PDA

View Full Version : Am I missing Something


ExRAFRadar
12th May 2013, 19:05
I am putting this out there because I really do not know how I feel

'Bedroom tax' blamed for woman's suicide - Channel 4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/bedroom-tax-suicide-woman-lorry)

On one hand why should someone live in a house with spare bedrooms when so many families need housing

But something does not feel right.

The line "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" sticks in my mind

Gertrude the Wombat
12th May 2013, 19:09
On one hand why should someone live in a house with spare bedrooms when so many families need housing
Nobody is suggesting that they should be prevented from doing so. All that's happening is that the subsidy paid to people on benefits for such spare rooms is being removed from those in council housing (it was removed for those renting privately years ago).

G-CPTN
12th May 2013, 19:17
All that's happening is that the subsidy paid to people on benefits for such spare rooms is being removed from those in council housing
:D . . . . .

ExRAFRadar
12th May 2013, 19:37
Im missing something - wtf the does that actually mean ?

And a woman killed herself- all you have to offer is DoubleSpeak ?

toffeez
12th May 2013, 19:49
It appears that the money this woman needed to live on was taken away.

charliegolf
12th May 2013, 20:08
Let's say she was in a 5 bed rented house. Back in the day she had 6 kids. They have all gone. She has 'spare' rooms.

Let's also say the rent (private or council) was 200 a week. She doesn't work, so gets Housing Benefit at 200 a week for rent.

The bedroom tax says she must forfeit x per week (can't remember the actual amount) for 4 rooms because they are empty. She now has to find 4x from whatever other funds she has, to fund her lifestyle.

This stress is too much, so she commits suicide.

The Gov says she could 'downsize' to a 1 bed flat, and lose nothing.

CG

ExRAFRadar
12th May 2013, 20:08
Grow some balls Gerty. Seriously, what are you saying ?

She should have f*cked off when she lost the subsidy ???

And here's a thought.

To all those wealth-inherited pricks who seem so prevalent in Government, time we cut off your subsidy.

No more expenses.

No more Jobs for the boys, your sons, sons of friends or your latest whore.

Time for a square up I think.

Hold on I just realized I do know what to think.

Not all people that do evil have Foreign Names.

flying lid
12th May 2013, 20:13
ExRAFRadar - Well said. :ok:

Lid

VP959
12th May 2013, 20:14
As usual, I suspect that the media are putting a spin on this sad incident.

Someone who chooses, of their own volition, to rent a house that is a lot larger than they need, then expects the taxpayer to fund their rent, has two choices. Either they choose to accept lower benefits, or they choose to move to a smaller rented property.

This woman would have had that choice, just like everyone else. She seems to have chosen to create hardship for herself by choosing not to move to a smaller rented property. I feel sympathy for her, but her death was her choice, just as her decision to remain in a bigger rented house and accept that only part of the rent would be found by the taxpayer was her choice.

Sallyann1234
12th May 2013, 20:15
She was a single woman living in a three bedroom house. The public contribution to her rent was reduced to that of a single bedroom property. This may sound tough, but when that contribution is being paid by other people's council tax and many of those contributors are paying much higher rents for inferior private accommodation, it is probably not unfair.

The500man
12th May 2013, 20:18
If I work full time and can't afford to rent or buy a 3 bedroom house why should the gov pay indefinitely for someone that isn't working to live in a 3 bedroom house?

How do they afford the council tax? Oh wait I know the answer, my bad!

Gertrude the Wombat
12th May 2013, 20:25
Grow some balls Gerty. Seriously, what are you saying ?

She should have f*cked off when she lost the subsidy ???
I know nothing about, and so will not comment on, that particular case. I was making the point that, in general, calling the measure a "bedroom tax" is slanted and misleading, because what's actually happening is the withdrawal the remnants of a "spare room subsidy".

hellsbrink
12th May 2013, 20:27
And don't forget that the woman had also been offered another house, but had rejected it. She had already packed up her belongings in preparation for moving. She was also getting a sum of money from the council to move, minus a small amount for any repairs that MIGHT have been necessary to her current place. She would not have been just "thrown out" of her house, she would not have been hounded over the very small "debt" she might have incurred in the MONTH that the "bedroom tax" had been in place for. Her family also stated that she struggled after she was alone when her daughter moved out, and she has had a long-term illness which had meant she was unable to work BUT had never tried to claim disability which would have meant this situation would likely have been avoided.

