New bedroom tax set to hit 7,000 Sussex homes (From The Argus)

A tax is money you have to pay, this is NOT a tax. Living in the private rented sector I can only claim housing benefit for the amount of space I need, despite loving to rent a 6 bed mansion and claim housing benefit I cannot. This should be no different for social housing a very sensible policy. Only overoccupiers that are claiming housing benefit will see their benefit reduce slightly to reflect their need not want, they do not have to move if they can afford that larger property they occupy or maybe some could prioritise and cancel sky tv or that iphone 5. etc.

I am glad to see this policy does not affect the severely disabled and other vulnerable people. Meanwhile desperate families living in cramped over occupied social housing will now get the opportunity to be offered more suitable accommodation to suit their needs.

bug eye wrote:
A tax is money you have to pay, this is NOT a tax. Living in the private rented sector I can only claim housing benefit for the amount of space I need, despite loving to rent a 6 bed mansion and claim housing benefit I cannot. This should be no different for social housing a very sensible policy. Only overoccupiers that are claiming housing benefit will see their benefit reduce slightly to reflect their need not want, they do not have to move if they can afford that larger property they occupy or maybe some could prioritise and cancel sky tv or that iphone 5. etc.

I am glad to see this policy does not affect the severely disabled and other vulnerable people. Meanwhile desperate families living in cramped over occupied social housing will now get the opportunity to be offered more suitable accommodation to suit their needs.

It DOES affect the disabled though !

If a disabled couple have an extra room, even if that room is required to be as sterile as possible for medical equipment or treatment such as dialysis, they will still be affected.

Disabled couples are treated exactly the same as all other couples for this under-occupancy policy (to give it it's official title)

The only disabled people not affected will be those that have carers who don't live with them but who may be needed to sleep in the home overnight.

Cameron told a pack of lies on Wednesday & the evidence is found by researching the legal challenge that has resulted in the government being given 14 days (now 11 days) to show why there should not be a judicial review.

There is information on the legal challenge here:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/society/2013/m
ar/05/bedroom-tax-ju
dge-ministers-review

it would be okay if there where places that people could downsize into. But sadly there are too few places. So people are paying for the spare rooms even though they would like to move. Plus people can claim DHP. Dont think that this is fair. Give the people a chance.

There is an old lady on benefits in SW1 with more than 500 spare bedrooms. Will she be taxed on them? No thought not!
The rich get a tax break and the poor get kicked out of their lifelong homes.
You will never get my vote again Kirby. Just keep on turning the people against each other like you lot do best.

Angryoldman wrote:
There is an old lady on benefits in SW1 with more than 500 spare bedrooms. Will she be taxed on them? No thought not!
The rich get a tax break and the poor get kicked out of their lifelong homes.
You will never get my vote again Kirby. Just keep on turning the people against each other like you lot do best.

That old lady (the queen) is not being paid housing benefit, in fact she provides plenty of jobs and tourism for the country. There is no tax to be paid by anyone. Those underoccupying can swap with those desperate for more space. As for the disabled they are exempt if they have genuine need for that spare room as are all pensioners.

bug eye wrote:

Angryoldman wrote:
There is an old lady on benefits in SW1 with more than 500 spare bedrooms. Will she be taxed on them? No thought not!
The rich get a tax break and the poor get kicked out of their lifelong homes.
You will never get my vote again Kirby. Just keep on turning the people against each other like you lot do best.

That old lady (the queen) is not being paid housing benefit, in fact she provides plenty of jobs and tourism for the country. There is no tax to be paid by anyone. Those underoccupying can swap with those desperate for more space. As for the disabled they are exempt if they have genuine need for that spare room as are all pensioners.

The disabled are NOT exempt !

Having already corrected you on this fact, why have you repeated it again ?

As regards pensioners - this is true of most pensioners. But mixed-age couples – where one is a pensioner and the other is not – who make a new claim for help for housing costs under the all-in-one Universal Credit benefit - will be hit by the bedroom tax.

Here is another link for you:

http://www.housing.o
rg.uk/policy/welfare
_reform/%E2%80%98und
er-occupation%E2%80%
99_penalty.aspx

No wonder the Police have low moral. Job cuts mean that many of the civilian staff laid off and forced onto benefits and renting will be now expected to vacate their rented homes while trying to find a job and just get by.

bug eye wrote:
A tax is money you have to pay, this is NOT a tax. Living in the private rented sector I can only claim housing benefit for the amount of space I need, despite loving to rent a 6 bed mansion and claim housing benefit I cannot. This should be no different for social housing a very sensible policy. Only overoccupiers that are claiming housing benefit will see their benefit reduce slightly to reflect their need not want, they do not have to move if they can afford that larger property they occupy or maybe some could prioritise and cancel sky tv or that iphone 5. etc.

I am glad to see this policy does not affect the severely disabled and other vulnerable people. Meanwhile desperate families living in cramped over occupied social housing will now get the opportunity to be offered more suitable accommodation to suit their needs.

If you live alone why would you "love" to rent a six-bedroom house?? I sure as hell wouldn't and I don't know anyone who wants or think they should have six times more space than they need

Sorry, but this is a rather ridiculous comment which manages to entirely miss the point about the problems this policy will cause.

And you're wrong about the disabled - the legislation provides no exemption for them - only for pensioners. While Cameron claims that it does - his officials are in court trying to make sure it doesn't!

