https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html

"harry" wrote in message
...
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html

Don't believe this one

A report commissioned by the government suggests over three
quarters of those affected by the government's controversial
bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food.

Or more strictly, I don't believe that over 3/4 of those affected
by the bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food,
whatever some fool report commissioned by the govt claims.

On Friday, 18 December 2015 19:03:41 UTC, harry wrote:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html

Or they *choose* to cut back spending on food and keep paying for fags, booze and satellite telly.

It's only sensible; fags, booze and satellite telly aren't available free from food banks (yet).

Someone local to me on gumtree is advertising bags of carrots (broken) cheaper than bags of horse manure.

Owain

On Friday, 18 December 2015 20:22:01 UTC, wrote:
On Friday, 18 December 2015 19:03:41 UTC, harry wrote:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html

Or they *choose* to cut back spending on food and keep paying for fags, booze and satellite telly.

It's only sensible; fags, booze and satellite telly aren't available free from food banks (yet).

Someone local to me on gumtree is advertising bags of carrots (broken) cheaper than bags of horse manure.

Owain

I looked at 25kg sacks of cheap carrots once. I didn't fancy eating them. Past-it carrots are cheap, but meh.


NT

On 18/12/2015 19:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html


Don't believe this one

A report commissioned by the government suggests over three
quarters of those affected by the government's controversial
bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food.

Or more strictly, I don't believe that over 3/4 of those affected
by the bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food,
whatever some fool report commissioned by the govt claims.

Perhaps take a quick look at the evidence?

http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/...p/Final-Report

It's commissioned by government and overseen/undertaken by some the UK's
most respected academics.

Hurt though it might, 'Speed rejects findings' is unlikely to gain much
purchase here or elsewhere until you read the thing, or present a counter.

--
Cheers, Rob

RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html

Don't believe this one

A report commissioned by the government suggests over three
quarters of those affected by the government's controversial
bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food.

Or more strictly, I don't believe that over 3/4 of those affected
by the bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food,
whatever some fool report commissioned by the govt claims.

Perhaps take a quick look at the evidence?

No real evidence of that assertion in there.

And when extraordinary and very unlikely claims are made,
we need extraordinary evidence to substantiate the claim made.

And there is nothing even remotely like that in there.

Its hardly surprising that quite a few of those who have been
affected by the bedroom tax claim that they have had to cut
back on what they spend on stuff like food in an attempt to
get the govt to remove that tax. Doesn’t mean that they
actually have cut back on what they spend on essential food
as opposed to ****ing less money against the wall on crap.

And what they have chosen to do is nothing like HAD TO anyway.

And that 'report' only covers those on benefits anyway, nothing
even remotely like all those affected by the bedroom tax.

http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/...p/Final-Report

It's commissioned by government and overseen/undertaken by some the UK's
most respected academics.

Who get to wear the fact that the govt ain't about to actually pay
for accurate measurement of what even just those on benefits
have actually done change in expenditure wise and so have to
rely on what they SAY they have done.

Hurt though it might, 'Speed rejects findings' is unlikely to gain much
purchase here or elsewhere until you read the thing, or present a counter.

You have no idea what I have read. And see above on extraordinary claims.

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.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harry" wrote in message
...
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html

Don't believe this one

A report commissioned by the government suggests over three
quarters of those affected by the government's controversial
bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food.

Or more strictly, I don't believe that over 3/4 of those affected
by the bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food,
whatever some fool report commissioned by the govt claims.

Brian-Gaff wrote

So if you don't believe it, what proof are you going to provide?

THEY made the claim.

THEY get to do the proving.

THAT'S how it works.

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.

Separate matter entirely to whether there is any
evidence to substantiate that extra ordinary claim.

End of story.

Fraid not.

Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html

Don't believe this one

A report commissioned by the government suggests over three
quarters of those affected by the government's controversial
bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food.

Or more strictly, I don't believe that over 3/4 of those affected
by the bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food,
whatever some fool report commissioned by the govt claims.

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.

--
*Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.

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

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

THEY made the claim.

THEY get to do the proving.

THAT'S how it works.

I could give you plenty proof of just how hard the 'bedroom tax' hit some
in London. Based on my experience of working with some of those effected.
Simply not enough smaller accommodation available that they could move to.

Social housing has always been designed around a family with young kids,
in the main. When those kids grow up, there will likely be a spare
bedroom. If suitable smaller accomadation was available, the parents could
move to that releasing the larger property for a new family. But it isn't.

--
*Middle age is when it takes longer to rest than to get tired.

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

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:02:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting that there aren't people who could do a LOT more
themselves to improve their lot in life, but are happy to continue being
subsidised by the public purse?

On 19/12/2015 10:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:02:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting that there aren't people who could do a LOT more
themselves to improve their lot in life, but are happy to continue being
subsidised by the public purse?

If the rules discourage that sort of behaviour by the current tax and
benefit, who can blame them.

On Saturday, 19 December 2015 06:33:57 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:

And that 'report' only covers those on benefits anyway, nothing
even remotely like all those affected by the bedroom tax.

classic.

On Saturday, 19 December 2015 10:33:29 UTC, Adrian wrote:

Are you suggesting that there aren't people who could do a LOT more
themselves to improve their lot in life, but are happy to continue being
subsidised by the public purse?

There are both types obviously


NT

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
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.

Are you suggesting that there aren't people who could do a LOT more
themselves to improve their lot in life, but are happy to continue being
subsidised by the public purse?

No. I'm not suggesting that.

But only a tiny number compared to the genuine cases who are hit by such
draconic legislation.

It was legislation designed to appease the spittle dribbling readers of
the Mail, etc.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

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

On 19/12/2015 06:33, Rod Speed wrote:
RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html


Don't believe this one

A report commissioned by the government suggests over three
quarters of those affected by the government's controversial
bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food.

Or more strictly, I don't believe that over 3/4 of those affected
by the bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food,
whatever some fool report commissioned by the govt claims.

Perhaps take a quick look at the evidence?

No real evidence of that assertion in there.


What evidence are you after? It's a half-decent sample conducted by some
of the best social scientists in the world.

And when extraordinary and very unlikely claims are made,
we need extraordinary evidence to substantiate the claim made.


If you understood what the bedroom tax is and who it affects, you might
start to understand that the claim is not at all extraordinary. It's
simple maths - something has to give. And that something is food.

And there is nothing even remotely like that in there.

Its hardly surprising that quite a few of those who have been
affected by the bedroom tax claim that they have had to cut
back on what they spend on stuff like food in an attempt to
get the govt to remove that tax. Doesn’t mean that they
actually have cut back on what they spend on essential food
as opposed to ****ing less money against the wall on crap.


Evidence?

And what they have chosen to do is nothing like HAD TO anyway.

And that 'report' only covers those on benefits anyway, nothing
even remotely like all those affected by the bedroom tax.


Sigh. The only households affected by the bedroom tax are those on
benefits. I expect this to take a while. We have a generally respected
housing pressure group in the UK called 'Shelter'. Have a look at their
definition:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_ad...it/bedroom_tax

Households receiving housing benefits in the UK are almost by definition
a low income household. As indeed is living in council or housing
association property (although less so - IIRC, 60% on means tested
benefits).

http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/...p/Final-Report


It's commissioned by government and overseen/undertaken by some the
UK's most respected academics.

Who get to wear the fact that the govt ain't about to actually pay
for accurate measurement of what even just those on benefits
have actually done change in expenditure wise and so have to
rely on what they SAY they have done.


Oh but they have. And in the UK policy world, even though it's the UoC
(top 3 in the world?) they're going to be *very* lucky to get another
commission during this parliament.

Hurt though it might, 'Speed rejects findings' is unlikely to gain
much purchase here or elsewhere until you read the thing, or present a
counter.

You have no idea what I have read. And see above on extraordinary claims.

Yes, and I hope you understand that you have no idea what you're talking
about. Perhaps you could share your sources?

--
Cheers, Rob

On Saturday, 19 December 2015 13:37:05 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 06:33, Rod Speed wrote:
RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

And that 'report' only covers those on benefits anyway, nothing
even remotely like all those affected by the bedroom tax.

Sigh. The only households affected by the bedroom tax are those on
benefits.

It's Rodney you're talking to.


You have no idea what I have read. And see above on extraordinary claims.

Yes, and I hope you understand that you have no idea what you're talking
about.

It's Rodney. The idiot that knows eevrything.


NT

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

There isn't any real evidence that a large percentage of the population
want the poor to be clobbered. Certainly some do, but I don’t believe
that it is anything even remotely like a large percentage of the population.

As it is entirely their fault for being poor, old or disabled.

It is to some extent correct with the poor who are poor
because they choose not to work or who choose not to get
qualified in an area which has decent job prospects or didn’t
even bother to put much effort into their school work etc and
left as soon as they could legally or didn’t even bother to show
up quite a bit of the time when they were legally required to do that.

Your addition of the old or disabled to that is just your rhetoric.
Hardly anyone believe that much of that is the individual's fault.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

So if you don't believe it, what proof are you going to provide?

THEY made the claim.

THEY get to do the proving.

THAT'S how it works.

I could give you plenty proof of just how hard the 'bedroom tax' hit some
in London. Based on my experience of working with some of those effected.

That isn't the claim we are discussing. We are discussing JUST
the claim that more than 3/4 of those affected by the bedroom
tax have HAD TO significantly reduce their expenditure on FOOD.

Simply not enough smaller accommodation available that they could move to.

That wasn’t the claim being discussed. That is smaller accommodation
claim isn't an extraordinary claim about the bedroom tax and isn't in
fact something that is even encouraged of anything even remotely
like 3/4 of those to whom the bedroom tax is applied to anyway
and was in fact one of the reasons for the bedroom tax in the first
place so it would be a hell of a lot more surprising if there wasn’t
some pressure for some of those to do that.

Social housing has always been designed
around a family with young kids, in the main.

Only because those dominate the group social housing is provided for.

And it isn't even true for the elderly anyway.

When those kids grow up, there will likely be a spare bedroom. If
suitable smaller accomadation was available, the parents could move
to that releasing the larger property for a new family. But it isn't.

Bull**** it isn't. And that isn't the claim being discussed anyway.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 19/12/2015 10:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:02:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting that there aren't people who could do a LOT more
themselves to improve their lot in life, but are happy to continue being
subsidised by the public purse?

If the rules discourage that sort of behaviour by the current tax and
benefit,

They dont.

who can blame them.

Anyone with even half a clue.

RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html

Don't believe this one

A report commissioned by the government suggests over three
quarters of those affected by the government's controversial
bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food.

Or more strictly, I don't believe that over 3/4 of those affected
by the bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food,
whatever some fool report commissioned by the govt claims.

Perhaps take a quick look at the evidence?

No real evidence of that assertion in there.

What evidence are you after?

What those affected actually spend on food before
and after the bedroom tax and what sort of food
they are actually buying, not what they SAY they
are doing food wise when they are going to make
it look like the bedroom tax is a problem for them.

It's a half-decent sample conducted by some of the best social scientists
in the world.

Who only got to ask the sample what they did.

The govt was never going to pay for an accurate
measurement of what they actually did spending wise.

And when extraordinary and very unlikely claims are made,
we need extraordinary evidence to substantiate the claim made.

If you understood what the bedroom tax is and who it affects,

I understand that fine thanks.

you might start to understand that the claim is not at all extraordinary.

Corse it is with the claim about FOOD.

It's simple maths - something has to give. And that something is food.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Food is only a small part of the expenditure of even those
whose entire income is benefits. And even if they do change
from spending on the worst **** like crisps and expensive
lolly water instead of tap water, that is hardly anything like
the end of civilisation as we know it.

The obesity epidemic we are seeing in
that group isn't about to stop, you watch.

And there is nothing even remotely like that in there.

Its hardly surprising that quite a few of those who have been
affected by the bedroom tax claim that they have had to cut
back on what they spend on stuff like food in an attempt to
get the govt to remove that tax. Doesn’t mean that they
actually have cut back on what they spend on essential food
as opposed to ****ing less money against the wall on crap.

Evidence?

Trivially easy to see what sort of food gets bought
in those areas dominated by those on benefits.

Don’t need any academics to work that basic stuff out.

And what they have chosen to do is nothing like HAD TO anyway.

And that 'report' only covers those on benefits anyway, nothing
even remotely like all those affected by the bedroom tax.

Sigh.

Heavy breathing isn't going to save your bacon.

The only households affected by the bedroom tax are those on benefits.

That's a lie with those who choose to use the private
rental market who are more than JUST benefits.

I expect this to take a while. We have a generally respected housing
pressure group in the UK called 'Shelter'. Have a look at their
definition:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_ad...it/bedroom_tax

Irrelevant to what was being discussed there.

Households receiving housing benefits in the UK are almost by definition a
low income household.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed there.

As indeed is living in council or housing association property (although
less so - IIRC, 60% on means tested benefits).

Pity about the other 40%

http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/...p/Final-Report

It's commissioned by government and overseen/undertaken by some the UK's
most respected academics.

Who get to wear the fact that the govt ain't about to actually pay for
accurate measurement of what even just those on benefits have actually
done change in expenditure wise and so have to rely on what they SAY they
have done.

Oh but they have.

Like hell they have.

And in the UK policy world, even though it's the UoC (top 3 in the world?)
they're going to be *very* lucky to get another commission during this
parliament.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether the govt
was ever going to pay to MEASURE what those on
benefits did with their expenditure on food as opposed
to what they SAY they did with their expenditure on food.

Hurt though it might, 'Speed rejects findings' is unlikely to gain much
purchase here or elsewhere until you read the thing, or present a
counter.

You have no idea what I have read. And see above on extraordinary claims.

Yes, and I hope you understand that you have no idea what you're talking
about.

Easy to claim.

Perhaps you could share your sources?

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.

In article , RJH writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
... you wouldn't call it a tax.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
So if you don't believe it, what proof are you going to provide?

THEY made the claim.

THEY get to do the proving.

THAT'S how it works.

I could give you plenty proof of just how hard the 'bedroom tax' hit some
in London. Based on my experience of working with some of those effected.
Simply not enough smaller accommodation available that they could move to.

Social housing has always been designed around a family with young kids,
in the main. When those kids grow up, there will likely be a spare
bedroom. If suitable smaller accomadation was available, the parents could
move to that releasing the larger property for a new family. But it isn't.

For once I agree with you.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

I new it wouldn't last (see other post)
--
bert

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.

You might if you can't tell the difference between a loss of benefit and
a tax.

One should call it an age-bedroom tax since it only affects those under
a certain age, leaving the age group most likely with spare bedrooms
they can swim around in without any incentive to downsize.

On 19/12/2015 18:38, Rod Speed wrote:
RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html


Don't believe this one

A report commissioned by the government suggests over three
quarters of those affected by the government's controversial
bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food.

Or more strictly, I don't believe that over 3/4 of those affected
by the bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food,
whatever some fool report commissioned by the govt claims.

Perhaps take a quick look at the evidence?

No real evidence of that assertion in there.

What evidence are you after?

What those affected actually spend on food before
and after the bedroom tax and what sort of food
they are actually buying, not what they SAY they
are doing food wise when they are going to make
it look like the bedroom tax is a problem for them.


Yes, that might be interesting, and could be a part of a longer-running
study. That said, of all the things we consume, food is one of the
easiest to relate to in terms of methods and types of consumption, so I
wouldn't consider the findings to be invalid, or whatever it is you make
of them.

