On 20/12/2015 13:07, 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.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the property.

In article , Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, 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.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the property.

I don't think that is taken into account - which is wrong.

--
Please note new email address:

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:
Look at Prince Andrew

he trained and served as a Royal Navy helicopter pilot. That's not
"**** all".

If a few years working in the armed forces was all that's required to
get a good living from the state afterwards, how come there are so
many ex squaddies living on the streets?


helicopter pilots are not squaddies

Right. I'll amend that to ex forces personal living on the streets.

Or are you saying training as a helicopter pilot in the forces deserves
some form of special treatment after leaving the services?

--
*I don't feel old. I don't feel anything until noon. Then it's time for my nap.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, 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.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the property.

I've not 'conveniently' missed out anything.

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:59:53 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Look at Prince Andrew he trained and served as a Royal Navy
helicopter pilot. That's not "**** all".

If a few years working in the armed forces was all that's required to
get a good living from the state afterwards, how come there are so
many ex squaddies living on the streets?

helicopter pilots are not squaddies

Right. I'll amend that to ex forces personal living on the streets.

They're there for the same reasons as anybody else lives on the streets.
Usually mental health problems, often combined with drink/drug abuse.

Or are you saying training as a helicopter pilot in the forces deserves
some form of special treatment after leaving the services?

I'm certainly not. People who've voluntarily joined the forces should be
regarded and treated exactly the same as anybody else, be they on the
streets or not.

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5 bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

--
Please note new email address:

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:59:53 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Look at Prince Andrew he trained and served as a Royal Navy
helicopter pilot. That's not "**** all".

If a few years working in the armed forces was all that's required to
get a good living from the state afterwards, how come there are so
many ex squaddies living on the streets?

helicopter pilots are not squaddies

Right. I'll amend that to ex forces personal living on the streets.

They're there for the same reasons as anybody else lives on the streets.
Usually mental health problems, often combined with drink/drug abuse.

Not denying that. However, those mental problems are quite often caused as
a direct result of the job they did.

Or are you saying training as a helicopter pilot in the forces deserves
some form of special treatment after leaving the services?

I'm certainly not. People who've voluntarily joined the forces should be
regarded and treated exactly the same as anybody else, be they on the
streets or not.

Which was vaguely my point. Excluding Royals. Obviously.

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether
they be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just
funding the cost of their social housing themselves.


Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

Which would be absolutely fine if there were alternative suitable
accommodation.

--
*I didn't like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/12/2015 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, 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.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the property.

I've not 'conveniently' missed out anything.

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

My apologies, I was harsh. It gets my goat that because older people
are more likely to vote, it's the younger people who get hit by these
miscellaneous measures who just happen to be under 61.

On 20/12/2015 13:07, 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.



Yes, thanks for the clarification. Also, I'd add: based on tenure and/or
property type, and the characteristics of those living there, rather
than just the number. A half-decent definition was given in the Shelter
link up-thread.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 20/12/2015 14:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

That is the point. Its the very people who are likely to be living in
houses greater than their need who are exempt from this legislation.

It is a "remarkable punitive" sanction against younger people who are
claiming HB.

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, 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.



Yes, thanks for the clarification. Also, I'd add: based on tenure and/or
property type, and the characteristics of those living there, rather
than just the number. A half-decent definition was given in the Shelter
link up-thread.

Isn't that what it should be - rather than what it is?

--
Please note new email address:

On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5 bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

On 20/12/2015 13:38, charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:
Look at Prince Andrew

he trained and served as a Royal Navy helicopter pilot. That's not
"**** all".

If a few years working in the armed forces was all that's required to get
a good living from the state afterwards, how come there are so many ex
squaddies living on the streets?


helicopter pilots are not squaddies


Even if they were in the Army Air Corps?

In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2015-12-20, charles wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably
punitive legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether
they be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just
funding the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of
their social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have
such security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into
more appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those
who are overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of
social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't
enough property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer
to build larger properties.