Andy R wrote:

bug eye wrote:
A tax is money you have to pay, this is NOT a tax. Living in the private rented sector I can only claim housing benefit for the amount of space I need, despite loving to rent a 6 bed mansion and claim housing benefit I cannot. This should be no different for social housing a very sensible policy. Only overoccupiers that are claiming housing benefit will see their benefit reduce slightly to reflect their need not want, they do not have to move if they can afford that larger property they occupy or maybe some could prioritise and cancel sky tv or that iphone 5. etc.

I am glad to see this policy does not affect the severely disabled and other vulnerable people. Meanwhile desperate families living in cramped over occupied social housing will now get the opportunity to be offered more suitable accommodation to suit their needs.

If you live alone why would you "love" to rent a six-bedroom house?? I sure as hell wouldn't and I don't know anyone who wants or think they should have six times more space than they need

Sorry, but this is a rather ridiculous comment which manages to entirely miss the point about the problems this policy will cause.

And you're wrong about the disabled - the legislation provides no exemption for them - only for pensioners. While Cameron claims that it does - his officials are in court trying to make sure it doesn't!

Fantastic news!

Anything that the above waste of space and his chums, HJarrs and Gaz Scott disagree with is usually great news for the decent people among us who actually care and contribute.

Bring on more cuts as soon as possible.

Somethingsarejustwro
ng wrote:

Andy R wrote:

bug eye wrote:
A tax is money you have to pay, this is NOT a tax. Living in the private rented sector I can only claim housing benefit for the amount of space I need, despite loving to rent a 6 bed mansion and claim housing benefit I cannot. This should be no different for social housing a very sensible policy. Only overoccupiers that are claiming housing benefit will see their benefit reduce slightly to reflect their need not want, they do not have to move if they can afford that larger property they occupy or maybe some could prioritise and cancel sky tv or that iphone 5. etc.

I am glad to see this policy does not affect the severely disabled and other vulnerable people. Meanwhile desperate families living in cramped over occupied social housing will now get the opportunity to be offered more suitable accommodation to suit their needs.

If you live alone why would you "love" to rent a six-bedroom house?? I sure as hell wouldn't and I don't know anyone who wants or think they should have six times more space than they need

Sorry, but this is a rather ridiculous comment which manages to entirely miss the point about the problems this policy will cause.

And you're wrong about the disabled - the legislation provides no exemption for them - only for pensioners. While Cameron claims that it does - his officials are in court trying to make sure it doesn't!

Fantastic news!

Anything that the above waste of space and his chums, HJarrs and Gaz Scott disagree with is usually great news for the decent people among us who actually care and contribute.

Bring on more cuts as soon as possible.

But you obviously care very little for others and I am not sure what you mean by contribute? I have paid into five figures of tax for years. No complaint from me about paying tax and contributing. I am proud to pay my way, I just wish more of those tax dodging did the same.

Of course, you once more can only troll and provide no contribution regarding the actual article. This does make you pretty stupid.

"This does make you pretty stupid"

Who's trolling now H Jarrs !

HJarrs wrote:

Somethingsarejustwro

ng wrote:

Andy R wrote:

bug eye wrote:
A tax is money you have to pay, this is NOT a tax. Living in the private rented sector I can only claim housing benefit for the amount of space I need, despite loving to rent a 6 bed mansion and claim housing benefit I cannot. This should be no different for social housing a very sensible policy. Only overoccupiers that are claiming housing benefit will see their benefit reduce slightly to reflect their need not want, they do not have to move if they can afford that larger property they occupy or maybe some could prioritise and cancel sky tv or that iphone 5. etc.

I am glad to see this policy does not affect the severely disabled and other vulnerable people. Meanwhile desperate families living in cramped over occupied social housing will now get the opportunity to be offered more suitable accommodation to suit their needs.

If you live alone why would you "love" to rent a six-bedroom house?? I sure as hell wouldn't and I don't know anyone who wants or think they should have six times more space than they need

Sorry, but this is a rather ridiculous comment which manages to entirely miss the point about the problems this policy will cause.

And you're wrong about the disabled - the legislation provides no exemption for them - only for pensioners. While Cameron claims that it does - his officials are in court trying to make sure it doesn't!

Fantastic news!

Anything that the above waste of space and his chums, HJarrs and Gaz Scott disagree with is usually great news for the decent people among us who actually care and contribute.

Bring on more cuts as soon as possible.

But you obviously care very little for others and I am not sure what you mean by contribute? I have paid into five figures of tax for years. No complaint from me about paying tax and contributing. I am proud to pay my way, I just wish more of those tax dodging did the same.

Of course, you once more can only troll and provide no contribution regarding the actual article. This does make you pretty stupid.

Great work HJarrs, pretty much anyone in work and contributing will be paying 5 figures tax - minimum!

Regrettably, there are many of us paying well into 6 figures watching people like you suggesting that our donations are squandered.

Go save trees you waste of space!

HJarrs says the police have low moral.
Do you mean morale?
Your spelling is atrocious throughout your posts.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
HJarrs says the police have low moral.
Do you mean morale?
Your spelling is atrocious throughout your posts.

HJarrs is attempting to box well above her weight in the intellectual space and is constantly being exposed for the clueless and tunnel visioned person she is - makes me laugh though!

If someone turns down a smaller property that is enough to accommodate them then I see no problem with them being penalised for insisting on remaining in the larger property. After all they are denying a larger family in need. If there is no other suitable accommodation on offer then it seems unfair.

Angryoldman wrote:
There is an old lady on benefits in SW1 with more than 500 spare bedrooms. Will she be taxed on them? No thought not! The rich get a tax break and the poor get kicked out of their lifelong homes. You will never get my vote again Kirby. Just keep on turning the people against each other like you lot do best.

but it's not lifelong anymore