On eof the more tangible aspects of consumption in the UK has been the
increase in food banks, and the food collection points at places of work
and shops. I've not seen these before, at least on this scale, helping
out people in the UK.


It's a half-decent sample conducted by some of the best social
scientists in the world.

Who only got to ask the sample what they did.

The govt was never going to pay for an accurate
measurement of what they actually did spending wise.


Indeed - the terms of the commission make the findings doubly surprising.

And when extraordinary and very unlikely claims are made,
we need extraordinary evidence to substantiate the claim made.

If you understood what the bedroom tax is and who it affects,

I understand that fine thanks.


You do not - judicious snip of your original post noted ;-)

you might start to understand that the claim is not at all extraordinary.

Corse it is with the claim about FOOD.

It's simple maths - something has to give. And that something is food.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Food is only a small part of the expenditure of even those
whose entire income is benefits. And even if they do change
from spending on the worst **** like crisps and expensive
lolly water instead of tap water, that is hardly anything like
the end of civilisation as we know it.


I think this could be the source of your position. Some sort of bitter
and simplistic representation of people on low incomes?

The obesity epidemic we are seeing in
that group isn't about to stop, you watch.


Yes, high-sugar foods is one quick and easy way through this. I have a
mate who, since losing his job, lives largely on biscuits. But that case
is a complex blend of things. The point though is the longer term health
costs. And the bedroom tax is *bound* to have an impact on low income
households.


And there is nothing even remotely like that in there.

Its hardly surprising that quite a few of those who have been
affected by the bedroom tax claim that they have had to cut
back on what they spend on stuff like food in an attempt to
get the govt to remove that tax. Doesn’t mean that they
actually have cut back on what they spend on essential food
as opposed to ****ing less money against the wall on crap.

Evidence?

Trivially easy to see what sort of food gets bought
in those areas dominated by those on benefits.


Even if true (and I believe there's a great deal of myth and
stereotype), those affected have even less money to buy that sort of
stuff. 'Simple maths'.

Don’t need any academics to work that basic stuff out.

And what they have chosen to do is nothing like HAD TO anyway.

And that 'report' only covers those on benefits anyway, nothing
even remotely like all those affected by the bedroom tax.

Sigh.

Heavy breathing isn't going to save your bacon.


Just exhaling :-)

The only households affected by the bedroom tax are those on benefits.

That's a lie with those who choose to use the private
rental market who are more than JUST benefits.


That sentence doesn't make sense.

I expect this to take a while. We have a generally respected housing
pressure group in the UK called 'Shelter'. Have a look at their
definition:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_ad...it/bedroom_tax


Irrelevant to what was being discussed there.


Well, it might be if you knew what you were talking about.


Households receiving housing benefits in the UK are almost by
definition a low income household.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed there.


Ditto.

As indeed is living in council or housing association property
(although less so - IIRC, 60% on means tested benefits).

Pity about the other 40%


Why? And many of those 40% are on low incomes.

http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/...p/Final-Report


It's commissioned by government and overseen/undertaken by some the
UK's most respected academics.

Who get to wear the fact that the govt ain't about to actually pay
for accurate measurement of what even just those on benefits have
actually done change in expenditure wise and so have to rely on what
they SAY they have done.

Oh but they have.

Like hell they have.


Well, not by your standards, agreed. But then your record in social
research isn't exactly clear. But (even I) would accept that more
resources and different approaches could yield a more accurate
representation. What I doubt (anecdotally and professionally) is that
the overall results would be much different.


And in the UK policy world, even though it's the UoC (top 3 in the
world?) they're going to be *very* lucky to get another commission
during this parliament.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether the govt
was ever going to pay to MEASURE what those on
benefits did with their expenditure on food as opposed
to what they SAY they did with their expenditure on food.


No, you're challenging the research on its own terms. Not everything is
quantifiable. That's a key point the authors try to make. And while, as
I suggest elsewhere, a more detailed breakdown of income/expenditure
might be interesting and even valuable, it's not a good reason to
dismiss a key finding - 77% spend less on food now than they did before
the bedroom tax.

Hurt though it might, 'Speed rejects findings' is unlikely to gain
much purchase here or elsewhere until you read the thing, or present
a counter.

You have no idea what I have read. And see above on extraordinary
claims.


Well, you're just going to have to enlighten me.

Yes, and I hope you understand that you have no idea what you're
talking about.

Easy to claim.

Perhaps you could share your sources?

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


--
Cheers, Rob

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

--
Cheers, Rob

RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html

Don't believe this one

A report commissioned by the government suggests over three
quarters of those affected by the government's controversial
bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food.

Or more strictly, I don't believe that over 3/4 of those affected
by the bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food,
whatever some fool report commissioned by the govt claims.

Perhaps take a quick look at the evidence?

No real evidence of that assertion in there.

What evidence are you after?

What those affected actually spend on food before
and after the bedroom tax and what sort of food
they are actually buying, not what they SAY they
are doing food wise when they are going to make
it look like the bedroom tax is a problem for them.

Yes, that might be interesting,

No might be about it, it’s the only evidence that matters.

and could be a part of a longer-running study.

Not a chance, essentially because no govt that has introduced something
like that is going to pay the very high cost of something like that.

That said, of all the things we consume, food is one of the easiest to
relate to in terms of methods and types of consumption,

Yes, but even those whose entire income is benefits, don’t actually
spend the bulk of what they receive on food, so it would be very
surprising indeed if 3/4 of them actually did reduce what they
spend on food, except with maybe not buying as much of the
more expensive food when they have to pay more tax etc.

But a much smaller percentage claimed that they
had reduced the amount the spend on eating out
and its well known that that section of the population
is into fast food a lot more than the average and
I just don’t believe that they are preparing more
food at home instead of eating fast food and
microwave meals etc.

so I wouldn't consider the findings to be invalid,

I would when they have produced such an extraordinary claim,
particularly when its obviously in the interest of those who are
affected by the bedroom tax to try to get it removed etc.

or whatever it is you make of them.

On eof the more tangible aspects of consumption in the UK has been the
increase in food banks, and the food collection points at places of work
and shops.

But that is much more likely to be as a result of the
**** hitting the fan economically relatively recently,
at a level we only see once every 80 years or so now.

I've not seen these before, at least on this scale, helping out people in
the UK.

Sure, but you haven't seen the economy implode so spectacularly
before, since you weren't around during the Great Depression.

It's a half-decent sample conducted by some of the best social
scientists in the world.

Who only got to ask the sample what they did.

The govt was never going to pay for an accurate
measurement of what they actually did spending wise.

Indeed - the terms of the commission make the findings doubly surprising.

Not when its in the interest of those affected by the bedroom
tax to overstate what they have done as a result of it, knowing
that people are much more likely to see a reduction in the
amount they spend on food as being much more important
than say a reduction in the amount they spend on booze or
drugs or gambling with the recipients of benefits.

And when extraordinary and very unlikely claims are made,
we need extraordinary evidence to substantiate the claim made.

If you understood what the bedroom tax is and who it affects,

I understand that fine thanks.

You do not - judicious snip of your original post noted ;-)

I snipped nothing.

you might start to understand that the claim is not at all
extraordinary.

Corse it is with the claim about FOOD.

It's simple maths - something has to give. And that something is food.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Food is only a small part of the expenditure of even those
whose entire income is benefits. And even if they do change
from spending on the worst **** like crisps and expensive
lolly water instead of tap water, that is hardly anything like
the end of civilisation as we know it.

I think this could be the source of your position.

More fool you, I don’t have a position.

Some sort of bitter and simplistic representation of people on low
incomes?

Nothing bitter about it and nothing simplistic about
it either. Its well known what those on benefits spend
their benefits on, because it’s a very fundamental part of
deciding what is an appropriate level of benefits to pay.

