| Non-motoring > Next time your tax bill arrives... | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Robin O'Reliant | Replies: 83 |
|
New Tue 19 Feb 13 19:48
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
...it's to feckless rubbish like this some of it is going - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9880720/Unemployed-mother-of-11-is-keeping-horse.html Tell her to provide for her own family, chase the multiple fathers to the ends of the earth and make them pay their whack and if they can't take the kids into care and stick her in a bedsit. It would cost more than the house they are providing her with, but in the long run it would send out a message to the thousands who do the same thing that the state won't pick up the tab if you can't be bothered with contraception or to keep your legs closed. |
|
New Tue 19 Feb 13 20:16
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Zero
|
| Has anyone told her its a cow? |
|
New Tue 19 Feb 13 20:52
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
Another story from Tory Central Office to persuade the gullible that it's typical. Incidentally the 'mansion' she's getting is two bog standard houses with interconnecting doors. Once she's moved on the doors can be bricked up and one house is two again. Meanwhile folks with a child at Uni or trying to make shared parenting work are deemed to have an unnecessary spare room and lose benefit. |
|
New Tue 19 Feb 13 21:05
Next time your tax bill arrives... - mikeyb
|
|
>> Incidentally the 'mansion' she's getting is two bog standard houses with interconnecting doors. Once she's >> moved on the doors can be bricked up and one house is two again. Don't think so. She already has 2 houses with an interconnecting door, but that's not satisfactory, hence that's why the housing association are building a new house for her. Not sure that its a mansion though - the describe it as 6 bedrooms, but only 1850 square feet - about the same as my 4 bed, so I'm guessing they've just compressed more rooms in the same footprint Article from the local rag tinyurl.com/b34a6af Last edited by: mikeyb on Tue 19 Feb 13 at 21:07
|
|
New Tue 19 Feb 13 21:40
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
I was replying on press reports too mikey. As somebody in another forum said today, trying to follow what in that instance was a court case and jury options via press reports was like trying to pick a lock with a kipper. |
|
New Tue 19 Feb 13 21:54
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Stuu
|
|
Its not her fault, she is a product of the system, a system that many millions voted for, so dont blame her, blame the people who voted for that system. The funny thing is that if everyone did it, the system would collapse as the money ran out - the irony is that the majority wont behave like that which means the system can afford to continue paying for these extreme cases. Of course she has a horse, she is terrible and brilliant all at the same time, I do hope she has a TV the size of a car too. |
|
New Tue 19 Feb 13 22:31
Next time your tax bill arrives... - smokie
|
|
"Its not her fault, she is a product of the system, a system that many millions voted for, so dont blame her, blame the people who voted for that system." What a bizarre thing to say. I've not even read the article yet so don't know anything about it other than what's above, but to me, yours is a really weird attitude. Don't people have to take responsibility for their own destiny any more? |
|
New Tue 19 Feb 13 22:41
Next time your tax bill arrives... - CGNorwich
|
|
>Don't people have to take responsibility for their own destiny any more? I would say it is but is it morally worse to that advantages of the benefit system providing you don't actually break the law, than it is to take advantage of the tax system if you don't actually break the law. I seem to remember the consensus of a recent discussion on here was that as far as tax was concerned the onus was on the lawmakers to change the law. Perhaps it is thus with the benefits system? |
|
New Tue 19 Feb 13 23:20
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Stuu
|
|
>>I seem to remember the consensus of a recent discussion on here was that as far as tax was concerned the onus was on the lawmakers to change the law. Perhaps it is thus with the benefits system?<< My point exactly. If you make something permissable, you cannot be suprised when people do it. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 14:27
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> My point exactly. If you make something permissable, you cannot be suprised when people do >> it. >> It goes further than that. Half the point of the taxation carrot and stick regime we live under is to nudge people into changing their lifestyles in order to do, or not do, something the government wants. Everyone accepts that that is a sensible way of influencing behaviour, and by and large agree that it works. To discourage smoking, put up tobacco duty. To encourage pension saving, give tax relief. To discourage binge drinking, put up the price of alcohol. To encourage population growth, give generous child benefit and award medals and bonuses for lots of children. To discourage population growth, tax more than the first child. etc. People adapt their lives to maximise the benefits or avoid the disbenefits. So if, for some reason, you wanted to encourage women to become unemployed single mothers with lots of children, what policies would you put in place? |
|
New Tue 19 Feb 13 22:44
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Roger.
|
| The nanny state says "No - we'll tell you what to eat and drink. We will tell you to beware of hot coffee in a mug. We will tell you what you may and may not say. We will take all responsibility for you as long as you conform to our rules. Nothing is your fault - it's always someone else's and you may sue them at no cost to yourself". |
|
New Tue 19 Feb 13 23:27
Next time your tax bill arrives... - CGNorwich
|
|
That may well be Roger but if you live in such a state the question is it wrong to take what it legally offers even if you don't need it? Why is it morally worse taking housing allowance for which you legally qualify than heating allowance when you don't really need it. The latter is done by half the population over 60 If its wrong the rules need to be changed. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 18:42
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Haywain
|
|
"Why is it morally worse taking housing allowance for which you legally qualify than heating allowance when you don't really need it." If it upsets you, don't think of it as a 'heating allowance' - just regard it as a bit of topping up to the dwindling state pension. It was just introduced and named as such by a government trying to make it look as though it was doing something special for the greying masses. |
|
New Tue 19 Feb 13 23:17
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Stuu
|
|
>>Don't people have to take responsibility for their own destiny any more? << Many people dont, some take it to an extreme and completely fall back onto the nanny state which will feed their every need. I dispair that these people exist, but the system allows her to live the life she is living and that system has bred people who are, to varying degrees, dependant on it. If you cant change the people, you have to change the system through the political system OR you live with it because people like her are not going to change on their own, she adapted to her enviroment. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 11:36
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Dave
|
| Come on guys, don't be so mean. You live in one of the richest countries in the world, with a high standard of living. It's full of immigrants that bring a huge benefit to the economy and do the jobs no-one else wants to do. Surely you don't begrudge a little bit of your tax money going to help an unfortunate lady who falls pregnant? |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 11:43
Next time your tax bill arrives... - madf
|
|
>> Come on guys, don't be so mean. You live in one of the richest countries >> in the world, with a high standard of living. It's full of immigrants that bring >> a huge benefit to the economy and do the jobs no-one else wants to do. >> Surely you don't begrudge a little bit of your tax money going to help an >> unfortunate lady who falls pregnant? >> It's NOT tax payers paying for it. It's borrowing that is. Which means robbing the next generation who will have to pay it back.. (or we will have a real financial crisis which will impact everyone directly - like 1929 - unlike the 2008 one which hit the banks mainly) |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 12:10
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
I think Dave's being rather tongue in cheek. This woman might be at the extreme with 11 sprogs (by how many fathers I wonder?) but she is by no means unique in realising that becoming a baby machine means freedom from worries about earning a living or housing yourself. I'm sure most of us know estates full of her type. The Welfare system needs a complete overhaul, and an end to automatic housing for single women who chose to have a baby (and it is a choice, with contraception emergency pills and abortion freely available to all) would save a fortune and diminish the cycle of fatherless kids and the problems they bring. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 12:21
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
She was reportedly upset that illness meant she was not able to have any more children. According to today's Telegraph they get £65,000 per annum from the state. Presumably plus a free house? That's a lot of money. You'd be able to afford to run a minibus, and you could go off for a month in the summer and camp in a farmer's field somewhere nice. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 13:04
Next time your tax bill arrives... - BobbyG
|
|
With these issues , you always have the other side of the coin. a. When do you drop these benefits - you can't do it overnight and throw her and her kids (who have done no wrong) out onto the street and make them homeless can you? Ultimately some sort of Council led service will be asked to rehouse them, paying astronomical costs for private lets. b. so you announce that from April 2014 Councils no longer have the responsibility for rehousing? Can see a glut of pregnancies between now and then. c. So if the rules are that Councils have no obligation to rehouse, does this include genuine people like learning needs, disabilities etc - will they all be thrown out in the street? We have got ourselves into a huge hole that we can't get out of. We can start by capping benefits which the present govt has started to do but seems to be going about it the wrong way. And if the country is running short of money, you don't offer tax reductions to the well off, you don't have a tax system that is so open to abuse and you don't have a financial banking system that can cost us overnight all these other issues lumped in together. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 13:18
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
And if you announce a moratorium on housing from 2014 what happens next? Getting pregnant to get a Council house is, while not unknown, an issue vastly overstated by the press and politicians. In practice the majority if single Mums have been abandoned. Do we put them on the streets? Of Course not. Instead, as is already happening in London, they would be placed in B&B at a cost substantially in excess of even London's inflated rents. The combination of the benefit and rent caps, neither of which take any account of regional factors plus the so called bedroom tax which reduces rent allowance for people in social housing with a spare room is going to create a homelessness crisis like nothing we've ever seen. Expect the return of shanty camps in London parks. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 20 Feb 13 at 13:20
|
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 13:43
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
>>the so called bedroom tax which reduces rent allowance for people in social housing with a >>spare room is going to create a homelessness crisis Get real. Do you really believe this? We have a housing crisis because people continue to be in large council houses when a small one will do. Councils are delighted to move people into smaller council houses. >>The combination of the benefit and rent caps, neither of which take any account of regional factors Quite right too. Would you rather live in a shanty camp in a Royal Park in W1, or a Council house in UB1? Just because the State is subsidising an individual's lifestyle doesn't mean that individual is immune from the same financial pressures to live within his means that the rest of us are subject to. If you're unemployed in London and therefore need benefits (and there's no excuse, given the huge number of immigrants who do seem to manage to find jobs) then you should be unemployed in Middlesbrough where housing is virtually free, other services much cheaper, and the quality of life for the unemployed must be much higher. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 13:51
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Stuu
|
|