So why the breast-beating in the press (and here) about how small the
average UK property is? Make your ****ing mind up.

I made my mind up years ago. and - I've never seen a press report to that
effect. In any case, was writing about number of rooms, not how big the
rooms were.

--
Please note new email address:

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:38, charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:
Look at Prince Andrew

he trained and served as a Royal Navy helicopter pilot. That's not
"**** all".

If a few years working in the armed forces was all that's required to get
a good living from the state afterwards, how come there are so many ex
squaddies living on the streets?


helicopter pilots are not squaddies


Even if they were in the Army Air Corps?

I suspect they have to be an NCO before they are allowed to pilot
something. NCOs are not "squaddies".

On 20/12/2015 13:59, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Or are you saying training as a helicopter pilot in the forces deserves
some form of special treatment after leaving the services?

Somebody trained as a helicopter pilot is more likely to be able to get
a job in civilian life.

However there's no way the armed services could invest that amount of
money into all their people, so yes, he did get special treatment.

"Jonno" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) scribbled


In article ,
Brian-Gaff wrote:
So if you don't believe it, what proof are you going to provide?

The problem for a government is always to attempt to get the money
needed to run the country with the minimum of pain to the people who
live under them. Sometimes certain sectors of society, get clobbered
more than was intended. End of story.

Think you've missed the point. A large percentage of the population -
including a fair few on here - want the poor to be clobbered. As it is
entirely their fault for being poor, old or disabled.

There are plenty of people who are born rich and do ****
all, other than take drugs, get ****ed and go on holidays.
Look at Prince Andrew and his daughters, Bernie Ecclestone's
daughters, Tara Palmer Tompkinson, Alexander Thynn, Jamie
Spencer-Churchill, etc.

Yes.

They are responsible for the UK going down the ****ter,

Nope, they are completely irrelevant to that.

And the UK isn't down any ****ter, it has one of the lower
unemployment rates with countrys in their circumstances
and is still where hordes of immigrants want to move to
even tho the climate is utterly obscene.

not the poor sods who are born in an area with no work,

They are free to move to where there is work. Plenty of
UKers have done that all over the world for centurys now.

**** poor schools and no prospects of ever having a decent life.

There is always good prospects of a decent life if you get
off your lard arse and move to where the work and decent
schools etc are.

Of course it's easy to blame them,
they're not in a position to respond,

They are actually and do quite often like with the recent riots
and entire city blocks put the torch like in Maggy's time.

they're too busy trying to survive.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"RJH" wrote in message
...
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.

Based on how appropriate the govt provided home is to their needs.

But if you consider that people can't consider their home a home then
yes, it's a subsidy.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
charles wrote

Look at Prince Andrew

he trained and served as a Royal Navy helicopter pilot.
That's not "**** all".

If a few years working in the armed forces was all that's
required to get a good living from the state afterwards, how
come there are so many ex squaddies living on the streets?

Because **** all of them are trained to do something as useful as that.

The airline industry has always employed lots of ex airforce pilots,
but the prospects for some goon that can only shoot people isn't
quite so good. The mercenary industry isn't quite the same employer.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Fredxxx
wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, 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.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the property.

I don't think that is taken into account

It is actually with the kids.

- which is wrong.

It would be if it wasn’t, but it is.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:
Look at Prince Andrew

he trained and served as a Royal Navy helicopter pilot. That's not
"**** all".

If a few years working in the armed forces was all that's required to
get a good living from the state afterwards, how come there are so
many ex squaddies living on the streets?


helicopter pilots are not squaddies

Right. I'll amend that to ex forces personal living on the streets.

Or are you saying training as a helicopter pilot in the forces deserves
some form of special treatment after leaving the services?

No, that their employment prospects are much better
than with those who have only been trained to kill people.

On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5 bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.
ie, too many migrants.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property,

But not when they have some spare bedrooms because the kids
have moved out.

whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:59:53 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Look at Prince Andrew he trained and served as a Royal Navy
helicopter pilot. That's not "**** all".