The obesity epidemic we are seeing in
that group isn't about to stop, you watch.

Yes, high-sugar foods is one quick and easy way through this.

There is no 'way thru this'. The obesity epidemic is nothing new
and its no news that those on benefits buy a hell of a lot more
crap like lolly water and the worst fast food than most do and
that the obesity epidemic is rather worse with them.

I have a mate who, since losing his job, lives largely on biscuits.

More fool him. There is much better value food
if you are short of money to buy food with.

But that case is a complex blend of things.

Pigs arse it is.

The point though is the longer term health costs.

You haven't established that there are long
term health costs with the bedroom tax.

In fact during WW2 when rationing dramatically affected
what people could eat, they ended up with a MUCH more
healthy diet essentially because they ate more vegetables.

And the bedroom tax is *bound* to have an impact on low income households.

Not necessarily if they let the kids live there again etc so
they are no longer seen to have too many bedrooms etc.

And there is nothing even remotely like that in there.

Its hardly surprising that quite a few of those who have been
affected by the bedroom tax claim that they have had to cut
back on what they spend on stuff like food in an attempt to
get the govt to remove that tax. Doesn’t mean that they
actually have cut back on what they spend on essential food
as opposed to ****ing less money against the wall on crap.

Evidence?

Trivially easy to see what sort of food gets bought
in those areas dominated by those on benefits.

Even if true

Corse its true.

(and I believe there's a great deal of myth and stereotype),

More fool you. That question has been extensively
researched and is trivially easy to do by looking at
what gets sold in the shops in those areas food wise.

those affected have even less money to buy that sort of stuff.

Only if they don’t do something to avoid the bedroom tax
and if they have less to spend on lolly water and fast food
and eat better food at home instead, its hardly the end of
civilisation as we know it any time soon.

'Simple maths'.

Mindlessly superficial arithmetic in fact.

Don’t need any academics to work that basic stuff out.

And what they have chosen to do is nothing like HAD TO anyway.

And that 'report' only covers those on benefits anyway, nothing
even remotely like all those affected by the bedroom tax.

Sigh.

Heavy breathing isn't going to save your bacon.

Just exhaling :-)

Heavy exhaling ain't gunna save your bacon.

The only households affected by the bedroom tax are those on benefits.

That's a lie with those who choose to use the private
rental market who are more than JUST benefits.

That sentence doesn't make sense.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

I expect this to take a while. We have a generally respected housing
pressure group in the UK called 'Shelter'. Have a look at their
definition:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_ad...it/bedroom_tax

Irrelevant to what was being discussed there.

Well, it might be if you knew what you were talking about.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Households receiving housing benefits in the UK are almost by
definition a low income household.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed there.

Ditto.

Ditto.

As indeed is living in council or housing association property
(although less so - IIRC, 60% on means tested benefits).

Pity about the other 40%

Why? And many of those 40% are on low incomes.

But aren't affected by the bedroom tax being discussed.

http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/...p/Final-Report

It's commissioned by government and overseen/undertaken by some the
UK's most respected academics.

Who get to wear the fact that the govt ain't about to actually pay for
accurate measurement of what even just those on benefits have actually
done change in expenditure wise and so have to rely on what they SAY
they have done.

Oh but they have.

Like hell they have.

Well, not by your standards, agreed. But then your record in social
research isn't exactly clear.

Don’t need one on that question of what is reliable
evidence, its obvious that what those who are affected
by the bedroom tax SAY is nothing like as reliable as
what they have actually spent on the various
alternatives before and after the bedroom tax.

But (even I) would accept that more resources and different approaches
could yield a more accurate representation.

Even sillier than you usually manage on the COULD.

What I doubt (anecdotally and professionally) is that the overall results
would be much different.

More fool you.

And in the UK policy world, even though it's the UoC (top 3 in the
world?) they're going to be *very* lucky to get another commission
during this parliament.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether the govt was ever going to
pay to MEASURE what those on
benefits did with their expenditure on food as opposed
to what they SAY they did with their expenditure on food.