>>We have a housing crisis because people continue to be in large council houses when a small one will do. Councils are delighted to move people into smaller council houses.<< A decent person in social housing that is bigger than they need would look at the families piled into houses too small for them and feel the right thing to do would be to make way for them. Only the selfish wouldnt do that, it isnt like they wont be housed elsewhere. The problem is people view social housing as an entitlement rather than a helping hand. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 13:55
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
>>Only the selfish wouldnt do that, it isnt like they wont be housed elsewhere. The problem is >>people view social housing as an entitlement rather than a helping hand. Spot on. This goes very well with my other Council house scheme. Which is that the rent people in Council houses pay should be brought into line with market rent, by abolishing the 'fair rent'. They then apply for housing benefit to help them with their rent. These benefits are payable in accordance with their ability to pay, just like the rest of us. Thus, when you're well off and still living in a Council house, you're no longer being subsidised by the State. One meets, from time to time, perfectly nice normal people in London who live in Council flats. They've had them since they were young. 'Oh I couldn't afford to move out of this, you know, it's a bit small for us these days.' I bet you couldn't. As we're subsidising your life. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 13:51
Next time your tax bill arrives... - madf
|
|
I've always believed in a voluntary tax system where those people who support an extended welfare state can give voluntarily to help those they care so much for. Eg cut spending by say £10b on welfare and wait to see what the voluntary tax take from those who want to make up the difference. Should be interesting to see what the results are. Any guesses? |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 13:55
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Get real. Do you really believe this? We have a housing crisis because people continue >> to be in large council houses when a small one will do. Councils are delighted >> to move people into smaller council houses. >> Where are these smaller Council houses? Hull has 4500 homes with 'spare' rooms and around 80 smaller properties free for people to move into. It's unlikley to be better in London or Birmingham. Meanwhile the single person under occupying a 4 bed house as owner gets a 25% rebate on Council Tax worth around £300pa. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 14:02
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
Typical response of the Civil Service. 'Not possible.' Whereas in the real world there are Councils - even in London - that will pay you up to £12,500 to downsize: www.cambridge.gov.uk/under-occupancy-incentive-scheme www.westminster.gov.uk/workspace/assets/publications/Cash_Incentive_-270109_final-1243351569.pdf Moreover, places like London are full of people with children living in 1 bed flats who would love to swap for somewhere larger, but nowhere larger is available. Trust me, I've met them when canvassing. (Meanwhile on the other side of the corridor is an old lady still living in a 3-bed flat on her own. I've met her too. Of course she should volunteer to move, and if not then she should be incentivised to move.) And if you've got a three bed house in Hull and want to live in a 1-bed flat, then the council should buy you a new flat and sell your house in the open market. Win, win, win. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 14:10
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Pat
|
|
>>And if you've got a three bed house in Hull and want to live in a 1-bed flat, then the council should buy you a new flat and sell your house in the open market. Win, win, win. << Isn't there a flaw in that theory? What happens to the couple with 2 nearly teenage children in a two beroom house waiting for a 3 bed to become vacant if it's sold? Pat |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 15:44
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
>> Isn't there a flaw in that theory? >> >> What happens to the couple with 2 nearly teenage children in a two beroom house >> waiting for a 3 bed to become vacant if it's sold? >> >> Pat Of course you're right; that's obvious and I think I've addressed that in the previous paragraph. BUT it was Brompton who said that Hull has too many 3-bed houses and insufficient 1-bed flats, and that it's unfair to tax the occupants of the large houses, and therefore the Tories are scum for proposing this and there's no possible solution. There is! Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 20 Feb 13 at 15:45
|
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 16:25
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Pat
|
|
Sorry, my mistake. I read Bromps post to read that Hull had too many UNDER occupied 3 bed houses. Pat |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 16:36
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
Hull has far too many houses with a so called spare room but not enough smaller 'swapsies' to allow the occupants to trade down. If there are not enough swapsies then people will either have to make up the deduction from elsewhere or, more likley, many will end up in arrears. It's not just empty nesters that are affected. If I were in scope my daughter's room would count as unnocupied because she's at Uni 45 weeks of the year. Same applies to those with a son onactive service in Afghan. If Mrs B and I were seperated but trying to share parenting we couldn't both have room for the kids. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 20 Feb 13 at 16:37
|
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 16:55
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
We are in the middle of a housing crisis, Brompton. How on earth can we justify people with children in a flat in London that is too small just because Hull doesn't have enough swapsies. I agree, it sounds as though you have identified a problem in that particular city, and something needs to be done there. But councils in the south-east are desperate for people to trade into a smaller flat. Quite right too. If Mrs B (I thought she was Miss?!...) and you separate, why should your children be entitled to have two state-provided bedrooms each? Paid for by taxpayers many of whom have children who share a bedroom even up to or beyond the age of 18??? Son (or daughter, welcome to the 21st century) in Afghanistan, get a lodger in. We have a housing crisis. Daughter at University and you live in a council house, then she's getting a state-funded room at University as well as a state-funded room in your council house. You cannot have your cake and eat it IF THE STATE IS SUBSIDISING YOU. It is the sense of entitlement that well-meaning liberals like you give to those who are subsidised by the state that puts us in the mess we are in. I am very annoyed to discover that pensioners are exempt from the "empty-bedroom tax". They are the worst for living in properties that are too big for them. Fine if it belongs to you; not fine if the state is subsidising you. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 17:03
Next time your tax bill arrives... - BobbyG
|
|
But, at the end of the day, there are not enough council houses. Because many years ago Maggie decided that if you had stayed in them long enough you were entitled to get a huge discount and buy it at vastly below the value. But the councils still had to house people. So the money they received from the sale of these council houses wasn't enough to build new ones. So then they had to find accomodation to rent and pay for to house people. So they started paying the people who had bought their council houses cheaply, a high rent to put the people that they had an obligation to house into. Ah, said house owner, this is a great idea, with this money I will go and buy another house and rent that back to the council as well. Oh and I can get MIRAS on my interest as well. And then some claim our economy boomed on the back of property - em sorry, it was you and I that funded a lot of it! |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 17:36
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
>> Because many years ago Maggie decided that if you had stayed in them long enough you >>were entitled to get a huge discount and buy it at vastly below the value. Common misunderstanding. When a Council house is tenanted, that tenant (1) has the right to stay there for life, and to pass it on to his children; (2) the right to pay a rent massively below market rent. Accordingly, a Council house is worth maybe 50% of what it would be worth if it had vacant possession. So in fact by giving a 25% discount on value with vacant possession the state was in fact benefiting. >>But the councils still had to house people Yes... BUT these were new people; the old people were still in their Council houses (that they'd bought for themselves) and were no longer having to be subsidised by the state. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 19:13
Next time your tax bill arrives... - BobbyG
|
|
>> Accordingly, a Council house is worth maybe 50% of what it would be worth if it had vacant possession. So in fact by giving a 25% discount on value with vacant possession the state was in fact benefiting. IIRC the discounts in some cases were more like 75% >>Yes... BUT these were new people; the old people were still in their Council houses (that they'd bought for themselves) and were no longer having to be subsidised by the state and when they died or moved on, their houses were no longer available for the council to pass on to the next person in the queue. From wiki Laws restricted councils' investment in housing, preventing them subsidising it from local taxes, but more importantly, council tenants were given the "right to buy" in the 1980s Housing Act offering a discount price on their council house. The Right to Buy scheme allowed tenants to buy their home with a discount of up to 60% of the market price for houses and 70% for flats, depending on the time they had lived there. Councils were prevented from reinvesting the proceeds of these sales in new housing, and the total available stock, particularly of more desirable homes, declined. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 20:56
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I am very annoyed to discover that pensioners are exempt from the "empty-bedroom tax". They >> are the worst for living in properties that are too big for them. >> Well at least we agree on one thing!! If the state is going down this misguided route it should at least be applied across the board. Indeed I suspect, like you, that empty nest pensioners are the lowest hanging fruit. On the wider point Hull was merely an exemplar; a lack of one or two bed places is pretty universal in Northern towns cities. I don't know about London but as the capital has been in housing crisis for decades there may be more small flats. On the separating couples thing my point is about joined up government. Elsewhere in the forest Ministers would like people to sort out divorce/residency amicably (with help from mediation). But housing policy makes shared parenting more difficult. No state funded space at Uni. That went in yours and my day. There's a repayable loan for accom but it doesn't even cover hall costs so parents are payin £xk to top up. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 22:47
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Manatee
|
|
>> Ministers would like people to sort out divorce/residency amicably (with help from mediation). But >> housing policy makes shared parenting more difficult. Why should the state subsidise relationship breakdown? Now, woman moves out with child, her friend buys a flat and rents it to her, paid for by housing benefit. She chooses not to work, and is partly and willingly supported by the partner she left who is consequently on his uppers. This is someone known to me. The husband and the taxpayer have both been ripped off, because the system allows it readily. You can't read anything about relationships into the rate of breakdown, only into the ease of doing it. No politician will get elected by using the word workhouse, but Mapmaker's right in principle - if you want a safety net that is humane, affordable and not a lifestyle choice, it can't be giving people what others are working for when they are capable of work. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 08:53
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
>> No state funded space at Uni. >> There's a repayable loan for accom So there is state-funded accommodation. An individual cannot expect the state to provide them with two places to live. Sorry. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 12:01
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> So there is state-funded accommodation. An individual cannot expect the state to provide them with >> two places to live. Sorry. Agree with generality. If children have set up their own homes then vacant room is fair game. A Uni student has not left home. In halls at least, they're on a term time only contract; October to June. Some Unis also require rooms vacated over Christmas and Easter vacs as they let out for conferences. Those in digs/private rented are obliged to rent for 12 months but in practice don't stay the full year. Almost without exception they will go home for 'reading weeks' and at times where, as young adults, they still need the emotional support of their parents. My daughter wil be home this weekend - she has to attend the funeral of a much loved Great Uncle/surrogate Grandad on Monday The loan (which doesn't cover the full living cost anyway) is no more a state subsidy than a mortgage is a private subsidy. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 12:03
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
If you don't consider the loan to be a state subsidy, then don't take it. Ah, thought not. >>" where, as young adults, they still need the emotional support of their parents." That's lovely, but they are 18, old enough to vote and old enough to go to war. At what age do you think they no longer need the emotional support of their parents? |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 12:23
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> If you don't consider the loan to be a state subsidy, then don't take it. >> >> Ah, thought not. I've no pride about either loans or subsidies but this carries interest and is repayable; it's a loan. >> >> That's lovely, but they are 18, old enough to vote and old enough to go >> to war. At what age do you think they no longer need the emotional support >> of their parents? Do you have university age children? They don't suddenly cut themselves free at 18 or even after A level results. The first year at uni is pretty hard for them learning to study, learning the skills to live in Halls/shares and making new reltionships while losing those at home. In second and final years it's work, deadlines and marks that cause angst (and relationships too). I didn't go to Uni but there were lots of tearful payphone conversations in 80-83 with my sister who did. These days we use Skype, txt and email but there's no avoiding the unplanned drives or train trips on the bank of Mum and Dad when it all gets too much. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 21 Feb 13 at 12:26
|
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 15:01
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
>>I've no pride about either loans or subsidies but this carries interest and is repayable; it's a loan. It's a sub-prime loan offered at a very cheap interest rate (i.e. a super-prime interest rate), and is only repayable under certain circumstances. It's a state subsidy of living accommodation. The state need not subsidise an individual twice. >>>> At what age do you think they no longer need the emotional support >>>> of their parents? >>Do you have university age children? >>They don't suddenly cut themselves free at 18 or even after A level results. That's my point. They don't suddenly no longer need the emotional support of their parents at any age until the parents are either dead or gaga. So do you think the state should be subsidising their second bedroom until such date? >>there's no avoiding the unplanned drives or train trips when it all gets too much. Anybody to whom this applies should have deferred going to University, or gone somewhere closer to home. If they haven't the emotional maturity to cope with the horrors of living on their own, then what hope is there for them later? Don't forget, the question is not "Do Brompton's children deserve and get ongoing support from their wonderful parents?" BUT "Should a child whose parents have state-subsidised Council house still have their state-subsidised Council house bedroom when they also have a state-subsidised loan to live at University." Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 21 Feb 13 at 15:03
|
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 15:07
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Zero
|
|
A council house is owned by the council and rented out on a "need" basis. If that "need" changes (income, occupants - anything) the rental should be terminated and the tenants offered more suitable accommodation (or none at all if its an income change) For example, Bob Crowe on his 100k a year union pension should be thrown out on his ear from his council house. He can afford private rental and/or a mortgage. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 15:13
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Pat
|
|
I agree with that. Whilst he sits in his secure social housing he's trying to encourage others to put their jobs at risk by being unreasonably militant. Pat |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 16:19
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
Mapmaker, This bedroom tax is not about Council Housing in general, it's about tenants whether in Council houses or private rents, whose rent is paid or topped up by benefit. Furthermore, Council Housing is not for the most part subsidised in the let an below below cost price sense. I accept however that there is a gap to market rents currently inflated by lack of supply, housing cost and a lending crisis. I think you focus too much on subsidy and too little on common humanity. Young adults who've gone to Uni have not left home, they're studying away. Neither should the home lives of their younger siblings, possibly at a critical time in education, be disrupted by an enforced move of home. Pretty well all of my offspring's contemporaries have need parental support and a breaking in period to adapt to living in halls. Not about living alone but in a community with others, some of whom are not well socialised and think it's fun to wake all and sundry at 03:30 or who class crude insults as 'banter'. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 17:27
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
>> Furthermore, Council Housing is not for the most part subsidised in the let an below >> below cost price sense. I accept however that there is a gap to market rents >> currently inflated by lack of supply, housing cost and a lending crisis. So you agree it is massively subsidised. Some people get dirt-cheap housing if they happen to be in Council housing. The rest of us do not. I have no idea what you mean by "let below cost price sense" when referring to non-mortgaged, state-owned property that was constructed - often - many decades ago. If it probably cost £100 to build, and is let for £100 per week, then do you suggest that it is being let at a profit???!!! >> I think you focus too much on subsidy and too little on common humanity. I think you focus too much on entitlement and too little on common humanity for those taxpayers who look at the lucky ones in Council housing. If you're in private rented accommodation, and you are on HB, and you become no longer poor then you pay market rent. If you're in Council-owned accommodation, and you become no longer poor then you STILL get cheap housing. Where is the common humanity in that? >> Pretty well all of my offspring's contemporaries have need parental support and a breaking in >> period to adapt to living in halls... IF it is the case that this is a universal requirement then it sounds as though there's something fundamentally wrong with the place of study of Miss B. Youngsters I know who are currently at University seem to manage without endless parental involvement, desperate dashes home, and "the unplanned drives". Blimmin' 'eck, they're not at Primary School any more. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 17:30
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Zero
|
|
>> I think you focus too much on entitlement and too little on common humanity for >> those taxpayers who look at the lucky ones in Council housing. Funnily enough, I considered myself lucky NOT to be in Council housing. The thought of living with the great unwashed in a london council estate gave me the heebie jeebies. Last edited by: Zero on Thu 21 Feb 13 at 17:31
|
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 17:37
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Stuu
|
|
>>The thought of living with the great unwashed in a london council estate gave me the heebie jeebies. << Im sure they wash as often as you, afterall, you are paying their water bill :-) |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 17:39
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Zero
|
|
>> >>The thought of living with the great unwashed in a london council estate gave me >> the heebie jeebies. << >> >> Im sure they wash as often as you, Pretty sure they aint, even tho I am paying their water bill! |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 17:48
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
>> Funnily enough, I considered myself lucky NOT to be in Council housing. The thought of >> living with the great unwashed in a london council estate gave me the heebie jeebies. goo.gl/maps/GDnN6 I wouldn't mind living in this one. You get a better class of Council house round here... |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 17:53
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Pat
|
|
If that's a 'better' class od council house you need to move out into the sticks. I've lived in some council houses over the years but never anything as bad as that...or the ones acros the road. Pat |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 18:32
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Zero
|
|
>> >> >> Funnily enough, I considered myself lucky NOT to be in Council housing. The thought >> of >> >> living with the great unwashed in a london council estate gave me the heebie >> jeebies. >> >> goo.gl/maps/GDnN6 >> >> I wouldn't mind living in this one. You get a better class of Council house >> round here... I had this one in mind en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylesbury_Estate |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 09:49
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
| Yeah, but the Aylesbury is being demolished. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 20:07
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
MM, I'll add one more and then agree to differ. If the cost of running, maintaining and ultimately replacing LA* housing is met or exceeded by the rent passing then it's not subsidised. It might be let at below market rents (at present grossly inflated by factors in the mortgaged owner sector) on the basis of need and because that's less trouble than the complex matrix of grants and cross subsidies that otherwise arise. As regards students and choices, I'll only add that students going home from time to time, particularly at weekends and in their first and second semesters is not new. Back in the eighties the Sunday night train from Leeds to London was rammed with returning students 'til Christmas, easing afterwards. As elsewhere you could be be a bit more restrained about criticising or misinterpreting other folks choices/lifestyles. * A lot in practice has been transferred to other bodies. |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 14:03
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> MM, >> >> I'll add one more and then agree to differ. Having committed to shut up on this correspondence in todays Guardian makes relevant points: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/21/room-home-poorest-students In particular lack of joining up. One bit of government wants to encourage the less well off to go to Uni. Another penalises their family when they do. You couldn't make it up. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 22 Feb 13 at 14:03
|
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 14:21
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
"She doesn't know what to do." He should go to University in his home town. We should not be paying twice to house him. Think of the money they'll save on his travel to-and-from university most weekends as well. Brompton, nobody would love it more than I would if we could provide everybody with a place at Christ Church and a room in Tom quad, as well as a bedroom in a nice Georgian townhouse in London. But the fact is, it's not possible. |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 14:30
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Brompton, nobody would love it more than I would if we could provide everybody with >> a place at Christ Church and a room in Tom quad, as well as a >> bedroom in a nice Georgian townhouse in London. But the fact is, it's not possible. That's taking it to exteremes as you know, although I seem to remember you stating that non Oxbridge degrees were worthless. It's perfectly reasonable for a student to retain their room in a terrace in Bugg St, Luton while spending 39 weeks (less weekends and study) in a residential hall at Leeds Met. |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 15:20
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
>>It's perfectly reasonable for a student to retain their room in a terrace in Bugg St, Luton while spending 39 weeks (less weekends and study) in a residential hall at Leeds Met. Of course it is. But is it perfectly reasonable for the state, i.e. taxpayers, to subsidise both of these? Particularly when Leeds Met has shown complete incompetence at managing the welfare of its students (significantly because a sufficient number of the students there care so little about their degrees that they're raising hell at 3 in the morning). www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jul/15/employment-statistics-university-graduates#data Leeds Met, 135th worst out of 159 higher education establishments in the country for getting you a job after leaving. Perhaps if the students spent their weekends at University studying rather than jetsetting about the country they might do a bit better? Reading weeks are for studying, not for going home... >>although I seem to remember you stating that non Oxbridge degrees were worthless. Noooo, you're horribly misquoting me as I'm sure you're aware... I said they weren't worth tens of thousands of pounds (indeed, I doubted whether Oxbridge degrees were worth that much.) This is what I wrote: "The world has changed. I'm not even sure that anywhere but Oxbridge is worth that sort of money [£40-£50k plus interest] - and in fact I'm not sure they're worth that." |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 15:30
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
I picked Leeds Met more or less at random. Instead of thinking in terms of subsidy I'll pose the question another way. Should we condemn students from social housing to poverty of experience by either: (a) 'requiring' them to restrict study to home town Uni. (b) leaving them roomless in vacation and disrupting rest of family with forced move. (c) leaving parents to make up extra rent as well as topping up loan/grant Over and out. |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 15:41
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
Typical leftist thinking. No sense behind it, but lots of feeling. And I'm sure you will say about my thoughts, "Typical Thatcherite thinking, plenty of logic behind it, but no feeling." The lefty 1970s left us so broke the books could only be balanced by the sale of Council houses and utilities (which had good knock-on effects in society that you lefties hate; not least that it brought the country to such a state of prosperity that we could afford a left-wing government again). The lefty Noughties has left us so broke that we're having to make hard decisions that you lefties hate. I have no sympathy, sorry. It's woolly feeling-based decision making that has got us here. >>I picked Leeds Met more or less at random. Stands to reason. Nobody would pick it from rational thinking. |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 18:10
Next time your tax bill arrives... - BobbyG
|
|
>>could only be balanced by the sale of Council houses and utilities (which had good knock-on effects in society you really are having a laugh aren't you? Do you seriously believe that? Seriously? |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 20:29
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> >>could only be balanced by the sale of Council houses and utilities (which had good >> knock-on effects in society >> >> you really are having a laugh aren't you? Do you seriously believe that? Seriously? Nah. He's failed to win the original discussion and has gone 'ad hominem' on me as a lefty. Since I wear my politics with pride I'm not biting. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 13:48
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Mapmaker
|
|
>> Getting pregnant to get a Council house is, while not unknown, an issue vastly overstated >> by the press and politicians. In practice the majority if single Mums have been abandoned. Indeed. You are absolutely correct. >> Do we put them on the streets? Of Course not. Absolutely not. The whole idea of not giving them housing etc. is abhorent. >> Instead, as is already happening >> in London, they would be placed in B&B at a cost substantially in excess of >> even London's inflated rents. What we *should* be doing is putting them in a communal environment. Where they babysit each others children whilst they go out to work themselves; where they learn to cook properly, and do so. etc. etc. A 21st century Workhouse, if you like. An environment where they lack for nothing. But have to work for it. And where it's not *that* nice an environment which means that they need never be accused of doing it deliberately. |
|
New Wed 20 Feb 13 14:23
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> Getting pregnant to get a Council house is, while not unknown, an issue vastly overstated >> by the press and politicians. In practice the majority if single Mums have been abandoned. >> >> Getting pregnant deliberately to get a council house is certainly a minority pursuit, but it does go on to a greater degree than you imply, I've known more than one or two who've done just that. The real issue however is that many girls don't bother with contraception either before or after sex because there is a guaranteed safety net provided by the state if they do conceive. I live in what would be termed a nice estate and there are two from the same family who have done just that, and I can show you housing estates full of young single mothers. People may scoff at Jeremy Kyle as trash TV, but every day you can see teenage girls looking for DNA tests to find out who the father of their sprog is and there is a waiting list to go on the show. I would like to know where you get the statistic to show the vast majority of single mums have been abandoned, I worked daily with teenagers for years and the majority of relationship break-ups are instigated by the female. Divorce figures show exactly the same. Last edited by: Robin Regal on Wed 20 Feb 13 at 14:24
|
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 11:37
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Dave
|
| They should make the chavs sit at home all days watching crap on Sky, and make them eat processed food made from horses. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 12:19
Next time your tax bill arrives... - DP
|
|
How can you be allowed to have 11 kids without a means of paying for them? We have 2, would ideally like a third, but we can't afford it (or the bigger car, house etc that would be required), so it won't happen. It must be so nice to just sit on your backside, do whatever you feel like doing, and know that the state will pay for your lifestyle choices. You cannot have 11 kids by accident. She has done this as an alternative to going to work. Sadly it's also not rare. Our neighbours at our last place were doing the same thing (up to 5 kids at last count, both on the dole) and would openly admit it was for the benefits and to get a house. Every time the council turned them down for a bigger place, she'd crank out another kid. A girl I work with wants desperately to have children, but her and her boyfriend are struggling to save a deposit for a house, and fear that by the time they have somewhere to have children, it will be too late. Personal responsibility dictates that she will wait, and take that risk. Others just crank out children and don't even think about it. I have no time for these scum. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 12:25
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Zero
|
|
>> How can you be allowed to have 11 kids without a means of paying for >> them? > Its a case of how can you physically stop them? You are into the realms of forced sterilisation's, seizure at birth of the kids by the state. You really want to go that far? >A girl I work with wants desperately to have children, but her and her boyfriend are struggling >to save a deposit for a house, and fear that by the time they have somewhere to have >children, it will be too late. Actually they are putting personal possessions before having kids. If everyone waited to buy a house before having kids the population would have died out in two generations. I bet your parents, most certainly your grandparents, could not afford to have kids, but they all turned out to be productive contributors to the state and society. Last edited by: Zero on Thu 21 Feb 13 at 12:30
|
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 12:57
Next time your tax bill arrives... - DP
|
|
>> Actually they are putting personal possessions before having kids. If everyone waited to buy a >> house before having kids the population would have died out in two generations. So what are you saying they should do? Rent? Supposing everyone did that, demand would push prices out of reach of all but the wealthiest. Social housing is not available because people of my parents generation bought it cheap in the 80's and made huge profits out of selling it on. The simple fact is, the population of this country has increased by 10 million since 1960. Supply and demand makes housing less affordable and available for the current generation than for any that has gone before. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 13:04
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Zero
|
|
>> >> Actually they are putting personal possessions before having kids. If everyone waited to buy >> a >> >> house before having kids the population would have died out in two generations. >> >> >> So what are you saying they should do? Rent? Yes, its what the majority of the population do. Supposing everyone did that, demand would >> push prices out of reach of all but the wealthiest. Its what everyone is doing at the moment, and its what everyone did before "house buying" became an aspiration. And that all it is. You cant seriously suggest that everyone stop procreating until they have a house on mortgage? Renting serves over half the population, no reason why it cant serve those two. >> The simple fact is, the population of this country has increased by 10 million since >> 1960. Supply and demand makes housing less affordable and available for the current generation than >> for any that has gone before. Quite true, but its no reason not to have kids. If that was a deciding factor in times gone by, you (or me) would simply not be here. Last edited by: Zero on Thu 21 Feb 13 at 13:06
|
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 13:10
Next time your tax bill arrives... - DP
|
|
>> Supposing everyone did that, demand would >> >> push prices out of reach of all but the wealthiest. >> >> Its what everyone is doing at the moment, and its what everyone did before "house >> buying" became an aspiration. And that all it is. You cant seriously suggest that everyone >> stop procreating until they have a house on mortgage? Renting serves over half the population, >> no reason why it cant serve those two. Take your argument to its logical conclusion, Zero. If everyone did it, there would be chaos. It's not a sustainable solution. The simple fact is there isn't enough property available. The number of council houses has fallen in the last 20 years, and new build is nowhere near at the level it needs to be. 10 million more people, and nowhere near enough new houses. The fact is there are lots of responsible couples living with parents because they cannot afford housing. On the flip side of that, you have feckless chavs like the woman in this story who has 11 kids without giving a damn about the consequences. The most attractive way (on paper at least) for the couple I was referring to be housed would be to have a few kids and let the state deal with it. How can that be right? Last edited by: DP on Thu 21 Feb 13 at 13:11
|
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 14:55
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Zero
|
|
>> >> Supposing eve >> Take your argument to its logical conclusion, Zero. If everyone did it, there would be >> chaos. It's not a sustainable solution. The simple fact is there isn't enough property available. Everyone is currently doing it. First timers are not buying houses, but renting and they are still having families, just as over half the population were doing it before, and before the advent of the baby boom 60's most of the population were renting. You seem to be treating renting as some second class option, its not, its the norm in many countries, and there is plenty of people buying cheap property as buy to let and renting it on. Not being able to BUY a house (which as I said is an aspiration NOT a necessity) is no reason not to have children. >> The fact is there are lots of responsible couples living with parents because they cannot >> afford housing. And thats not new, used to be the norm, and will never change. On the flip side of that, you have feckless chavs like the woman >> in this story who has 11 kids without giving a damn about the consequences. The >> most attractive way (on paper at least) for the couple I was referring to be >> housed would be to have a few kids and let the state deal with it. >> How can that be right? Its not right, its a separate subject and its not the norm. I refer you to my original question, how do you stop the woman having 11 kids, and what do you do with the kids. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 13:30
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> So what are you saying they should do? Rent? Supposing everyone did that, demand would >> push prices out of reach of all but the wealthiest. Already happening. It's the resultant high open market rents that allow social housing to be portrayed as 'subsidised' . |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 13:39
Next time your tax bill arrives... - madf
|
|
Society of course is effectively being driven into three camps: the rich - private schools, own houses,,, no financial issues Pay tax if they want to The poor- - state schools, social housing, limitless children funded by state, pay no tax The others - can't afford private schooling, housing is expensive and out of the reach of many, Cannot escape tax. What is amazing is the number of "others" who think the system is correct... |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 13:44
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Society of course is effectively being driven into three camps: >> >> the rich - private schools, own houses,,, no financial issues Pay tax if they want >> to >> >> The poor- - state schools, social housing, limitless children funded by state, pay no tax >> >> The others - can't afford private schooling, housing is expensive and out of the reach >> of many, Cannot escape tax. >> >> >> What is amazing is the number of "others" who think the system is correct... Indeed, though I'd cavill at limitless children and add in despair and worsening poverty. Much social housing is pretty grim too Furthermore the coalition and it's organs in the press are bent on ensuring that the others (the so called squeezed middle) blame the poor for their 'plight'. Meanwhile the rich carry on picking pockets and get even richer. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 21 Feb 13 at 13:46
|
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 14:46
Next time your tax bill arrives... - DP
|
|
>> Furthermore the coalition and it's organs in the press are bent on ensuring that the >> others (the so called squeezed middle) blame the poor for their 'plight'. >> >> Meanwhile the rich carry on picking pockets and get even richer. >> I agree with all of that. While the actions of benefit scroungers annoy me massively (and did so well back into the last Labour government under which they seemed to thrive and multiply) I do also realise that the real injustice is at the other end of the income scale. The rich and big corporations avoid £25bn in taxes every year. Collecting that alone would put quite a dent in the deficit. The stink of the current system is that the "squeezed middle" are denied life choices that are open to people either side of them on the socio-economic scale. Too wealthy to get any help, too poor to avoid paying tax. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 15:12
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Zero
|
|
Too wealthy >> to get any help, too poor to avoid paying tax. You don't need any help, your kids are not starving, your kids have good clothes and shoes, they will probably go onto university because they have access to good education, you have a nice roof over your head in a nice area and you have a nearly new near luxury car on the drive. Clearly the state is not over taxing you, nor do the state need to provide you aid. What the hell are you moaning about - your "missing life choices" |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 15:40
Next time your tax bill arrives... - DP
|
|
Zero, wind your neck in. Your aggressive style is tedious. Did I say I needed help? Did I say my kids were starving? Did I say I didn't have a roof over... Oh God, I can't be bothered. I'm out of this one. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 15:58
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Zero
|
| If you read this thread, you will see you tone is far more hostile, aggressive and confrontational than mine. You also stated you felt your life style choices were compromised and I was merely asking in what way. |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 17:54
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Londoner
|
|
>> Indeed, though I'd cavill at limitless children and add in despair and worsening poverty. Much >> social housing is pretty grim too >> >> Furthermore the coalition and it's organs in the press are bent on ensuring that the >> others (the so called squeezed middle) blame the poor for their 'plight'. >> >> Meanwhile the rich carry on picking pockets and get even richer. >> Spot on! Top post, Bromptonaut! |
|
New Thu 21 Feb 13 19:11
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Manatee
|
|
The information is rather out of date, but according to this story 54 resident billionaires paid only £15m tax between them in 2006, and James Dyson paid most of that. JK Rowling also gets an honourable mention. goo.gl/SgZzd |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 08:23
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Cliff Pope
|
| By the time an individual or an organisation has that much wealth it will be exceeding the size of many small countries, and will probably have a world-wide infrastucture with similar complexities and responsibilities. We don't attempt to levy taxes on foreign embassies do we, based on their countries' earnings abroad? |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 08:50
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Crankcase
|
|
We all know I'm not financially savvy, but it seems to me that wealthy individuals are always going to pay less tax by virtue of the fact they don't have much actual income. A billionaire doesn't have an income of 100 million a year. He takes an income just sufficient to keep him nicely, and pays income tax only on that bit (even assuming he does that fully and honestly). The money is in property or whatever. So it's only when they sell something huge a big tax bill arrives. And that would be for capital gains, not income tax. And capital gains tax is significantly less than 30%. End result - smaller tax take less often, and in a given period might well pay much less than you would think at first thought. But happy to be sent off to polish up the dunce's cap on this one. |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 14:10
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> We all know I'm not financially savvy, but it seems to me that wealthy individuals >> are always going to pay less tax by virtue of the fact they don't have >> much actual income. A billionaire doesn't have an income of 100 million a year. He >> takes an income just sufficient to keep him nicely, and pays income tax only on >> that bit (even assuming he does that fully and honestly). >> >> The money is in property or whatever. So it's only when they sell something huge >> a big tax bill arrives. And that would be for capital gains, not income tax. >> And capital gains tax is significantly less than 30%. >> >> End result - smaller tax take less often, and in a given period might well >> pay much less than you would think at first thought. >> >> But happy to be sent off to polish up the dunce's cap on this >> one. Wealth in property, business/shares or deposits still brings in income in rents, dividends/profits or interest. Even if it's 'only' £5m a year it should be taxed at least as heavily as average income. Too many dodges mean it is not. |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 15:04
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Stuu
|
|
>>Too many dodges mean it is not << Dodges that the governments of the day put in place. Tax should be black/white - either it is permissable or it isnt. It should also be far simpler overall as it is the complexity that makes accountants rich. Even for a sole trader there are many entirely legit ways of reducing your tax bill which quite frankly are over-generous but there is no will to change it in politics - they are more likely to add rather than simplify. |
|
New Fri 22 Feb 13 18:25
Next time your tax bill arrives... - Manatee
|
|
>>But happy to be sent off to polish up the dunce's cap on this one. Best go and fetch it then;-) We aren't talking of billionaires paying "less" tax than the rest of us, though I see no reason why they should; it's 50 odd of them paying <0.1% of their wealth in tax. Even allowing that wealth is not the same as income, that's not much. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