So, yes, there is "Something rotten in the state of Denmark", but when you start looking at things a bit closer you realise that you can't pin the blame on the Government as it looks like there's much, much more to this story and it's that which stinks like Grimsby harbour on a hot day.......

tony draper
12th May 2013, 20:58
It's a spiffing idea,you live in a three bedroom council house the kiddies grow up leaving you rattling about in a big empty house,so the logical obvious thing is to shift into a less expensive one bedroom flat,but there is a flaw in that plan,there are no one bedroom flats council flats for people to move into.
:bored:

mustpost
12th May 2013, 21:03
Tony, correct, it's a month or so old but covered here...
Brian Wilson: Basic dishonesty of ?bedroom tax? - News - Scotsman.com (http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-basic-dishonesty-of-bedroom-tax-1-2873224#.UVweOq4XAa0.facebook)

Gertrude the Wombat
12th May 2013, 21:20
It's a spiffing idea,you live in a three bedroom council house the kiddies grow up leaving you rattling about in a big empty house,so the logical obvious thing is to shift into a less expensive one bedroom flat,but there is a flaw in that plan,there are no one bedroom flats council flats for people to move into
It's not quite as bad as that, because Right to Buy has typically left councils with an unbalanced stock, with rather more one bedroom flats compared to need than three bedroom houses. (But still not enough of either.)

Plus sensible councils (yeah yeah yadda yadda) take into account, when deciding on whether to use the discretionary fund in a particular case, whether or not they've actually got a suitable smaller place to offer that person.

Nervous SLF
12th May 2013, 21:38
Don't forget all those "refugees" and others from the EU that must have houses at subsidised rents, stuff the UK people who were
born and bred in the UK :yuk:

tony draper
12th May 2013, 21:41
Some thing I find baffling, I worked for a cable TV company in the seventies,they had a scheme where every new build council house was wired up,I was only in the dept that actually did the actual wiring up for about two years, in that time I remember working on four huge estates numbering about two thousand homes and that level of building seemed to continue for quite a few years,plus of course large private estates going up at the same time.
A lot of demolition of older properties did go on at the same time so that probably absorbed most of the new builds.
All in all a lot of house building went on then,don't seem to be much going on now or for the last decades since the eighties,I hear that in the last ten years two million folks from elsewhere have joined us,where the **** are they all these peeps living ? my town which to me seems fairly large holds two hundred thousand peeps,to me that means ten towns the size of my own should have been needed.
:confused:

talkpedlar
13th May 2013, 03:01
Not quite true.. Solihull MBC has a sizeable stock of one-bedroom properties... I know this for sure because a disabled (MS) close relative was recently allocated one from a long list which was, and remains, on the council's website.

If this unfortunate lady's demise really was down to perceived or real financial hardship, and through ignorance or stubborn-ness she was not claiming Disability Living Allowance (which would have increased her monthly income by 200 - 400), then this is more to do with a lack of support from relatives, friends and even the very council publicly criticising the balanced and reasonable legislation at the heart of the BBC's usual left-wing twaddle. Tragic for sure but let's base our views on hard facts eh?

Deepest Norfolk
13th May 2013, 08:00
A couple of points.

The "Bedroom Tax" was dubbed so by the media so it would make a good story. It's a much better story to say that the government are taking more tax from poor, deserving benefit customers (The buzz word these days) than to say the government have decided not to pay out millions of pounds a year that they really shouldn't be to those who have generally neither worked nor wanted all of their lives and plan to continue to do so for as long as possible whilst my wallet is raided every month to pay for them.

Also, the Council Tax doesn't pay it. It comes from central government and is only administered by local government. This came about when one lot or another (I can't remember which now) was trying to con the populace that they had culled tens of thousands of Civil Service jobs. They didn't mention that they'd just moved them from one part of guvmint to another and were still paying for it!

Preparing for lots of flak re para one from all the do gooders who haven't a clue what they're talking about, but I have worked in benefits and in Housing and Council Tax benefit and I know what goes on in some of these people's minds. (You're young, why don't you look for a job? Why should I when the government will pay me five hundred quid a week to go fishing every day? was one conversation I had.)

Benefits should be what it was intended to be in the first place, a safety net not a chosen career.

Msunduzi
13th May 2013, 08:26
In the "old" South Africa, many non-whites lived in council owned houses.

If a member of their family died, they had to move to a smaller house, maybe away from schools, friends and the community they were part of.

This action was fiercely criticised by British politicians, and used as one example of the cruelty of the racist regime.

Strange how things have turned.

Torque Tonight
13th May 2013, 12:11
Any taxpayer should be in full support of this policy. It is completely unreasonable and unfair for public money to subsidise benefits recipients far in excess of their needs. Why should the benefits system pay for a single person to live in a three bedroom house. It is obviously unfortunate that this woman chose to top herself but it seems she was given a very reasonable choice of moving to a smaller council house or paying a small fraction lf the difference. Blaming the government is disingenuous and a copout. Those of us in the real world cut our coat according to our cloth; as always it's very easy to spend other people's money.

G-CPTN
13th May 2013, 13:14
It seems to me that many people have fallen into a way of life where all their living expenses are found for them to the extent that they have become totally dependent on the State and they expect to continue forever on benefits.

It doesn't pay them to save, as they will lose their rights to some benefits, so when their income falls they are in crisis mode.
As has been pointed out, this lady's crisis arose because she wasn't claiming her full entitlement . . .

Once on the benefit tit, for some there is little or no incentive to get off, especially when they see others living comfortably without raising a finger.

Those who work have either to provide for rainy days and lean times or relax and do nothing, knowing that the State will provide a comfortable cushion if the worst happens.

Msunduzi
13th May 2013, 13:27
..........................It doesn't pay them to save, as they will lose their rights to some benefits.......................


Unfortunately, this is one of the faults of the system.

Take two people, doing the same job, living next door to each other, and most things being the same.

One saves all he can for a rainy day, or child's university, and lives a very mean life.

the other lives it up and has a great life, and keeps his savings and qualifying assets to under 16k.

Then they both lose their jobs, the one who has lived it up and had a good life claims benefits. The one who has lived a mean life and saves, has to use up hi savings/child's university money before he can claim benefits.

They both paid the same tax and NI.

How can anyone justify being critical of the one who did not save?

There are several areas where the same sort of rules apply, which skews the whole system

vulcanised
13th May 2013, 14:26
What is doubly unfair is that the 'qualifying' amount for them to reduce entitlements has not changed in years, despite raging inflation and the even worse QE which has devalued savings by a huge amount.

They also used to assess the assumed income from savings at 10% when taking money from folk. Bet that hasn't changed either.

cockney steve
14th May 2013, 14:11
They also used to assess the assumed income from savings at 10% when taking money from folk. Bet that hasn't changed either.

Bizzarely, when Pension- credit is payable, (as I understand it, the difference between pension and what is deemed the minimum necessary to live on), Savings ARE taken into account and the saver is awarded EXTRA -because they are deemed to have tried to provede for themselves.

Yes, Iunderstand the Logic, but bebefits are ,surely, predicated on NEED.

I always thought the sale of Council- Housing was a disgraceful theft from the ratepayers, whom, proportionately, were the private and Commercial owners of property.

Council rents were subsidised (the cost of an interest-only mortgage, plus repairs and maintenance, would have been more than the rent charged) then the sitting tenant was offered it cut-price, which meant , in many cases, the mortgage was less than half what it should otherwise have been.

I have NO quibble with public housing of the needy but this should not be a permanent alternative to putting a roof over one's own head when able to fund it. Subsidising those not in genuine need is a real "robin-Hood" policy gone wrong.
If you want permanent occupancy, buy your own home and maintain it-don't rob me to subsidise it.....Oh, had we not handed theseex-tenants such a windfall, there would now be plenty of housing for the homeless.

What fxxwit came up with the policy "let's sell all our old stock off cheap,below market -value, then borrow loads of money to build replacements to let at less than they cost to fund".....Oh , wait....they didn't get to the replacements bit of the equasion, just selling the family silver.

Groundbased
14th May 2013, 15:46
Picking up on DN's point it always irritates me when I hear benefit officials going on about clients. They are not clients, they are claimants.

It's even become a dictionary definition now for "a person using the services of a social service agency".

G-CPTN
14th May 2013, 16:07
Then there is stakeholder :ugh:

Piper.Classique
14th May 2013, 18:30
Could she have got a lodger to help with the rent?