No, you're challenging the research on its own terms.

You are just plain wrong on that.

Not everything is quantifiable.

What those affected spend on food certainly is.

That's a key point the authors try to make.

It’s another completely silly claim with what is being
discussed, what those affected have done about what
they spend on food. And the authors never said that anyway.

And while, as I suggest elsewhere, a more detailed breakdown of
income/expenditure might be interesting and even valuable,

Corse its valuable when its MEASURED instead of just going
on what those affected SAY they have done in that regard.

it's not a good reason to dismiss a key finding - 77% spend less on food
now than they did before the bedroom tax.

I didn’t dismiss that, I JUST said that I don’t BELIEVE it.

Particularly when a MUCH smaller percentage said that about eating out.

Hurt though it might, 'Speed rejects findings' is unlikely to gain
much purchase here or elsewhere until you read the thing, or present a
counter.

You have no idea what I have read. And see above on extraordinary
claims.

Well, you're just going to have to enlighten me.

No point, you have clearly made you mind up already
based on absolutely nothing at all except your prejudices.

Yes, and I hope you understand that you have no idea what you're talking
about.

Easy to claim.

Perhaps you could share your sources?

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.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

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

It is with that extraordinary claim.

You seem to be drawing conclusions from an absence of evidence that meets
your standards

Because, like I said, extraordinary
claims need extraordinary evidence.

and a far from clear understanding of context.

Easy to claim. My understanding of the context is as good as yours thanks.

On Friday, 18 December 2015 19:14:58 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html

Don't believe this one

A report commissioned by the government suggests over three
quarters of those affected by the government's controversial
bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food.

Or more strictly, I don't believe that over 3/4 of those affected
by the bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food,
whatever some fool report commissioned by the govt claims.

It just shows how the entitlement culture has thrived.
Entitled that is, to these handouts.

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.



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

--
Please note new email address:

harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassi...090739719.html

Don't believe this one

A report commissioned by the government suggests over three
quarters of those affected by the government's controversial
bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food.

Or more strictly, I don't believe that over 3/4 of those affected
by the bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food,
whatever some fool report commissioned by the govt claims.

It just shows how the entitlement culture has thrived.
Entitled that is, to these handouts.

The 3/4 who claim to have reduced what the spend on
food as a result of the bedroom tax shows nothing of
the kind, even if it is what they have actually done.

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 05:23:22 +0000, RJH wrote:

On eof the more tangible aspects of consumption in the UK has been the
increase in food banks, and the food collection points at places of work
and shops. I've not seen these before, at least on this scale, helping
out people in the UK.

Of course, the increased existence of foodbanks doesn't necessarily mean
that the demand they meet is new - it may well just have gone unmet
before.

In article ,
Jonno wrote:
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

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



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, not the poor
sods who are born in an area with no work, **** poor schools and no
prospects of ever having a decent life. Of course it's easy to blame
them, they're not in a position to respond, they're too busy trying to
survive.

--
Please note new email address:

On 20/12/15 11:20, Jonno wrote:
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..so far...

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

Oh really! Purleaze, your are another Plowperson Lefty****.


not the poor
sods who are born in an area with no work, **** poor schools and no
prospects of ever having a decent life. Of course it's easy to blame
them, they're not in a position to respond, they're too busy trying to
survive.

They seem to survive and breed remarkably well, since the whole country
is full of them...


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

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.



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



--
Cheers, Rob

"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

tim

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?

--
*If they arrest the Energizer Bunny, would they charge it with battery? *

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
not the poor
sods who are born in an area with no work, **** poor schools and no
prospects of ever having a decent life. Of course it's easy to blame
them, they're not in a position to respond, they're too busy trying to
survive.

They seem to survive and breed remarkably well, since the whole country
is full of them...

The Turnip philosophy. No comment needed.

--
*I used to be a banker, but then I lost interest.*

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

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.





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


--
*Most people have more than the average number of legs*

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

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

--
Please note new email address: