"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:58:36 -0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 22/12/2015 13:32, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:26:12 -0000, Phucker ****er
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:10:42 -0000, Big Les Wade
wrote:

Mr Macaw posted
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:07:27 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH

writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

What if you removed an internal wall and reduced the number of
bedrooms?

This is *rented* accommodation, ****wit. They don't have that choice.

Don't tell the landlord.

You have to otherwise you still get slugged the bedroom tax.

And what about people on benefits with their own homes?

They don't get the housing benefit being discussed.

They get mortgage assistance. Why is that not limited to the right
number of bedrooms too?

In your dreams. The mortgage assistance is only after being unable to
pay after a year, and then less than the typical mortgage interest rate,
and then only on a limited amount.

That amount wouldn't buy a room in most parts of the country.

I've been on it. It's 3 months not a year. And it's all the interest
unless you've remortgaged, then it's all the interest on the original
price.

Nothing like housing benefit.

So a lot more than rent on a 1 bedroom flat.

We aren't talking about 1 bedroom flats, we
are talking about multiple bedroom houses.

I guess they assume someone who managed to get
a mortgage is unlikely to stay on benefits for long.

And it makes no sense to force them to sell up and
buy a house with less bedrooms if they don't have
enough people to use the bedrooms they have.