Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: IC1967 on March 28, 2014, 08:43:33 am
-
Less people are now living in houses too small for them thanks to the removal of the spare room subsidy. About time too. Housing associations are now also building the right type of houses to suit the new rules instead of just building 3 bedroom house and under occupying them because benefits money was no object.
Shame on Labour for wanting to abandon this excellent policy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26770727
-
See Mick. I've scoured that article and I can't find a single bit of evidence to support your first sentence. Do you have any or are you just making stuff up again?
-
Less people are now living in houses too small for them thanks to the removal of the spare room subsidy. About time too...
So more people are living in bigger houses?
-
to the rest of the forum I am sorry for this but..
How DARE you celebrate the fact that people are being driven to suicide by the most spiteful vicious piece of legislation this foul government has brought in.
You love cutting and pasting, well here are some posts that you might be interested in. They are repeated up and down the length of the country, they aren't one off wingers before you decide to judge, they are decent people, terrified, made to feel like criminals for something that has never been a wrong in the first place..
Sandra Martin I am a sick person who is housebound due to physical and mental health issues. I suffer severe depression and anxiety, agoraphobia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease among other health issues. It would kill me to move and I would sooner go without heating than loose my home I have lived in for 16 years. I have to pay bedroom tax. I applied for discretionary housing payment and was only grated £2 per week for three months towards the £14 shortfall. It is not true what IDS says that disabled people are exempt they do have to pay it even though they can not move! So much for compassionate conservatism
Mandi Howard I don't live on Cornwall but I am someone that has moved because of the BT I really didn't want to give up my 3 bedroom home of 21 years. But the £116 shortfall of my HB for a box room (51 sq ft) was crippling me. Also my daughter was looking to move out to live with her finance, the shortfall would have then bumped up to £169 If it hadn't been for my next door neighbour offering to exchange with me I would have been stuck... I have now moved and within 2 months my daughter moved out so I'm now paying BT again, fortunately its much less than before (£86 a month) and a "double' I'm still struggling but NOT moving again.....This BT is not working for the so called reasons it was meant to be for...x
Why don't you take your sorry arse over to the BBC News website, there is irrefutable proof that this stupid policy is abysmally failing as anyone with one ounce of sense would have already realised.
Alan John Mcghie
They Have Just About Beat the Fight out off Me. That's H/B H/A B/T ESA & ATOS. I've appealed my B/T heard nothing just mess me about when I go in I think they know I am at a Very bad point with my depression at the moment. To be Frank I think they want to push me over the Edge. If my son was not living with me God only knows. I wish I was strong but feel weak & Let down by the MPs that's ALL MPs because if Labour say they will get rid off the B/T LIES they won't they are all the same. All they care about is CASH. Good Luck everyone to ALL who is fighting this cruel TAX OFF THE POOR. Peace to You & Yours..
three voices out of thousands, up and down the country where people have actually moved they are reporting that their homes stand empty, no one wants to take on these houses for fear that one day they too will be hammered... In some area these houses are being demolished, how does that make any sense? How does it home people?
Before you spout the utter shit that this brings it in to line with the private rental market I will debunk that one too.. You go for a private rental you chose whether to go above the benefit level for extra space. that doesn't and never has applied to the council housing, you are given the house allocated to you, in most cases you may be allowed to turn down one house if it is in an area with no transport ect, if you keep turning down houses you are put to the bottom of the list. it has always been like that, you can't pick and choose. the government is breaking the tenancy agreements that give a tenant a secured tenancy, pushing them into unsuitable housing which also then takes away their secure tenancy..
There never has been a subsidy on bedrooms, that is a lie. How can something be removed that never existed?
Don't bother replying to me, I don't want to know . yes I can be ignorant too when I see someone spouting such arrant shite, I have had a gut full of the crap you spout.
-
I've scoured that article and I can't find a single bit of evidence to support your first sentence. Do you have any or are you just making stuff up again?
I've always thought you were intelligent. Misguided but intelligent. I'm not so sure now. Anyway I'll explain it in terms that a real thickie could understand for your 'benefit'.
6% of tenants have moved from larger houses into smaller ones. The converse of that is that the larger houses that they have vacated are now being used by tenants with larger families that actually needed the extra rooms.
No doubt you support Labour and want larger families to live in accommodation that is not big enough for them and are quite happy for one or two people to be rattling around in three or four bedroom houses (or larger) subsidised by the tax payer.
If there's anything you're still not sure of let me know and I'll do my best to explain it in terms that a thickie can understand.
-
I've scoured that article and I can't find a single bit of evidence to support your first sentence. Do you have any or are you just making stuff up again?
6% of tenants have moved from larger houses into smaller ones. The converse of that is that the larger houses that they have vacated are now being used by tenants with larger families that actually needed the extra rooms.
Are they?
"When the changes came into force, Jayne Dennis was one of those who moved from her three-bedroom home.
She said her old home had been vacant for three months. She said. "You'd think they'd have filled it by now, but no. I think it's because we're out of the way and a lot of people don't like to be out of the way." "
-
Jucyberry, you are entitled to your opinion and I have sympathy with a lot of what you say. You are obviously very passionate about this subject and I take no offence at your comments. I agree people that are ill should be treated with great care and compassion. IDS says that there are rules in place to allow this to happen so if it's not happening he should be held to account.
However I still agree with the main principal of the reform. When we have a chronic shortage of homes for people then we need to make best use of the housing stock that is available.
Future planning by housing associations needs to allow for the building of smaller homes for small families. In the past they weren't bothered about the type of housing they built because whatever they built it was all paid for by the taxpayer. This is now changing and it is a good thing.
What you need to consider is what happens to large families at the moment. A lot of them are living in houses too small for their needs. At least this policy is making life better for some of them and quite right too.
-
Mick
Thank you. Four paragraphs when a "no" would have done seems a bit excessive, but it's par for the course for you.
-
If anything, I don't think this policy goes anywhere near far enough. Let me give an example. I know someone who has inherited a house which is much nicer than the large 3 bedroom council house she is living in. It has a nice big front and back garden as well. She lives on her own and rents out the inherited property. She doesn't
claim housing benefit so is unaffected by the new rules.
Now to my way of thinking she is no longer in need of social housing. She should be made to give up the house and let a family have it as their need is obviously far greater than hers.
-
Are they?
"When the changes came into force, Jayne Dennis was one of those who moved from her three-bedroom home.
She said her old home had been vacant for three months. She said. "You'd think they'd have filled it by now, but no. I think it's because we're out of the way and a lot of people don't like to be out of the way." "
It's not my fault that councils are rubbish at sorting out the allocation of housing. No doubt it's a Labour council trying to make a political point. I'll guarantee that this house does not stay empty for ever and will eventually be filled by a deserving family.
-
Oh. I thought you said they "are now being used by tennants". Not, they will be used once local authorities sort themselves out. How strange. It's almost as if the anecdotal evidence doesn't seem to match with your narrative. So you've created a new narrative.
-
I think you and Billy are just being silly for the sake of it. You'd both do better trying to make a genuine point (like Jucyberry) rather than trying to be pedants.
-
I think you and Billy are just being silly for the sake of it. You'd both do better trying to make a genuine point (like Jucyberry) rather than trying to be pedants.
There's no need to start throwing in personal insults IC1967. I think that's a bit much.
-
If anything, I don't think this policy goes anywhere near far enough. Let me give an example. I know someone who has inherited a house which is much nicer than the large 3 bedroom council house she is living in. It has a nice big front and back garden as well. She lives on her own and rents out the inherited property. She doesn't
claim housing benefit so is unaffected by the new rules.
Now to my way of thinking she is no longer in need of social housing. She should be made to give up the house and let a family have it as their need is obviously far greater than hers.
If you really believe that, grass her up as it breaks the tenancy agreement and will allow her to be evicted.
-
There's no need to start throwing in personal insults IC1967. I think that's a bit much.
Ha ha. I wasn't trying to insult you, I was merely describing you and Billy's pedantic way of responding to my post. I apologise if you were offended (it's a good job I don't get offended by the personal abuse that is thrown at me all the time).
-
It's the right policy wrongly applied. Trusting local government to run things is a bad move. Particularly Labour run ones which will clearly want to do their best to prove it doesn't work.
-
Ha ha. I wasn't trying to insult you, I was merely describing you and Billy's pedantic way of responding to my post. I apologise if you were offended (it's a good job I don't get offended by the personal abuse that is thrown at me all the time).
I'm afraid I cannot accept your apology, mainly as you've prefaced it with the phrase "Ha ha".
-
Ha ha.
-
It's the right policy wrongly applied. Trusting local government to run things is a bad move. Particularly Labour run ones which will clearly want to do their best to prove it doesn't work.
It's a shame that Labour put short term political gain above all else. Ed Balls does it with the 50p tax rate. He knows that using the Laffer Curve more tax is generated by having the rate at 45p rather than 50p. He couldn't care less though because rather than having more money coming into government coffers he'd rather rely on voter naivety to gain a few votes.
-
Like I say this policy is a move in the right direction but social housing needs a much more radical makeover. All tenants should be interviewed and their financial means assessed. The ones that can afford to buy their own own house or rent in the private sector should be evicted.
This would then free up more than enough social housing for people that really need it.
-
Mick
What's your source for that Laffer Curve comment?
-
Mick
What's your source for that Laffer Curve comment?
I've seen this approach before.
-
BCS
The sun comes up every day. Would you prefer it didn't?
Some things are eternal. Like Mick's inability to substantiate his guff.
-
The sun comes up every day.
Tell that to the mayor of Murmansk.
-
I've seen this approach before.
So have I. He's very tedious and predictable. Why he can't just accept what I say as fact I don't know.
-
I've seen this approach before.
So have I. He's very tedious and predictable. Why he can't just accept what I say as fact I don't know.
Mainly becasue you get things wrong. BST is right to ask.
-
Seconds out .......
-
In the tradition of always answering everything that is thrown at me (unlike some others around here I could mention) here is the evidence. I could explain it better than Boris but he does a good enough job so it will save me a lot of posting time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10598306/Bash-the-rich-and-you-deprive-us-of-what-their-taxes-pay-for.html
-
I can't believe the mods deleted Jucy's comment about Mick being a f**king Kitson. As we are all aware it's the truth.
-
In the tradition of always answering everything that is thrown at me
Are you absolutely sure about that?
-
Yes.
-
I can't believe the mods deleted Jucy's comment about Mick being a f***ing Kitson. As we are all aware it's the truth.
I'd have been quite happy for that comment to stand. It shows a lot of passion and she did make some good points.
-
Mick
Ah! If you'd just SAID that Boris believes it, that would have been game set and match. How can anyone argue with Boris?
Errr. Except the world's leading economist who specialises in tax an income distribution. Thomas Piketty reckons the optimal top tax rate in a mature liberal market economy is between 55-83%.
But f**k it. What does he know? He's only spent his career studying the numbers. Much better to believe someone who has spent his career hosting Have I Got News For You and getting arseholed at Olympic closing ceremonies.
-
Anyone that knows anything about economics knows that Thomas Piketty is a crank.
-
Dum de dum. Now we really ARE wading through the same stream. Come on Mick. You used that line years ago when you were out of your depth and looking like an ignorant d**khead. You've had 3 years to come up with better bullshit than that.
-
He's never had a proper job in his life so what does he know about the real world? He's spent all time in education. He's also a committed socialist. He's also French.
There, that should be enough evidence that he is a crank.
Game set and match.
-
Good one Mick. Whilst I'll admit that I give in to the temptation for the odd ad hominem on you, it is only in desperation at your knuckle-headed insistence on ignoring facts and logic.
Doing it as an opening gambit, instead of addressing the substantive content is the approach of the intellectually inadequate.
-
There are probably many of you out there that don't know what an 'ad hominem' is, so I thought you might be interested in the following definition:
An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.
I like that definition but I'm not sure Billy will.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ad%20hominem
-
Mick
I love that defintion.
As I say, I use ad hominems against you only as a last resort when you have demonstrated your intellectual worthlessness a dozen times.
You've done in on Piketty as an opening gambit.
-
I love that defintion.
Something else we agree on!!! I can't get my breath. It's very honest of you to admit that you are 'immature and/or unintelligent'.
-
The demonstration of idiocy that keeps on giving.
-
The demonstration of idiocy that keeps on giving.
Look. Enough's enough. You are now being too harsh on yourself.
-
The demonstration of idiocy that keeps on giving.
Look. Enough's enough. You are now being too harsh on yourself.
Yes, I know you are, but what am I???
Deary me... :facepalm: