those who are vulnerable now, they'll be no support when the legislation turns on your own circumstance.

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist...."

^ Greedy landlords hiking rents up is part of the problem leaving many people working but not receiving *living wage*

Hessenford wrote:
The window tax all over again, I can understand if a couple have a house with five or six bedrooms but to do this to a couple because they have two bedrooms is absolutely stupid, where are they intending to move these people to if they haven't got enough housing already, how much has it cost to employ all of these extra advisers I wonder. It seems to be the poorest in this country are on the receiving end of a witch hunt by this Tory government.

It's nothing of the sort. It's the taxpayer not being taken for a ride and providing more than what's needed. I shouldn't have to pay for a couples spare room. They should be in a bedsit or under the pier if they can't pay their way.
.
It's not a witch hunt. The poorest are where they are because they don't do anything about it except beg with their hand out.

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

Hessenford wrote: The window tax all over again, I can understand if a couple have a house with five or six bedrooms but to do this to a couple because they have two bedrooms is absolutely stupid, where are they intending to move these people to if they haven't got enough housing already, how much has it cost to employ all of these extra advisers I wonder. It seems to be the poorest in this country are on the receiving end of a witch hunt by this Tory government.

It's nothing of the sort. It's the taxpayer not being taken for a ride and providing more than what's needed. I shouldn't have to pay for a couples spare room. They should be in a bedsit or under the pier if they can't pay their way. . It's not a witch hunt. The poorest are where they are because they don't do anything about it except beg with their hand out.

I really hope your post was some sort of joke. If not, yes, lets follow on from your twisted view of humanity and take all the poor people, lock them inside a hall and turn the gas on so all the countries problems can be solved in one go.

The Liberal wrote:

corngoat wrote:
Again, it MUST be noted that this is NOT a tax.
For members of the Echo and others who are also getting confused, tax is when money is taken away. Benefit is when money is given.
This is a reduction in benefit - you are still being given money which has been taken from the tax payer.

It's just a matter of semantics. What difference does it make whether I give you a benefit then take some tax back from it or I give you a benefit that's already been reduced?
 
Either way, it still hurts those at the poorest end of the economic spectrum. So I don't really see what your point is.

I don't believe that people who don't work are the poorest people in our society. There are many single parents on benefits who smoke and drink and have takeaways several times a week. I don't know of any people who work who can afford to do this. Just because some people say they haven't got enough of my money for the basics it doesn't mean it is true. People on benefits should not be given actual cash. Everything should be paid with vouchers and proof of ID needed when using them. If you are saying you can't afford to feed your kids then give up smoking and drinking

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
The window tax all over again, I can understand if a couple have a house with five or six bedrooms but to do this to a couple because they have two bedrooms is absolutely stupid, where are they intending to move these people to if they haven't got enough housing already, how much has it cost to employ all of these extra advisers I wonder. It seems to be the poorest in this country are on the receiving end of a witch hunt by this Tory government.

It's nothing of the sort. It's the taxpayer not being taken for a ride and providing more than what's needed. I shouldn't have to pay for a couples spare room. They should be in a bedsit or under the pier if they can't pay their way.
.
It's not a witch hunt. The poorest are where they are because they don't do anything about it except beg with their hand out.

Cllr Ben Grower, leader of the Labour group on Bournemouth council, said: “We simply don’t have enough one and two bedroom properties in our housing stock for people to downsize.
.
If this is true then what's the point of all this except to clobber people with extra bills to pay.
I own my home, in full time employment, claim no benefits and have no debt so I will be unaffected by any of this, I see more people being driven further into poverty because there are no properties to downsize too.
I'm not happy that benefit cost to this country is over £100 billion per year, I would rather the government went after those who commit fraud when claiming benefits not penalise those who can do nothing about their situation..
Their are many ways to cut the benefits bill but there is no way to enforce downsizing when smaller homes are not available, this is a money raising exercise on the poorest in society after the richest in society caused this recession in the first place and are being rewarded through bonuses for their failure.

The real scroungers are at the top of the hierarchy..... councillors, and MPs... selling off our hard fought for welfare state, and NHS and public services to line the pockets of private interests...Bankers getting obscene bonuses whilst people are evicted because of faulty mortgages..MPs having multiple homes paid for by us, food subsidies paid for by us the public,expenses paid, by us...the public and so it goes on. The corruption is truly top down. Media complicit in fuelling the attack on the poor and for us blaming each person perceived in the lower wrung. So the working blame the unemployed, the unemployed blame the immigrants and so the divide goes on......when the reality is that the top richest are in a power grab and they are the abusers of the "tax payers" money. See it for what it is. Propaganda, Divide & conquer. When the disabled and unemployed are evicted, re-settled and dying (as they are) ..when the welfare state has disappeared , our NHS privatised...they will come for the pensions....oh & then our human rights....

as it stands now, i, on my own and with a deposit, can go and rent a nice two bedroom flat or house. i can then go and claim housing benefits to pay my rent. is this right? why should the taxpayer pay for a flat bigger than i need when quite often, that same taxpayer is having to move to a smaller place because he or she cant afford to stay in their bigger home?

I'd like a spare room in my property so my niece could stay with me over night. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to afford this on my wage and, as a private renter, have to go without. For people in social housing receiving benefit it has to be the same. A spare room is a luxury not a right and I'm glad the government policy reflects this.

There may not be 1/2 bedroom properties available through HomeChoice but there are families waiting for bigger houses and people in bigger houses looking to downsize so it should be possibly by using services like Homeswapper.

twynham wrote:
"Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenants buy the subsidised house they lived in"
.
And a recent report shows that 30% of those are now in the hands of private landlords!
.
Including 40 owned by the son of Thatcher’s Housing Minister Ian Gow.
.
Remind me why I still hate Thatcher!

No problem here with letting people buy their house. I can still remember that day when people in council homes bought their home, tidied it up, and lived with some self respect. Unlike the types who pile old mattreses and junk in front gardens. Even now, you can go round any estate and pick out those who have improved their own home at their own cost rather than sitting back and demanding someone else replaces their light bulbs etc. Not a reason to hate Mrs Thatcher in this household......

People who have worked all their life and obtained a mortgage years ago cannot claim enough in benefits to pay their mortgage when on hard times, they normally downsize to reduce costs.
I am in complete agreement that people who have a rented home with rooms that are not used should be relocated to reduce their housing benefit.
I do get sick of the taxes we pay going to people in order to give them a life of luxury on the benefit system.
Benefits have got way out of hand in this country and its about time the government, who ever is in power, got to grips with the billions that are wasted every year on lazy benefit reliant slobs who have kids like there's no tomorrow and expect the likes of me to pay for their upbringing.

davecook wrote:

twynham wrote:
"Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenants buy the subsidised house they lived in"
.
And a recent report shows that 30% of those are now in the hands of private landlords!
.
Including 40 owned by the son of Thatcher’s Housing Minister Ian Gow.
.
Remind me why I still hate Thatcher!

No problem here with letting people buy their house. I can still remember that day when people in council homes bought their home, tidied it up, and lived with some self respect. Unlike the types who pile old mattreses and junk in front gardens. Even now, you can go round any estate and pick out those who have improved their own home at their own cost rather than sitting back and demanding someone else replaces their light bulbs etc. Not a reason to hate Mrs Thatcher in this household......

Why should houses that are there for people who need them because of their financial/family circumstance then be sold (at knock down prices) to the residing occupants, to later be sold on at huge profit?What about the future people in need, the house once sold is gone out of that stock forever but there will always be people who could have benefitted themselves from being given the chance to rent that house. It should have never been allowed to happen and when you know of people who profitted twice from this whilst also having property elsewhere, as I said before...shameful!

justsayithowitis wrote:

The Liberal wrote:

corngoat wrote:
Again, it MUST be noted that this is NOT a tax.
For members of the Echo and others who are also getting confused, tax is when money is taken away. Benefit is when money is given.
This is a reduction in benefit - you are still being given money which has been taken from the tax payer.

It's just a matter of semantics. What difference does it make whether I give you a benefit then take some tax back from it or I give you a benefit that's already been reduced?
 
Either way, it still hurts those at the poorest end of the economic spectrum. So I don't really see what your point is.

I don't believe that people who don't work are the poorest people in our society. There are many single parents on benefits who smoke and drink and have takeaways several times a week. I don't know of any people who work who can afford to do this. Just because some people say they haven't got enough of my money for the basics it doesn't mean it is true. People on benefits should not be given actual cash. Everything should be paid with vouchers and proof of ID needed when using them. If you are saying you can't afford to feed your kids then give up smoking and drinking

Not everyone receiving benefits are unemployed there are some on way below the average pay of the governments figure of £26,000 a year, many in the public sector who need help with rent and council tax should they be forced to move into smaller accomadation to? Force children to share a bedroom ? This is Dickens territory for the sake of saving the face of Osbourne and his austerity measures. How this man sleeps at night is beyond me.

Some of you lot just don't seem able to activate the grey matter. All this housing benefit goes to landlords, the tennant sees not one penny.
It is the landlord who is the benefit scrounger, he increases unregulated rents to take advantage of this housing crisis and pockets the lot.
They go on about council tennants but all the housing benefit paid to these people by the council goes back to the council costing nothing. Rents paid to HA are invested in new property or payment of debt on existing homes and improvements. The people bleeding the system are private landlords so why not reintroduce a fair rent officer as in thepast. Used one decades ago who set a fair rent for a property and the landlord could'nt kick you out for 6 months.
But no, the tory is the landlord, he will milk every penny from this situation which was created by changes in the law all on the landlords behalf. Changes made by his fellow landlords in the tory party.
This whole thing stinks, social housing was the only hope for many families to escape this. Now all they have to look forward to is working the rest of their days in perpetual poverty just so some parasite can permanently holiday
It made me laugh when somebody cited the 1920's, surely that was the time of the Dorset clearances when Drax senior was kicking poor families who had seved him for generations out on the streets and thousands where leaving this country for the States, to escape the curse of landlords.

Here we go, this has just happened in Hamworthy library and indicates the mindset of a Tory.
Trying to raise money for disabled children people have put up posters and the local tory ripped them all down so that their political propaganda had space.
These EXPLETIVE have absolutely no morals, no concept of what is right and wrong.

Baywolf wrote:

justsayithowitis wrote:

The Liberal wrote:

corngoat wrote:
Again, it MUST be noted that this is NOT a tax.
For members of the Echo and others who are also getting confused, tax is when money is taken away. Benefit is when money is given.
This is a reduction in benefit - you are still being given money which has been taken from the tax payer.

It's just a matter of semantics. What difference does it make whether I give you a benefit then take some tax back from it or I give you a benefit that's already been reduced?
 
Either way, it still hurts those at the poorest end of the economic spectrum. So I don't really see what your point is.

I don't believe that people who don't work are the poorest people in our society. There are many single parents on benefits who smoke and drink and have takeaways several times a week. I don't know of any people who work who can afford to do this. Just because some people say they haven't got enough of my money for the basics it doesn't mean it is true. People on benefits should not be given actual cash. Everything should be paid with vouchers and proof of ID needed when using them. If you are saying you can't afford to feed your kids then give up smoking and drinking

Not everyone receiving benefits are unemployed there are some on way below the average pay of the governments figure of £26,000 a year, many in the public sector who need help with rent and council tax should they be forced to move into smaller accomadation to? Force children to share a bedroom ? This is Dickens territory for the sake of saving the face of Osbourne and his austerity measures. How this man sleeps at night is beyond me.

I work full time and I am on way below the average wage. I do not get any help from anyone. I can't afford to smoke or drink and there are many days when I don't have a meal because I can't afford one. I can't see a problem with children sharing a bedroom. It was a normal thing a few years ago. Are you saying that every family on benefits should have enough bedrooms so each child can have their own. How ridiculous. Even the house we are building for the woman with 11 children only has 6 bedrooms. Not sure if we are building her a stable for her horse though

live-and-let-live wrote:
as it stands now, i, on my own and with a deposit, can go and rent a nice two bedroom flat or house. i can then go and claim housing benefits to pay my rent. is this right? why should the taxpayer pay for a flat bigger than i need when quite often, that same taxpayer is having to move to a smaller place because he or she cant afford to stay in their bigger home?

Yes you can and apparently taxpayers are supposed to be happy about this. I am not happy

OKANAGAN 1 wrote:
I would think that anyone who has a house in this category, would be using the third bedroom, whether it is a box room or not.
If they were to rent it out, that would be wrong too in the councils eyes. Give these people a break.

If people in social housing were to rent out a spare room they woul dbe generating an income. The house scheme is essentially a charity so to make money from it would be wrong.

Baywolf wrote:
Let them get away with this and they will tax you for having a bathroom then a kitchen, this care for the rich and dam the poor approach will throw this country to the dark age of poverty and slum living, if it hasn't already done so.

No one is 'taking from the poor' here. The houses are given out gratis to people who can't afford one of their own. If you were given a pair of trousers by a charity and they didn't fit, you'd expect to get them changed for a pair that do.
Never look a gift horse in the mouth - Council houses are not a right, they are a gift and are (were) supposed to be a temporary solution to help people in financial difficulties. Nowadays tenants seem to think they have a right to one.

twynham wrote:
"Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenants buy the subsidised house they lived in"
.
And a recent report shows that 30% of those are now in the hands of private landlords!
.
Including 40 owned by the son of Thatcher’s Housing Minister Ian Gow.
.
Remind me why I still hate Thatcher!

Mrs Thatcher.
A lot of tenants did very well out of that policy. Council houses were supposed to be a temporary stop-gap for people who couldn't afford to buy their own. The Right to Buy allowed those people to buy those houses at a fraction of the market value - giving them a step onto the housing ladder.

I can't see waht the problem is. Give it another 9 months and they'll have a brand new baby to fill the spare room and more benefits to fund it.

verityvita wrote:

davecook wrote:

twynham wrote: "Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenants buy the subsidised house they lived in" . And a recent report shows that 30% of those are now in the hands of private landlords! . Including 40 owned by the son of Thatcher’s Housing Minister Ian Gow. . Remind me why I still hate Thatcher!

No problem here with letting people buy their house. I can still remember that day when people in council homes bought their home, tidied it up, and lived with some self respect. Unlike the types who pile old mattreses and junk in front gardens. Even now, you can go round any estate and pick out those who have improved their own home at their own cost rather than sitting back and demanding someone else replaces their light bulbs etc. Not a reason to hate Mrs Thatcher in this household......

Why should houses that are there for people who need them because of their financial/family circumstance then be sold (at knock down prices) to the residing occupants, to later be sold on at huge profit?What about the future people in need, the house once sold is gone out of that stock forever but there will always be people who could have benefitted themselves from being given the chance to rent that house. It should have never been allowed to happen and when you know of people who profitted twice from this whilst also having property elsewhere, as I said before...shameful!

no one else would have the chance to live in that house because if the tenant hadnt bought it, he would still be living in it as a tenant.

live-and-let-live wrote:

verityvita wrote:

davecook wrote:

twynham wrote: "Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenants buy the subsidised house they lived in" . And a recent report shows that 30% of those are now in the hands of private landlords! . Including 40 owned by the son of Thatcher’s Housing Minister Ian Gow. . Remind me why I still hate Thatcher!

No problem here with letting people buy their house. I can still remember that day when people in council homes bought their home, tidied it up, and lived with some self respect. Unlike the types who pile old mattreses and junk in front gardens. Even now, you can go round any estate and pick out those who have improved their own home at their own cost rather than sitting back and demanding someone else replaces their light bulbs etc. Not a reason to hate Mrs Thatcher in this household......

Why should houses that are there for people who need them because of their financial/family circumstance then be sold (at knock down prices) to the residing occupants, to later be sold on at huge profit?What about the future people in need, the house once sold is gone out of that stock forever but there will always be people who could have benefitted themselves from being given the chance to rent that house. It should have never been allowed to happen and when you know of people who profitted twice from this whilst also having property elsewhere, as I said before...shameful!

no one else would have the chance to live in that house because if the tenant hadnt bought it, he would still be living in it as a tenant.

When a tenant dies someone else can move onto the property. Once it has been sold it has gone forever

Seabeam wrote:
Here we go, this has just happened in Hamworthy library and indicates the mindset of a Tory.
Trying to raise money for disabled children people have put up posters and the local tory ripped them all down so that their political propaganda had space.
These EXPLETIVE have absolutely no morals, no concept of what is right and wrong.

Shocking!

Seabeam, do you know the name of this charity? If so, let us know, so we all know of them. Maybe even forward it to Yellow Buses who are looking to get involved with a mothers charity. Thanks

live-and-let-live wrote:

verityvita wrote:

davecook wrote:

twynham wrote: "Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenants buy the subsidised house they lived in" . And a recent report shows that 30% of those are now in the hands of private landlords! . Including 40 owned by the son of Thatcher’s Housing Minister Ian Gow. . Remind me why I still hate Thatcher!

No problem here with letting people buy their house. I can still remember that day when people in council homes bought their home, tidied it up, and lived with some self respect. Unlike the types who pile old mattreses and junk in front gardens. Even now, you can go round any estate and pick out those who have improved their own home at their own cost rather than sitting back and demanding someone else replaces their light bulbs etc. Not a reason to hate Mrs Thatcher in this household......

Why should houses that are there for people who need them because of their financial/family circumstance then be sold (at knock down prices) to the residing occupants, to later be sold on at huge profit?What about the future people in need, the house once sold is gone out of that stock forever but there will always be people who could have benefitted themselves from being given the chance to rent that house. It should have never been allowed to happen and when you know of people who profitted twice from this whilst also having property elsewhere, as I said before...shameful!

no one else would have the chance to live in that house because if the tenant hadnt bought it, he would still be living in it as a tenant.

But if a 'person' had the funds to move on into private housing, they could have just vacated for the next tenant who didn't have the means to buy a house rather than make money out of it?

Big bloody deal! They are all lucky to get a place to live at such cheap rent.
Try getting somewhere private, it would be twice as much.
Lucky lucky them!

Seabeam wrote:
Nice day eh?
Potia6 was really really drunk at the time......

Nope, just chamomile tea actually, its
a free country just saying everyone
should have a decent home to live in,
how about a house-boat?

s-pb2 wrote:

Seabeam wrote:
Here we go, this has just happened in Hamworthy library and indicates the mindset of a Tory.
Trying to raise money for disabled children people have put up posters and the local tory ripped them all down so that their political propaganda had space.
These EXPLETIVE have absolutely no morals, no concept of what is right and wrong.

Shocking!

Seabeam, do you know the name of this charity? If so, let us know, so we all know of them. Maybe even forward it to Yellow Buses who are looking to get involved with a mothers charity. Thanks

I'm surprised this was allowed to happen
as Hamworthy is a family friendly place,
where was the librarian? Must have
been on the chamomile tea!

Seabeam wrote:
Nice day eh?
Potia6 was really really drunk at the time......

Its a conspiracy!

Seabeam wrote:
Nice day eh?
Potia6 was really really drunk at the time......

Seabeam has gone fishing!

Seabeam wrote:
Nice day eh?
Potia6 was really really drunk at the time......

Seabeam has gone fishing!

Thanks for the interest.
The charity website is www.mymagiclegs.co.u
k.

Thanx portia 6. Sorry for my typo, and have a lovely day.

And by the way, tory gumf now removed and charity posters back up.
Normal people like the librarians know right from wrong.

tax dinning rooms, i mean who uses those?

Bluestew wrote:
Poor people who often live in dis-advantaged situations are being forced out of homes or the choice of being squeezed even more fore money they do not have. Disabled people having to give up adapted houses and old people leaving homes that they have memories and most importantly connections and ties with communities and family.

All for idealogical attack on the poor. The system is so inept in saving money it purports in saying this bedroom tax is needed to accomplish. Many people are forced into smaller yet more expensive accommodation in which Housing Benefit pays for.

The Government have already undertaken mass displacement of people hundreds of miles from homes and their lives in what is no more than social cleansing.

People are believing the mainstream news spin that is regurgitating Government/Corporate lies and attacking the most vulnerable people of our country, divide and rule tactics.

These jobs people should be jumping into ....just simply do not exist, and many are of minimum wage, low hours that enable people to not leave the benefit system behind. Greedy landlords hiking rents up is part of the problem leaving many people working but not receiving minimum wage.

Before people get grossly judgemental...rememb

er that no person is immune from illness, sickness, poverty and homelessness, if we can not stand up for those who are vulnerable now, they'll be no support when the legislation turns on your own circumstance.

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist...."

Well said and articulate too! The real
world is too cruel to the poorest people
and social housing tenants get
demonised and marginalised.

Seabeam wrote:
Thanx portia 6. Sorry for my typo, and have a lovely day.

The sun is shining for a change Sea-
beam in fact it's beaming! Cheers!
Have a nice day!

aerolover wrote:
If you want a spare unused bedroom then buy your own house and stop wanting others to subsidise your life.
Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenant buy the subsidised house they lived in so blame her for the lack of smaller council houses.

Fully agree with this aerolover, its a pity
that Margaret Thatcher allowed this, its
part of the working class philosophy
today, social climbing to the detriment
of others.Having said that its hard to
get a mortgage on the low wages we
get in Dorset.

EGHH wrote:

aerolover wrote: If you want a spare unused bedroom then buy your own house and stop wanting others to subsidise your life. Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenant buy the subsidised house they lived in so blame her for the lack of smaller council houses.

And don't forget Thatcher made it illegal for councils to use the income from the sales to build new housing. This is in the "right to buy" act. Thus lighting the fuse of the housing problem we have today. Plus she deregulated the banks and allowed building societies to become banks, that led to the banking crisis. And the Tories wonder why people hate them!!

Maggie may have made these changes with the 'right to buy' etc but lets not forget we had a Labour Government for more than a decade so why didnt they repeal these laws when they had the chance??
Stop simply blaming Thatcher and look at ALL the governments we've had since then!

verityvita wrote:

davecook wrote:

twynham wrote:
"Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenants buy the subsidised house they lived in"
.
And a recent report shows that 30% of those are now in the hands of private landlords!
.
Including 40 owned by the son of Thatcher’s Housing Minister Ian Gow.
.
Remind me why I still hate Thatcher!

No problem here with letting people buy their house. I can still remember that day when people in council homes bought their home, tidied it up, and lived with some self respect. Unlike the types who pile old mattreses and junk in front gardens. Even now, you can go round any estate and pick out those who have improved their own home at their own cost rather than sitting back and demanding someone else replaces their light bulbs etc. Not a reason to hate Mrs Thatcher in this household......

Why should houses that are there for people who need them because of their financial/family circumstance then be sold (at knock down prices) to the residing occupants, to later be sold on at huge profit?What about the future people in need, the house once sold is gone out of that stock forever but there will always be people who could have benefitted themselves from being given the chance to rent that house. It should have never been allowed to happen and when you know of people who profitted twice from this whilst also having property elsewhere, as I said before...shameful!

The future people in need would have been catered for if the money generated from the sale of council properties under Right to Buy was invested in BUILDING MORE HOMES.

Most of the people who bought their homes under Right to Buy could never have afforded to buy on the open market and as such would have stayed in their council house until the day they died. Under the old regulations that council house could be passed onto to their child/partner/etc and would have stayed in their family.

The likelihood of those sold council homes become available to the people waiting was slim and selling them to generate money to invest in new builds would have been perfect if the government had just used a bit of joined up thinking and invested it in that.

What is shameful is the fact that people seem to think poor people don't deserve to be on the property ladder and should be trapped forever in a council home paying rent to the council. It's shameful we live in a society that allows people to charge ridiculous rents in the private market, even for ex council properties, which creates a poverty trap for the lowest earners. It's shameful that our government doesn't invest in building new affordable homes for the people who live in their country. It's not shameful that Thatcher tried to give poor people the opportunity to move up the property ladder even if the system ended up being extremely flawed.

Welcome to my world... Wages have been cut consitently over last 3 years. Now aprox £150 a month down due to recession etc...Not entotled to any benefits other than Child benefit which stops this month as youngest is 18 soon.Do you think that the mortgage co will be happy if I call and say sorry guys im short can you bear with me.. I doubt it. at the end of the day we all need to cut our cloth accordingly and live within ones menas or move.. stop bleating.. benefits were not mean to be a right...

verityvita wrote:

davecook wrote:

twynham wrote:
"Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenants buy the subsidised house they lived in"
.
And a recent report shows that 30% of those are now in the hands of private landlords!
.
Including 40 owned by the son of Thatcher’s Housing Minister Ian Gow.
.
Remind me why I still hate Thatcher!

No problem here with letting people buy their house. I can still remember that day when people in council homes bought their home, tidied it up, and lived with some self respect. Unlike the types who pile old mattreses and junk in front gardens. Even now, you can go round any estate and pick out those who have improved their own home at their own cost rather than sitting back and demanding someone else replaces their light bulbs etc. Not a reason to hate Mrs Thatcher in this household......

Why should houses that are there for people who need them because of their financial/family circumstance then be sold (at knock down prices) to the residing occupants, to later be sold on at huge profit?What about the future people in need, the house once sold is gone out of that stock forever but there will always be people who could have benefitted themselves from being given the chance to rent that house. It should have never been allowed to happen and when you know of people who profitted twice from this whilst also having property elsewhere, as I said before...shameful!

I agree its a travesty and the poor will
suffer because of other's greed.

Divorce and bereavement causes a
lot of problems, just don't know what
the future holds. Palmer and Snell
took our house!

the smiling assassin wrote:

EGHH wrote:

aerolover wrote: If you want a spare unused bedroom then buy your own house and stop wanting others to subsidise your life. Thatcher killed the council house by letting tenant buy the subsidised house they lived in so blame her for the lack of smaller council houses.

And don't forget Thatcher made it illegal for councils to use the income from the sales to build new housing. This is in the "right to buy" act. Thus lighting the fuse of the housing problem we have today. Plus she deregulated the banks and allowed building societies to become banks, that led to the banking crisis. And the Tories wonder why people hate them!!

Maggie may have made these changes with the 'right to buy' etc but lets not forget we had a Labour Government for more than a decade so why didnt they repeal these laws when they had the chance??
Stop simply blaming Thatcher and look at ALL the governments we've had since then!

So once Thatcher had sold off the Council Housing stock at ridiculous discounts.

How were future governments supposed to buy them back?

With proceeds of North Sea Oil that she wasted on unemployment benefits and a war in the Falklands?

Rip off landlords and crazy councils.