If a few years working in the armed forces was all that's required
to
get a good living from the state afterwards, how come there are so
many ex squaddies living on the streets?

helicopter pilots are not squaddies

Right. I'll amend that to ex forces personal living on the streets.

They're there for the same reasons as anybody else lives on the streets.
Usually mental health problems, often combined with drink/drug abuse.

Not denying that. However, those mental problems are
quite often caused as a direct result of the job they did.

Or they had the mental problem all along and
that is why they chose to do that sort of job.

Or are you saying training as a helicopter pilot in the forces deserves
some form of special treatment after leaving the services?

I'm certainly not. People who've voluntarily joined the forces should be
regarded and treated exactly the same as anybody else, be they on the
streets or not.

Which was vaguely my point. Excluding Royals. Obviously.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, 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.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the
property.

I've not 'conveniently' missed out anything.

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

My apologies, I was harsh. It gets my goat that because older people are
more likely to vote, it's the younger people who get hit by these
miscellaneous measures who just happen to be under 61.

Its actually the reverse in this case. Those hardest hit are those whose
kids have moved out and who now have unoccupied bedrooms.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 14:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

That is the point. Its the very people who are likely to be living in
houses greater than their need who are exempt from this legislation.

It is a "remarkable punitive" sanction against younger people who are
claiming HB.

Nope, those will still have the kids living at home.

It only affects those whose kids have moved out.

"Jonno" wrote in message
...
tim..... scribbled


"Jonno" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) scribbled


In article ,
Brian-Gaff wrote:
So if you don't believe it, what proof are you going to provide?

The problem for a government is always to attempt to get the money
needed to run the country with the minimum of pain to the people who
live under them. Sometimes certain sectors of society, get
clobbered
more than was intended. End of story.

Think you've missed the point. A large percentage of the population -
including a fair few on here - want the poor to be clobbered. As it is
entirely their fault for being poor, old or disabled.


There are plenty of people who are born rich and do **** all, other
than
take drugs, get ****ed and go on holidays. Look at Prince Andrew and
his daughters, Bernie Ecclestone's daughters, Tara Palmer Tompkinson,
Alexander Thynn, Jamie Spencer-Churchill, etc.

They are responsible for the UK going down the ****ter,

Don't be silly

"wasters" such as this existed 100, 200 and 300 years ago, during the
period
when Britain led the world

They are the noise in the machine, not the cause of any decline


You don't know a lot of history do you.

Au Contraire

It is your knowledge that is lacking

tim

RJH posted
On 19/12/2015 18:38, Rod Speed wrote:
That one you cited at the top is all that is needed on the
FACT that all they got to do was ASK those on benefits
what they actually did about the bedroom tax instead
of actually MEASURING what they actually did.

Babies and bathwater. I'm trying to work with the information to hand,
which isn't *that* shoddy.

Offensive as Rod's posting style may be, he is quite right. The survey
being cited relies entirely on what the interviewees told the
interviewers, and so is worth very little. Obviously the victim of a
benefits cutback is more likely to say he has had to cut back on food
than on cigarettes, beer and Sky.

You seem to be drawing conclusions from an absence of evidence that
meets your standards and a far from clear understanding of context.

He hasn't drawn any conclusions at all, simply pointed out that the
cited research is not convincing.

Moreover (as I believe Rod also points out in his various rants), it is
not necessarily a bad thing that people cut back on some of their food
expenditure. We would have to know exactly what it was they were
cutting. If it's takeaway pizzas and doner kebabs, it's probably a good
thing.

--
Les

In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
Offensive as Rod's posting style may be, he is quite right. The survey
being cited relies entirely on what the interviewees told the
interviewers, and so is worth very little. Obviously the victim of a
benefits cutback is more likely to say he has had to cut back on food
than on cigarettes, beer and Sky.

You seem to be drawing conclusions from an absence of evidence that
meets your standards and a far from clear understanding of context.

He hasn't drawn any conclusions at all, simply pointed out that the
cited research is not convincing.

Moreover (as I believe Rod also points out in his various rants), it is
not necessarily a bad thing that people cut back on some of their food
expenditure. We would have to know exactly what it was they were
cutting. If it's takeaway pizzas and doner kebabs, it's probably a good
thing.

Congratulations. You've managed about every Mail key word used when
talking about benefits.

--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/12/2015 17:01, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5 bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.

You obviously don't have a clue about supply and demand.

ie, too many migrants.

You mean they cause the shortage? You do understand what a "shortage" is?

On 20/12/2015 17:17, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 14:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether
they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

That is the point. Its the very people who are likely to be living in
houses greater than their need who are exempt from this legislation.

It is a "remarkable punitive" sanction against younger people who are
claiming HB.

Nope, those will still have the kids living at home.

It only affects those whose kids have moved out.

So why not all parents who live in an oversized house, not just younger
ones?

On 20/12/2015 17:03, jack wrote:


"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property,

But not when they have some spare bedrooms because the kids
have moved out.

It doesn't affect all parents after their children have left the nest,
just the younger ones.

whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

On 20/12/2015 17:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, 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.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the
property.

I've not 'conveniently' missed out anything.

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

My apologies, I was harsh. It gets my goat that because older people
are more likely to vote, it's the younger people who get hit by these
miscellaneous measures who just happen to be under 61.

Its actually the reverse in this case. Those hardest hit are those whose
kids have moved out and who now have unoccupied bedrooms.

Precisely, except those who just happen to be over 60. Which are the
most likely age group with spare bedrooms.

On 20/12/2015 16:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
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.

Based on how appropriate the govt provided home is to their needs.

No, it just attacks those who are 60 or less. The age group most likely
to have spare bedrooms aren't affected.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 17:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, 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.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the
property.

I've not 'conveniently' missed out anything.

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

My apologies, I was harsh. It gets my goat that because older people
are more likely to vote, it's the younger people who get hit by these
miscellaneous measures who just happen to be under 61.

we thought we had 2 spare rooms - one is now used by daughter and the other
by grandson for at least the half time.

Its actually the reverse in this case. Those hardest hit are those whose
kids have moved out and who now have unoccupied bedrooms.

Precisely, except those who just happen to be over 60. Which are the
most likely age group with spare bedrooms.

--
Please note new email address:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
Offensive as Rod's posting style may be, he is quite right. The survey
being cited relies entirely on what the interviewees told the
interviewers, and so is worth very little. Obviously the victim of a
benefits cutback is more likely to say he has had to cut back on food
than on cigarettes, beer and Sky.

You seem to be drawing conclusions from an absence of evidence that
meets your standards and a far from clear understanding of context.

He hasn't drawn any conclusions at all, simply pointed out that the
cited research is not convincing.

Moreover (as I believe Rod also points out in his various rants), it is
not necessarily a bad thing that people cut back on some of their food
expenditure. We would have to know exactly what it was they were
cutting. If it's takeaway pizzas and doner kebabs, it's probably a good
thing.

Congratulations. You've managed about every Mail key word used when
talking about benefits.

What he said is true anyway.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 17:17, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 14:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether
they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

That is the point. Its the very people who are likely to be living in
houses greater than their need who are exempt from this legislation.

It is a "remarkable punitive" sanction against younger people who are
claiming HB.

Nope, those will still have the kids living at home.

It only affects those whose kids have moved out.

So why not all parents who live in an oversized house, not just younger
ones?

It does apply to all parents who live in a house
with more bedrooms than they need regardless
of age as long as they are on benefits.

And I just dont buy your line that the older ones
on benefits actually vote Tory. They are much
more likely to be rusted on Labour voters.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 17:03, jack wrote:


"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property,

But not when they have some spare bedrooms because the kids
have moved out.

It doesn't affect all parents after their children have left the nest,
just the younger ones.

That's not correct.

whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.