‘Bedroom tax’ protests held in in York city centre (From York Press)

No such thing as a bedroom tax. Just means hard working taxpayers won't have to subsidise empty rooms in future.

....and why do these Labour MPs think that it is right to subsidise empty rooms in social rented property, but won't extend the same principle to the many who rent - and receive Housing Benefit -in the private sector?

Double standards.

They should stand up for the thousands who are living in overcrowded accommodation.

If your bedroom is less than 70sq ft it is classed as a box room and cannot be charged bedroom tax, according to the 1985 housing act, section 326. How many people have been informed about this I wonder?

Oaklands Resident wrote:
No such thing as a bedroom tax. Just means hard working taxpayers won't have to subsidise empty rooms in future.

....and why do these Labour MPs think that it is right to subsidise empty rooms in social rented property, but won't extend the same principle to the many who rent - and receive Housing Benefit -in the private sector?

Double standards.

They should stand up for the thousands who are living in overcrowded accommodation.

Money would be wiser spent trying to give help to those that are in under occupied properties, for many these houses have been homes where they have raised families and lived a very long time.
The prospect for many of these much be physically and mentally too daunting, even if they wished to move.
Then we have issues where many social housing flats are given to single parents and other vulnerable people making these not a suitable place for retired people who want peace and quiet.
So make safe secure social housing for the elderly,so that would be happy to move and give them the help required to do so.
A "tax" or whatever you want to call it is NOT the answer, help and support both physically and financially might make the whole moving issue a lot easier.

Shame on the media for continuing to repeat the phrase "bedroom 'tax' " in all its headlines to attempt to make it all sound nasty.

The fact of the matter is that it is not fair that the already stretched taxpayer should have to pay for (for example) one person to live in a 2/3/4 bedroom council house when they do not need to. Most people don't have the luxury of a spare room so why on earth those who get their housing paid for for free by the rest of us think they can is beyond me.

Yes there'll always be an exception to the rule (i've heard a few examples), so just put in a reasonable independent appeals panel to hear these.

Oncebitten wrote:

Oaklands Resident wrote:
No such thing as a bedroom tax. Just means hard working taxpayers won't have to subsidise empty rooms in future.

....and why do these Labour MPs think that it is right to subsidise empty rooms in social rented property, but won't extend the same principle to the many who rent - and receive Housing Benefit -in the private sector?

Double standards.

They should stand up for the thousands who are living in overcrowded accommodation.

Money would be wiser spent trying to give help to those that are in under occupied properties, for many these houses have been homes where they have raised families and lived a very long time.
The prospect for many of these much be physically and mentally too daunting, even if they wished to move.
Then we have issues where many social housing flats are given to single parents and other vulnerable people making these not a suitable place for retired people who want peace and quiet.
So make safe secure social housing for the elderly,so that would be happy to move and give them the help required to do so.
A "tax" or whatever you want to call it is NOT the answer, help and support both physically and financially might make the whole moving issue a lot easier.

A lot of under-occupiers are actually pensioners, who are exempt from the 'bedroom' tax. Quite a number of these actually want to move, but if they have only one spare room they are considered as low priority by the council - the same band and those lacking just one room - and there are enormous numbers of both groups on the council lists. Unless the council give high priority to all people wanting to downsize, this will be the state of affairs indefinitely. In order to move to a smaller property, a household has to have no rent arrears. So a family on benefits who suddenly have to pay extra for their spare room will most likely build up rent arrears from having to find, on average, about fifty six pound extra per month for their surplus room. Unless the council amend their current restrictions, I cannot see how they are going to free up larger properties.

There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

YorkPatrol wrote:

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

Then find those who need a bigger house and those needing a smaller house and arrange to exchange them.

i.e.
If we move those out who need a bigger place, there will be smaller places for them to move into.

There's a lot of clueless people where the BEDROOM TAX is concerned. I keep hearing about why should Taxpayer pay for a Spare Room. I work on a low wage and get Housing Benefit if my wages for the month are low enough I send in details to YCC and someone works out what I can afford etc. I have 2 children a boy and a girl. We have a very small 3 bedroom house. who's bedroom do I surrender? The Bedrooms are too small for 2beds. No 2 bedroom Council Homes are available and after trying to swap homes on homeswapper for months no one wants this house it's not big enough's the general reply as countless people come look and never to hear from again. I earn less than £200 a week and Rent will rise £14 & Council tax even more than that.

Maquis wrote:

YorkPatrol wrote:

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

Then find those who need a bigger house and those needing a smaller house and arrange to exchange them.

i.e.
If we move those out who need a bigger place, there will be smaller places for them to move into.

& where do people on such a low income they require Housing Benefit get the money to move from

Wonder when the ConDems bring in the BEDROOM TAX to all Private homes the countries attitude will change!!! Why should Mr Blogs have a spare room when Browns overcrowded! It's weird how a single person in a 3 bedroom private house gets to pay less Council tax than a family with kids

tangwaynehall wrote:
Wonder when the ConDems bring in the BEDROOM TAX to all Private homes the countries attitude will change!!! Why should Mr Blogs have a spare room when Browns overcrowded! It's weird how a single person in a 3 bedroom private house gets to pay less Council tax than a family with kids

If a person owns the house there is no issue.... Why should I as a home owner / tax payer living in a small two bed room house pay for a person living in social housing to have a bigger house that they need?

I have 2 children a boy and a girl. We have a very small 3 bedroom house. who's bedroom do I surrender?

As far as I understand it (or maybe misunderstand?) it, you don't have a spare room, who is telling you you have?

a tax is something you pay... so this isnt a tax because nobody is paying anything..

and i thought labour people were against protesting?? they were only moaning about the tpa and residents protesting about a proper tax the other week.

i'm all for the so called bedroom tax

Sillybillies wrote:

I have 2 children a boy and a girl. We have a very small 3 bedroom house. who's bedroom do I surrender?

As far as I understand it (or maybe misunderstand?) it, you don't have a spare room, who is telling you you have?

The Council are because, depending on the age of the children, they presume that they can share a room so you only need two bedrooms but what happens when they get older.

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

YorkPatrol wrote:

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

Then find those who need a bigger house and those needing a smaller house and arrange to exchange them.

i.e.
If we move those out who need a bigger place, there will be smaller places for them to move into.

& where do people on such a low income they require Housing Benefit get the money to move from

they already have the benefit of having a house at below market rate, it's for them to arrange a move, it needn't cost so much and when they move to a smaller house the rent should be less.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for them to live in a bigger house than they need?
The tax payer already subsidises their housing, why should they pay to move them too. They can't have everything their own way.

...if Labour get in next general election they will apply this tax to houses in private ownership as well as taxing your savings! Spend your money as soon as you get it - they can't take nothing from you if you have nothing!

tangwaynehall wrote:
Wonder when the ConDems bring in the BEDROOM TAX to all Private homes the countries attitude will change!!! Why should Mr Blogs have a spare room when Browns overcrowded! It's weird how a single person in a 3 bedroom private house gets to pay less Council tax than a family with kids

Only an idiot would say such a thing.
One person uses less resources and is also paying for your childs education and health care.
It sounds as if your a bit jealous of others being successful in life.

Sillybillies wrote:

I have 2 children a boy and a girl. We have a very small 3 bedroom house. who's bedroom do I surrender?

As far as I understand it (or maybe misunderstand?) it, you don't have a spare room, who is telling you you have?

Until they are 10 they're suppose to share s bed !!!

neutral observer 2 wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:
Wonder when the ConDems bring in the BEDROOM TAX to all Private homes the countries attitude will change!!! Why should Mr Blogs have a spare room when Browns overcrowded! It's weird how a single person in a 3 bedroom private house gets to pay less Council tax than a family with kids

Only an idiot would say such a thing.
One person uses less resources and is also paying for your childs education and health care.
It sounds as if your a bit jealous of others being successful in life.

Exactly and Cameron and Clegg are ....

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

YorkPatrol wrote:

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

Then find those who need a bigger house and those needing a smaller house and arrange to exchange them.

i.e.
If we move those out who need a bigger place, there will be smaller places for them to move into.

& where do people on such a low income they require Housing Benefit get the money to move from

they already have the benefit of having a house at below market rate, it's for them to arrange a move, it needn't cost so much and when they move to a smaller house the rent should be less.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for them to live in a bigger house than they need?
The tax payer already subsidises their housing, why should they pay to move them too. They can't have everything their own way.

So wrong the Council will pay under many circumstances so how's forcing low paid disabled and unemployef social tennants out of low rents into higher private rents and the move would be paid for by the taxpayer gonna benefit the taxpayer.... The disabled many will have to have their new homes readaptited with Taxpayers money can't see any savings but we're a country run by Dumb &Dumber

neutral observer 2 wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:
Wonder when the ConDems bring in the BEDROOM TAX to all Private homes the countries attitude will change!!! Why should Mr Blogs have a spare room when Browns overcrowded! It's weird how a single person in a 3 bedroom private house gets to pay less Council tax than a family with kids

Only an idiot would say such a thing.
One person uses less resources and is also paying for your childs education and health care.
It sounds as if your a bit jealous of others being successful in life.

And my parents Grandparents or me paid for you and your kids .
I paid taxes for 25yrs without any Dole SSP a visit to the Hospital, Doctors, never called the Police, an Ambulance For a Fire engine so I'd say over my life time I'm probably still receiving the Tax Council Tax and National Insurance I ploughed into the system.
If a foreign company hadn't come to York and asset stripped a major employer or my next employer hadn't gone under then I'd still probably never of recieved help from the State!!!
It's not my fault there's no high paid full time jobs and so I'm working a few low paid PT jobs & the reason wages are so low and there's no job vacancies is who's fault

oi oi savaloy wrote:
a tax is something you pay... so this isnt a tax because nobody is paying anything..

and i thought labour people were against protesting?? they were only moaning about the tpa and residents protesting about a proper tax the other week.

i'm all for the so called bedroom tax

£14 a week I have to pay on top of my rent. I work on low pay so receive a bit of Housing Benefit someone works out what I can afford to pay on my wage that I have received for that month, if I work extra hrs my Benefit goes down until I work enough that I can pay all my rent. But then someone else decides that on top of what I can afford I can pay an extra £14 so why did someone need my wage slip to work out what I can afford to pay. On top of the £14 rent increase we also have a £15 a week Council Tax increase and like everyone else no payrise and Energy bill rises food etc..
I get paid monthly last day and have approx £150 in total to last so when this comes in I'm guessing we would of just about spent up now with 2 weeks ..
We have very little extra outgoings that we can cut back on and working extra hrs wont increase my income just means more Tax and even Less HB So the reason I can't sleep and writing this now when I'm at work in 2 hrs is the worry. I'm also worried about the effect it's having on my work and children as I really am struggling with it all

oi oi savaloy wrote:
a tax is something you pay... so this isnt a tax because nobody is paying anything..

and i thought labour people were against protesting?? they were only moaning about the tpa and residents protesting about a proper tax the other week.

i'm all for the so called bedroom tax

£14 a week I have to pay on top of my rent. I work on low pay so receive a bit of Housing Benefit someone works out what I can afford to pay on my wage that I have received for that month, if I work extra hrs my Benefit goes down until I work enough that I can pay all my rent. But then someone else decides that on top of what I can afford I can pay an extra £14 so why did someone need my wage slip to work out what I can afford to pay. On top of the £14 rent increase we also have a £15 a week Council Tax increase and like everyone else no payrise and Energy bill rises food etc..
I get paid monthly last day and have approx £150 in total to last so when this comes in I'm guessing we would of just about spent up now with 2 weeks ..
We have very little extra outgoings that we can cut back on and working extra hrs wont increase my income just means more Tax and even Less HB So the reason I can't sleep and writing this now when I'm at work in 2 hrs is the worry. I'm also worried about the effect it's having on my work and children as I really am struggling with it all

My options move out of York to a 2 bedroom and go on the dole
Pay extra and get further in debt
go into a private rent which will double taxpayers bill
Get a lodger in and hope their not peadophiles and that my Son or Daughter don't fall out
of the bunkbed
Don't pay the extra lose my home

tangwaynehall wrote:

neutral observer 2 wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:
Wonder when the ConDems bring in the BEDROOM TAX to all Private homes the countries attitude will change!!! Why should Mr Blogs have a spare room when Browns overcrowded! It's weird how a single person in a 3 bedroom private house gets to pay less Council tax than a family with kids

Only an idiot would say such a thing.
One person uses less resources and is also paying for your childs education and health care.
It sounds as if your a bit jealous of others being successful in life.

And my parents Grandparents or me paid for you and your kids .
I paid taxes for 25yrs without any Dole SSP a visit to the Hospital, Doctors, never called the Police, an Ambulance For a Fire engine so I'd say over my life time I'm probably still receiving the Tax Council Tax and National Insurance I ploughed into the system.
If a foreign company hadn't come to York and asset stripped a major employer or my next employer hadn't gone under then I'd still probably never of recieved help from the State!!!
It's not my fault there's no high paid full time jobs and so I'm working a few low paid PT jobs & the reason wages are so low and there's no job vacancies is who's fault

Yep, but its not me complaining about private home owners whilst living in social housing.
When my roof leaks , i have to pay for it to get it fixed. Public money isn't available for me.
Many dont get free bathroom , window and kitchen upgrades every so often.
The main problem is some people the world owes them a living. Ive seen loads re-train and are in work paying far more than me. Good luck to them I say !
I have a choice. So do you .

tangwaynehall wrote:

oi oi savaloy wrote:
a tax is something you pay... so this isnt a tax because nobody is paying anything..

and i thought labour people were against protesting?? they were only moaning about the tpa and residents protesting about a proper tax the other week.

i'm all for the so called bedroom tax

£14 a week I have to pay on top of my rent. I work on low pay so receive a bit of Housing Benefit someone works out what I can afford to pay on my wage that I have received for that month, if I work extra hrs my Benefit goes down until I work enough that I can pay all my rent. But then someone else decides that on top of what I can afford I can pay an extra £14 so why did someone need my wage slip to work out what I can afford to pay. On top of the £14 rent increase we also have a £15 a week Council Tax increase and like everyone else no payrise and Energy bill rises food etc..
I get paid monthly last day and have approx £150 in total to last so when this comes in I'm guessing we would of just about spent up now with 2 weeks ..
We have very little extra outgoings that we can cut back on and working extra hrs wont increase my income just means more Tax and even Less HB So the reason I can't sleep and writing this now when I'm at work in 2 hrs is the worry. I'm also worried about the effect it's having on my work and children as I really am struggling with it all

so yor benefits are being reduced by £14 a week due to having 2 spare bedrooms?

i dont have the luxury of 2 spare bedrooms, i dont have the luxury of reduced council tax, i also dont have the luxury of any kind of benefits, and like you i was made redundant from a major employer in york when a foriegn company came in and shut it down (abb), and under the last labour government i was also made redundant again from a major employer. like you i have had to tighten my belt and do without and find money elsewhere BUT without the help of any kind of benefit, cancel your mobile phone contract and your internet contract along with your subscription to sky tv if you want to find another £14 a week i'm sure that will cover it.

tangwaynehall wrote:
My options move out of York to a 2 bedroom and go on the dole
Pay extra and get further in debt
go into a private rent which will double taxpayers bill
Get a lodger in and hope their not peadophiles and that my Son or Daughter don't fall out
of the bunkbed
Don't pay the extra lose my home

Everyone has bills to pay.
Try a college course so a better job maybe available with your new found skills.
Its tough out there, but its hardly 99% unemployment rate.
As youve said 2 jobs have gone, it should tell you not to rely on someone else.
A shave and haircut may help.

tangwaynehall wrote:
There's a lot of clueless people where the BEDROOM TAX is concerned. I keep hearing about why should Taxpayer pay for a Spare Room. I work on a low wage and get Housing Benefit if my wages for the month are low enough I send in details to YCC and someone works out what I can afford etc. I have 2 children a boy and a girl. We have a very small 3 bedroom house. who's bedroom do I surrender? The Bedrooms are too small for 2beds. No 2 bedroom Council Homes are available and after trying to swap homes on homeswapper for months no one wants this house it's not big enough's the general reply as countless people come look and never to hear from again. I earn less than £200 a week and Rent will rise £14 & Council tax even more than that.

You chose to have two children. The world doesn't owe you a living.

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

YorkPatrol wrote:

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

Then find those who need a bigger house and those needing a smaller house and arrange to exchange them.

i.e.
If we move those out who need a bigger place, there will be smaller places for them to move into.

& where do people on such a low income they require Housing Benefit get the money to move from

they already have the benefit of having a house at below market rate, it's for them to arrange a move, it needn't cost so much and when they move to a smaller house the rent should be less.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for them to live in a bigger house than they need?
The tax payer already subsidises their housing, why should they pay to move them too. They can't have everything their own way.

So wrong the Council will pay under many circumstances so how's forcing low paid disabled and unemployef social tennants out of low rents into higher private rents and the move would be paid for by the taxpayer gonna benefit the taxpayer.... The disabled many will have to have their new homes readaptited with Taxpayers money can't see any savings but we're a country run by Dumb &Dumber

When are you going to listen to the facts, not the spin?
It will not affect disabled people!
Those on low pay would not need to receive these handouts if they were not taxed so much in the first place, hence the tax threshold going up. It cannot however be eliminated as the welfare state is so bloated due to having to feed clothe and care for people who think the world owes them a living, not only from the UK, but the rest of the EU too.
You have obviously had a couple of difficult things happen to you in your life, but rather than get up, dust yourself off and carry on, you have decided to take your council house, take your benefits (which you may have paid in for for a number of years, but it is not intended to carry you forever) and not bother doing anything else for yourself, why should you, there is a state there to do it for you. I'm sure with that mindset, you are a Labour voter......

tangwaynehall wrote:
There's a lot of clueless people where the BEDROOM TAX is concerned. I keep hearing about why should Taxpayer pay for a Spare Room. I work on a low wage and get Housing Benefit if my wages for the month are low enough I send in details to YCC and someone works out what I can afford etc. I have 2 children a boy and a girl. We have a very small 3 bedroom house. who's bedroom do I surrender? The Bedrooms are too small for 2beds. No 2 bedroom Council Homes are available and after trying to swap homes on homeswapper for months no one wants this house it's not big enough's the general reply as countless people come look and never to hear from again. I earn less than £200 a week and Rent will rise £14 & Council tax even more than that.

If one of your rooms is smaller than 70ft square, it is not classed as a bedroom, so it could be worth checking those measurements. There are also regulations concerning the size of a room that is being shared by two children - again, maybe worth checking out.

tangwaynehall wrote:

oi oi savaloy wrote: a tax is something you pay... so this isnt a tax because nobody is paying anything.. and i thought labour people were against protesting?? they were only moaning about the tpa and residents protesting about a proper tax the other week. i'm all for the so called bedroom tax

£14 a week I have to pay on top of my rent. I work on low pay so receive a bit of Housing Benefit someone works out what I can afford to pay on my wage that I have received for that month, if I work extra hrs my Benefit goes down until I work enough that I can pay all my rent. But then someone else decides that on top of what I can afford I can pay an extra £14 so why did someone need my wage slip to work out what I can afford to pay. On top of the £14 rent increase we also have a £15 a week Council Tax increase and like everyone else no payrise and Energy bill rises food etc.. I get paid monthly last day and have approx £150 in total to last so when this comes in I'm guessing we would of just about spent up now with 2 weeks .. We have very little extra outgoings that we can cut back on and working extra hrs wont increase my income just means more Tax and even Less HB So the reason I can't sleep and writing this now when I'm at work in 2 hrs is the worry. I'm also worried about the effect it's having on my work and children as I really am struggling with it all

Why did you have children if you couldn’t properly afford to support them without help from the state?

Also, I am presuming you are writing this comment from your PC / Laptop or iPad? with internet access and other gadgets...

Does this mean The Lord Mayor will have to pay for not regularly using the guildhall?about time coyc invested in some house building like the housing assoc in York and indeed Leeds.We don't get any benefits due to working but feel persecuted by the council for this,feel like we have to apologise sometimes it sucks!

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

YorkPatrol wrote:

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

Then find those who need a bigger house and those needing a smaller house and arrange to exchange them.

i.e.
If we move those out who need a bigger place, there will be smaller places for them to move into.

& where do people on such a low income they require Housing Benefit get the money to move from

they already have the benefit of having a house at below market rate, it's for them to arrange a move, it needn't cost so much and when they move to a smaller house the rent should be less.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for them to live in a bigger house than they need?
The tax payer already subsidises their housing, why should they pay to move them too. They can't have everything their own way.

So wrong the Council will pay under many circumstances so how's forcing low paid disabled and unemployef social tennants out of low rents into higher private rents and the move would be paid for by the taxpayer gonna benefit the taxpayer.... The disabled many will have to have their new homes readaptited with Taxpayers money can't see any savings but we're a country run by Dumb &Dumber

When are you going to listen to the facts, not the spin?
It will not affect disabled people!
Those on low pay would not need to receive these handouts if they were not taxed so much in the first place, hence the tax threshold going up. It cannot however be eliminated as the welfare state is so bloated due to having to feed clothe and care for people who think the world owes them a living, not only from the UK, but the rest of the EU too.
You have obviously had a couple of difficult things happen to you in your life, but rather than get up, dust yourself off and carry on, you have decided to take your council house, take your benefits (which you may have paid in for for a number of years, but it is not intended to carry you forever) and not bother doing anything else for yourself, why should you, there is a state there to do it for you. I'm sure with that mindset, you are a Labour voter......

http://www.advicegui
de.org.uk/wales/news
/whats_new_apr13_bed
room_tax_changes.htm

YorkPatrol wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

oi oi savaloy wrote: a tax is something you pay... so this isnt a tax because nobody is paying anything.. and i thought labour people were against protesting?? they were only moaning about the tpa and residents protesting about a proper tax the other week. i'm all for the so called bedroom tax

£14 a week I have to pay on top of my rent. I work on low pay so receive a bit of Housing Benefit someone works out what I can afford to pay on my wage that I have received for that month, if I work extra hrs my Benefit goes down until I work enough that I can pay all my rent. But then someone else decides that on top of what I can afford I can pay an extra £14 so why did someone need my wage slip to work out what I can afford to pay. On top of the £14 rent increase we also have a £15 a week Council Tax increase and like everyone else no payrise and Energy bill rises food etc.. I get paid monthly last day and have approx £150 in total to last so when this comes in I'm guessing we would of just about spent up now with 2 weeks .. We have very little extra outgoings that we can cut back on and working extra hrs wont increase my income just means more Tax and even Less HB So the reason I can't sleep and writing this now when I'm at work in 2 hrs is the worry. I'm also worried about the effect it's having on my work and children as I really am struggling with it all

Why did you have children if you couldn’t properly afford to support them without help from the state?

Also, I am presuming you are writing this comment from your PC / Laptop or iPad? with internet access and other gadgets...

Was made redudant

I have a Mobile Phone which I need for work also need The internet for the new Universal credits and in my full time job search

I had a drink of Coffee earlier maybe I should only drink water

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

YorkPatrol wrote:

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

Then find those who need a bigger house and those needing a smaller house and arrange to exchange them.

i.e.
If we move those out who need a bigger place, there will be smaller places for them to move into.

& where do people on such a low income they require Housing Benefit get the money to move from

they already have the benefit of having a house at below market rate, it's for them to arrange a move, it needn't cost so much and when they move to a smaller house the rent should be less.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for them to live in a bigger house than they need?
The tax payer already subsidises their housing, why should they pay to move them too. They can't have everything their own way.

So wrong the Council will pay under many circumstances so how's forcing low paid disabled and unemployef social tennants out of low rents into higher private rents and the move would be paid for by the taxpayer gonna benefit the taxpayer.... The disabled many will have to have their new homes readaptited with Taxpayers money can't see any savings but we're a country run by Dumb &Dumber

When are you going to listen to the facts, not the spin?
It will not affect disabled people!
Those on low pay would not need to receive these handouts if they were not taxed so much in the first place, hence the tax threshold going up. It cannot however be eliminated as the welfare state is so bloated due to having to feed clothe and care for people who think the world owes them a living, not only from the UK, but the rest of the EU too.
You have obviously had a couple of difficult things happen to you in your life, but rather than get up, dust yourself off and carry on, you have decided to take your council house, take your benefits (which you may have paid in for for a number of years, but it is not intended to carry you forever) and not bother doing anything else for yourself, why should you, there is a state there to do it for you. I'm sure with that mindset, you are a Labour voter......

http://www.advicegui

de.org.uk/wales/news

/whats_new_apr13_bed

room_tax_changes.htm

? Yes, and whats your point?

And your second point that you have been made redundant, that's a shame, but you have to deal with it. There are jobs out there if you want one, and the question from YorkPatrol was referring to the point that you seem to have the kit and internet access even though you don't have a job. Who pays for that? The state is supposed to be a safety net to help you survive until you get back on your feet, not a way to live without work.

If you have a disabled child who n eeds their own bedroom because of a disability, let your council know. They should take this into account when working out how much Housing Benefit you should get. They may ask you for medical evidence or other information about your child's condition to help them make their decision.These rules only apply to disabled children. The bedroom tax will still apply to disabled adults who cannot share a room with their partner. If you have a disabled child who needs their own bedroom because of a disability, let your council know. They should take this into account when working out how much Housing Benefit you should get. They may ask you for medical evidence or other information about your child's condition to help them make their decision.These rules only apply to disabled children. The bedroom tax will still apply to disabled adults who cannot share a room with their partner.

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

YorkPatrol wrote:

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

Then find those who need a bigger house and those needing a smaller house and arrange to exchange them.

i.e.
If we move those out who need a bigger place, there will be smaller places for them to move into.

& where do people on such a low income they require Housing Benefit get the money to move from

they already have the benefit of having a house at below market rate, it's for them to arrange a move, it needn't cost so much and when they move to a smaller house the rent should be less.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for them to live in a bigger house than they need?
The tax payer already subsidises their housing, why should they pay to move them too. They can't have everything their own way.

So wrong the Council will pay under many circumstances so how's forcing low paid disabled and unemployef social tennants out of low rents into higher private rents and the move would be paid for by the taxpayer gonna benefit the taxpayer.... The disabled many will have to have their new homes readaptited with Taxpayers money can't see any savings but we're a country run by Dumb &Dumber

When are you going to listen to the facts, not the spin?
It will not affect disabled people!
Those on low pay would not need to receive these handouts if they were not taxed so much in the first place, hence the tax threshold going up. It cannot however be eliminated as the welfare state is so bloated due to having to feed clothe and care for people who think the world owes them a living, not only from the UK, but the rest of the EU too.
You have obviously had a couple of difficult things happen to you in your life, but rather than get up, dust yourself off and carry on, you have decided to take your council house, take your benefits (which you may have paid in for for a number of years, but it is not intended to carry you forever) and not bother doing anything else for yourself, why should you, there is a state there to do it for you. I'm sure with that mindset, you are a Labour voter......

http://www.advicegui


de.org.uk/wales/news


/whats_new_apr13_bed


room_tax_changes.htm

? Yes, and whats your point?

And your second point that you have been made redundant, that's a shame, but you have to deal with it. There are jobs out there if you want one, and the question from YorkPatrol was referring to the point that you seem to have the kit and internet access even though you don't have a job. Who pays for that? The state is supposed to be a safety net to help you survive until you get back on your feet, not a way to live without work.

I have 2 jobs

tangwaynehall wrote:
If you have a disabled child who n eeds their own bedroom because of a disability, let your council know. They should take this into account when working out how much Housing Benefit you should get. They may ask you for medical evidence or other information about your child's condition to help them make their decision.These rules only apply to disabled children. The bedroom tax will still apply to disabled adults who cannot share a room with their partner. If you have a disabled child who needs their own bedroom because of a disability, let your council know. They should take this into account when working out how much Housing Benefit you should get. They may ask you for medical evidence or other information about your child's condition to help them make their decision.These rules only apply to disabled children. The bedroom tax will still apply to disabled adults who cannot share a room with their partner.

There is also a discretionary fund to be accessed in certain circumstances.
Many registered disabled people have conditions which allow them to share a bedroom just fine, to exempt this group would defeat the object.
This reading of the policy is typical scaremongering. A very small proportion of the small proportion of people who are disabled may not be able to share a room. There are 11 million people in this country registered as disabled, this could be in the form of deafness, damage to limbs or a multitude of different ailments. Of these people very few are in a condition where they cannot share a room.
Those with severe disabilities preventing them from room sharing can access the fund.

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

YorkPatrol wrote:

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

Then find those who need a bigger house and those needing a smaller house and arrange to exchange them.

i.e.
If we move those out who need a bigger place, there will be smaller places for them to move into.

& where do people on such a low income they require Housing Benefit get the money to move from

they already have the benefit of having a house at below market rate, it's for them to arrange a move, it needn't cost so much and when they move to a smaller house the rent should be less.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for them to live in a bigger house than they need?
The tax payer already subsidises their housing, why should they pay to move them too. They can't have everything their own way.

So wrong the Council will pay under many circumstances so how's forcing low paid disabled and unemployef social tennants out of low rents into higher private rents and the move would be paid for by the taxpayer gonna benefit the taxpayer.... The disabled many will have to have their new homes readaptited with Taxpayers money can't see any savings but we're a country run by Dumb &Dumber

When are you going to listen to the facts, not the spin?
It will not affect disabled people!
Those on low pay would not need to receive these handouts if they were not taxed so much in the first place, hence the tax threshold going up. It cannot however be eliminated as the welfare state is so bloated due to having to feed clothe and care for people who think the world owes them a living, not only from the UK, but the rest of the EU too.
You have obviously had a couple of difficult things happen to you in your life, but rather than get up, dust yourself off and carry on, you have decided to take your council house, take your benefits (which you may have paid in for for a number of years, but it is not intended to carry you forever) and not bother doing anything else for yourself, why should you, there is a state there to do it for you. I'm sure with that mindset, you are a Labour voter......

http://www.advicegui



de.org.uk/wales/news



/whats_new_apr13_bed



room_tax_changes.htm

? Yes, and whats your point?

And your second point that you have been made redundant, that's a shame, but you have to deal with it. There are jobs out there if you want one, and the question from YorkPatrol was referring to the point that you seem to have the kit and internet access even though you don't have a job. Who pays for that? The state is supposed to be a safety net to help you survive until you get back on your feet, not a way to live without work.

I have 2 jobs

Then why should we be funding your housing?

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

YorkPatrol wrote:

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

Then find those who need a bigger house and those needing a smaller house and arrange to exchange them.

i.e.
If we move those out who need a bigger place, there will be smaller places for them to move into.

& where do people on such a low income they require Housing Benefit get the money to move from

they already have the benefit of having a house at below market rate, it's for them to arrange a move, it needn't cost so much and when they move to a smaller house the rent should be less.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for them to live in a bigger house than they need?
The tax payer already subsidises their housing, why should they pay to move them too. They can't have everything their own way.

So wrong the Council will pay under many circumstances so how's forcing low paid disabled and unemployef social tennants out of low rents into higher private rents and the move would be paid for by the taxpayer gonna benefit the taxpayer.... The disabled many will have to have their new homes readaptited with Taxpayers money can't see any savings but we're a country run by Dumb &Dumber

When are you going to listen to the facts, not the spin?
It will not affect disabled people!
Those on low pay would not need to receive these handouts if they were not taxed so much in the first place, hence the tax threshold going up. It cannot however be eliminated as the welfare state is so bloated due to having to feed clothe and care for people who think the world owes them a living, not only from the UK, but the rest of the EU too.
You have obviously had a couple of difficult things happen to you in your life, but rather than get up, dust yourself off and carry on, you have decided to take your council house, take your benefits (which you may have paid in for for a number of years, but it is not intended to carry you forever) and not bother doing anything else for yourself, why should you, there is a state there to do it for you. I'm sure with that mindset, you are a Labour voter......

http://www.advicegui




de.org.uk/wales/news




/whats_new_apr13_bed




room_tax_changes.htm

? Yes, and whats your point?

And your second point that you have been made redundant, that's a shame, but you have to deal with it. There are jobs out there if you want one, and the question from YorkPatrol was referring to the point that you seem to have the kit and internet access even though you don't have a job. Who pays for that? The state is supposed to be a safety net to help you survive until you get back on your feet, not a way to live without work.

I have 2 jobs

Then why should we be funding your housing?

Maybe because my income is low and without help my children would starve

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

YorkPatrol wrote:

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

Then find those who need a bigger house and those needing a smaller house and arrange to exchange them.

i.e.
If we move those out who need a bigger place, there will be smaller places for them to move into.

& where do people on such a low income they require Housing Benefit get the money to move from

they already have the benefit of having a house at below market rate, it's for them to arrange a move, it needn't cost so much and when they move to a smaller house the rent should be less.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for them to live in a bigger house than they need?
The tax payer already subsidises their housing, why should they pay to move them too. They can't have everything their own way.

So wrong the Council will pay under many circumstances so how's forcing low paid disabled and unemployef social tennants out of low rents into higher private rents and the move would be paid for by the taxpayer gonna benefit the taxpayer.... The disabled many will have to have their new homes readaptited with Taxpayers money can't see any savings but we're a country run by Dumb &Dumber

When are you going to listen to the facts, not the spin?
It will not affect disabled people!
Those on low pay would not need to receive these handouts if they were not taxed so much in the first place, hence the tax threshold going up. It cannot however be eliminated as the welfare state is so bloated due to having to feed clothe and care for people who think the world owes them a living, not only from the UK, but the rest of the EU too.
You have obviously had a couple of difficult things happen to you in your life, but rather than get up, dust yourself off and carry on, you have decided to take your council house, take your benefits (which you may have paid in for for a number of years, but it is not intended to carry you forever) and not bother doing anything else for yourself, why should you, there is a state there to do it for you. I'm sure with that mindset, you are a Labour voter......

http://www.advicegui





de.org.uk/wales/news





/whats_new_apr13_bed





room_tax_changes.htm

? Yes, and whats your point?

And your second point that you have been made redundant, that's a shame, but you have to deal with it. There are jobs out there if you want one, and the question from YorkPatrol was referring to the point that you seem to have the kit and internet access even though you don't have a job. Who pays for that? The state is supposed to be a safety net to help you survive until you get back on your feet, not a way to live without work.

I have 2 jobs

Then why should we be funding your housing?

Maybe because my income is low and without help my children would starve

Why do you fund MPs housing when they're on 62k but begrudge my help on 9k a year

tangwaynehall wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

YorkPatrol wrote:

rothko wrote:
There are over 2,000 households in the York central/outer constituency. There are few properties available for people to downsize to, so the vast majority are going to have no option but to pay for their "spare" room.

Yes, and rightly so

Then find those who need a bigger house and those needing a smaller house and arrange to exchange them.

i.e.
If we move those out who need a bigger place, there will be smaller places for them to move into.

& where do people on such a low income they require Housing Benefit get the money to move from

they already have the benefit of having a house at below market rate, it's for them to arrange a move, it needn't cost so much and when they move to a smaller house the rent should be less.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for them to live in a bigger house than they need?
The tax payer already subsidises their housing, why should they pay to move them too. They can't have everything their own way.

So wrong the Council will pay under many circumstances so how's forcing low paid disabled and unemployef social tennants out of low rents into higher private rents and the move would be paid for by the taxpayer gonna benefit the taxpayer.... The disabled many will have to have their new homes readaptited with Taxpayers money can't see any savings but we're a country run by Dumb &Dumber

When are you going to listen to the facts, not the spin?
It will not affect disabled people!
Those on low pay would not need to receive these handouts if they were not taxed so much in the first place, hence the tax threshold going up. It cannot however be eliminated as the welfare state is so bloated due to having to feed clothe and care for people who think the world owes them a living, not only from the UK, but the rest of the EU too.
You have obviously had a couple of difficult things happen to you in your life, but rather than get up, dust yourself off and carry on, you have decided to take your council house, take your benefits (which you may have paid in for for a number of years, but it is not intended to carry you forever) and not bother doing anything else for yourself, why should you, there is a state there to do it for you. I'm sure with that mindset, you are a Labour voter......

http://www.advicegui






de.org.uk/wales/news






/whats_new_apr13_bed






room_tax_changes.htm

? Yes, and whats your point?

And your second point that you have been made redundant, that's a shame, but you have to deal with it. There are jobs out there if you want one, and the question from YorkPatrol was referring to the point that you seem to have the kit and internet access even though you don't have a job. Who pays for that? The state is supposed to be a safety net to help you survive until you get back on your feet, not a way to live without work.

I have 2 jobs

Then why should we be funding your housing?

Maybe because my income is low and without help my children would starve

Why do you fund MPs housing when they're on 62k but begrudge my help on 9k a year

What a stupid comment.
Agree with them on a party/personal level or not, they do a very time intensive job with great responsibilities where they have to spend half of their lives in another part of the country, and once they leave / loose their seat, their second houses are given up, they don't go **** because they have to move out.
I begrudge your help because you feel that we owe you everything you have and are entitled to things that many people on higher wages cannot afford. If you earn £9k per year, then live on £9k, if you want an extra room, earn it. If you want your Sky subscription, earn it.

Guess you're an MP they wouldn't know what a proper days work like if you waved a piece of paper at them. Every time I see the few who bother to turn up in Parliment they're asleep.
Bring in a decent minimum wage then maybe the benefit bill may start to retract.

If I work 84hrs a week I'd scrape the Average wage Better start looking for another 3 jobs

tangwaynehall wrote:
Guess you're an MP they wouldn't know what a proper days work like if you waved a piece of paper at them. Every time I see the few who bother to turn up in Parliment they're asleep.
Bring in a decent minimum wage then maybe the benefit bill may start to retract.

No Im not an mp. You are obviously bitter about anybody having more than you do regardless as to how hard they work for it.
I do have some knowledge about their job and know it is not for me. Too many hours, no privacy, and bigoted people like you spreading hate about them regardless as to how good their intention is.

The minimum wage is fine and would be very comfortable if it were not for the taxes and duties applied in order to afford a welfare state as we have now.
Taxing people in order to give them benefits is immoral, counterproductive and leads to the dependency culture that we have now.

So £240 a week is enough without any state help???
What's average York rents ? £180ish
Gas Water Electric There's your money gone!!
What's immoral making thousands unemployed with cuts then cutting their money.
Deal with the problem yes by all means they're going to be forcing people who work part time into more hrs if available when Universal Credits comes in so this will be punishing people who have jumped through hoops looking applying on net everyday but still can't get full time worj

tangwaynehall wrote:
So £240 a week is enough without any state help??? What's average York rents ? £180ish Gas Water Electric There's your money gone!! What's immoral making thousands unemployed with cuts then cutting their money. Deal with the problem yes by all means they're going to be forcing people who work part time into more hrs if available when Universal Credits comes in so this will be punishing people who have jumped through hoops looking applying on net everyday but still can't get full time worj

I'm surprised you actually have time to continually whinge on here about how hard done by you are, bearing in mind you apparently having two jobs and two children to look after.

tangwaynehall wrote:
So £240 a week is enough without any state help???
What's average York rents ? £180ish
Gas Water Electric There's your money gone!!
What's immoral making thousands unemployed with cuts then cutting their money.
Deal with the problem yes by all means they're going to be forcing people who work part time into more hrs if available when Universal Credits comes in so this will be punishing people who have jumped through hoops looking applying on net everyday but still can't get full time worj

You seem to be moaning a lot considering you do get that help. The £180 ish rents, don't apply to social housing, so you should be OK there then.
You mention that you were made redundant when Nestle took over Rowntree's. As this happened in the 80's then I would estimate that your "kids" are probably well old enough to look after themselves, or even claim their own benefits.
As you are giving selective information, this is just extrapolation.

So in your world you would rather keep thousands of civil servants in jobs, and the only way to do this is to pay more tax. That way your £240 would be gone even quicker.

Universal credit is still giving people money for not working, so the more hoops to jump through the better.
At work people have things to do, you could call it "jumping through hoops" but I would rather call it "earning your money"
Looking for a job is not a full time job and there are well over 110 waking hours per week, and if you have to spend a few hours finding information, filling in forms, showing that you are willing to do something for yourself, then that is not a bad thing in my opinion.

If you are job hunting, the net is just one way. In my experience the best way is to go and speak to people face to face, but you may just call this effort jumping through hoops, after all its not your responsibility to help yourself.

Who Mentioned Nestle
Terrys
BREL
General Acident
Glass Works
and many many more

I've worked Fulltime from 1987-2012
With two Redundancies chucked in.
I somehow lasted 3yrs in my last fulltime job but eventually had to leave due to the treatment from some management there. Ended up almost topping myself it got that bad. Only to find that ESA and ATOS were almost as bad. Leaving there was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. Dr suggested gradually building hrs up start PT as rush it and I could end up back at square 1. So 2 months after leaving FT job got a 3hr cleaning job and was starting to feel my old self was applying for other jobs but no luck. Then Bang ATOS failed their medical as I was working !!!! Luckily at the same time as my Benefits stopped I got an interview for a 2nd cleaning job. I don't honestly think I'd be here now if I hadn't got that 2nd job when I did. How would I of Supported my family on £100 a week with no Tax Credits due to not working enough hrs.
Not asking for much just a bit of help when I need it. The stress of the Bedroom Tax will see off a lot of very vunerable people. I know my feelings inside it is ripping my guts out.

3hrs a day 15hrs

tangwaynehall wrote:
Who Mentioned Nestle
Terrys
BREL
General Acident
Glass Works
and many many more

I've worked Fulltime from 1987-2012
With two Redundancies chucked in.
I somehow lasted 3yrs in my last fulltime job but eventually had to leave due to the treatment from some management there. Ended up almost topping myself it got that bad. Only to find that ESA and ATOS were almost as bad. Leaving there was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. Dr suggested gradually building hrs up start PT as rush it and I could end up back at square 1. So 2 months after leaving FT job got a 3hr cleaning job and was starting to feel my old self was applying for other jobs but no luck. Then Bang ATOS failed their medical as I was working !!!! Luckily at the same time as my Benefits stopped I got an interview for a 2nd cleaning job. I don't honestly think I'd be here now if I hadn't got that 2nd job when I did. How would I of Supported my family on £100 a week with no Tax Credits due to not working enough hrs.
Not asking for much just a bit of help when I need it. The stress of the Bedroom Tax will see off a lot of very vunerable people. I know my feelings inside it is ripping my guts out.

As I said, I extrapolated and guessed Rowntrees as this was one of the biggest companies to get bought out by a foreign buyer, my mistake, but the principle still applies.
If the management were that bad, then you should have taken them to a tribunal, topping yourself because of bullying in the workplace is never the answer. You seem to have moved around a lot, could the management maybe just not found you to be a good employee?
Again though, to have been working from 1987, I would guess that you are in your mid to late 40's and so are unlikely to have children of an age where they are unable to support themselves. As you say you were full time until 2012, then you probably didn't ever have the problem of having to fund 2 children on a part time wage.
You also claim to have £100 before tax credits, yet you fail to mention the housing benefit, the child benefit (if the your children are below 18), the free healthcare, the free education, the free prescriptions, as well as the numerous other things which are given to those who are in receipt of benefits but not to those who work full time. The £100 is the tip of the iceberg.

The "Stress of the bedroom tax" is all of your own making. I would make another guess that this will not affect you in any way, but are in fact simply attempting to make a political point with no intelligence whatsoever. If you have a boy and a girl and live in a 3 bed property I would be very surprised given what has already been said that they would be of an age where they would have to share a room, so you would not be affected in the slightest.
It is comments from ignorant selfish people such as yourself who are determined to spread fear and loathing about any attempt to claw back the over inflated dependency culture that we have in this country and in turn spread the unnecessary fear to thousands of people who will never have been affected by this policy by ruthless scaremongering and lies.

@tangwaynehall - Lots of well made points. Good to hear some personal circumstances too, don't worry if the tory clots on here start (from very little detail you've given, the above poster seems to know more about your life than you do, honestly!). The rich have to justify to themselves their excess so must make others the 'undeserving'.
All the best!

There are many families that are stuck in one bedroom flats, the government think that's its okay to squash couples and 2, 3 children into one bedroom flats and with the high demand for bigger houses I think this is a brilliant way to drive the older couples whose children have moved out etc to give up their bigger houses to satisfy public demand, of corse every situation will need to be investigated thoroughly but I know many, many people that are alone/couples that have 2/3 bedroomed houses that flat out refuse to leave. If people want to have bigger houses and not have to pay for rooms not needed they should go ahead and get a mortgage, buy their own... Pretty simple!

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:
Who Mentioned Nestle
Terrys
BREL
General Acident
Glass Works
and many many more

I've worked Fulltime from 1987-2012
With two Redundancies chucked in.
I somehow lasted 3yrs in my last fulltime job but eventually had to leave due to the treatment from some management there. Ended up almost topping myself it got that bad. Only to find that ESA and ATOS were almost as bad. Leaving there was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. Dr suggested gradually building hrs up start PT as rush it and I could end up back at square 1. So 2 months after leaving FT job got a 3hr cleaning job and was starting to feel my old self was applying for other jobs but no luck. Then Bang ATOS failed their medical as I was working !!!! Luckily at the same time as my Benefits stopped I got an interview for a 2nd cleaning job. I don't honestly think I'd be here now if I hadn't got that 2nd job when I did. How would I of Supported my family on £100 a week with no Tax Credits due to not working enough hrs.
Not asking for much just a bit of help when I need it. The stress of the Bedroom Tax will see off a lot of very vunerable people. I know my feelings inside it is ripping my guts out.

As I said, I extrapolated and guessed Rowntrees as this was one of the biggest companies to get bought out by a foreign buyer, my mistake, but the principle still applies.
If the management were that bad, then you should have taken them to a tribunal, topping yourself because of bullying in the workplace is never the answer. You seem to have moved around a lot, could the management maybe just not found you to be a good employee?
Again though, to have been working from 1987, I would guess that you are in your mid to late 40's and so are unlikely to have children of an age where they are unable to support themselves. As you say you were full time until 2012, then you probably didn't ever have the problem of having to fund 2 children on a part time wage.
You also claim to have £100 before tax credits, yet you fail to mention the housing benefit, the child benefit (if the your children are below 18), the free healthcare, the free education, the free prescriptions, as well as the numerous other things which are given to those who are in receipt of benefits but not to those who work full time. The £100 is the tip of the iceberg.

The "Stress of the bedroom tax" is all of your own making. I would make another guess that this will not affect you in any way, but are in fact simply attempting to make a political point with no intelligence whatsoever. If you have a boy and a girl and live in a 3 bed property I would be very surprised given what has already been said that they would be of an age where they would have to share a room, so you would not be affected in the slightest.
It is comments from ignorant selfish people such as yourself who are determined to spread fear and loathing about any attempt to claw back the over inflated dependency culture that we have in this country and in turn spread the unnecessary fear to thousands of people who will never have been affected by this policy by ruthless scaremongering and lies.

I am 42 son 2 daughter 4
My partner as a Tumor on her peturitry glad that means irregular periods and she is not suppose to be able to have Children, She is also fighting demons from her childhood and also doesn't want things that she's being through happening to our Children!!! Ie she was a single Child and always wanted a Sibling, She also believes she should look after her children and not dump them . We could never live with ourselves if in years it turn out our child minder was a nonce !!!!
So no we didn't plan save etc
I'm awaiting payout for constructive dismisal and would of recieved a lot more had I not gone into part time work which I knew before taking it up. but hey I'm a Shirker but don't let you Strivers Pay ....

melreed1990 wrote:
There are many families that are stuck in one bedroom flats, the government think that's its okay to squash couples and 2, 3 children into one bedroom flats and with the high demand for bigger houses I think this is a brilliant way to drive the older couples whose children have moved out etc to give up their bigger houses to satisfy public demand, of corse every situation will need to be investigated thoroughly but I know many, many people that are alone/couples that have 2/3 bedroomed houses that flat out refuse to leave. If people want to have bigger houses and not have to pay for rooms not needed they should go ahead and get a mortgage, buy their own... Pretty simple!

£10k X 4.5 = not much mortgage

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:
Who Mentioned Nestle
Terrys
BREL
General Acident
Glass Works
and many many more

I've worked Fulltime from 1987-2012
With two Redundancies chucked in.
I somehow lasted 3yrs in my last fulltime job but eventually had to leave due to the treatment from some management there. Ended up almost topping myself it got that bad. Only to find that ESA and ATOS were almost as bad. Leaving there was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. Dr suggested gradually building hrs up start PT as rush it and I could end up back at square 1. So 2 months after leaving FT job got a 3hr cleaning job and was starting to feel my old self was applying for other jobs but no luck. Then Bang ATOS failed their medical as I was working !!!! Luckily at the same time as my Benefits stopped I got an interview for a 2nd cleaning job. I don't honestly think I'd be here now if I hadn't got that 2nd job when I did. How would I of Supported my family on £100 a week with no Tax Credits due to not working enough hrs.
Not asking for much just a bit of help when I need it. The stress of the Bedroom Tax will see off a lot of very vunerable people. I know my feelings inside it is ripping my guts out.

As I said, I extrapolated and guessed Rowntrees as this was one of the biggest companies to get bought out by a foreign buyer, my mistake, but the principle still applies.
If the management were that bad, then you should have taken them to a tribunal, topping yourself because of bullying in the workplace is never the answer. You seem to have moved around a lot, could the management maybe just not found you to be a good employee?
Again though, to have been working from 1987, I would guess that you are in your mid to late 40's and so are unlikely to have children of an age where they are unable to support themselves. As you say you were full time until 2012, then you probably didn't ever have the problem of having to fund 2 children on a part time wage.
You also claim to have £100 before tax credits, yet you fail to mention the housing benefit, the child benefit (if the your children are below 18), the free healthcare, the free education, the free prescriptions, as well as the numerous other things which are given to those who are in receipt of benefits but not to those who work full time. The £100 is the tip of the iceberg.

The "Stress of the bedroom tax" is all of your own making. I would make another guess that this will not affect you in any way, but are in fact simply attempting to make a political point with no intelligence whatsoever. If you have a boy and a girl and live in a 3 bed property I would be very surprised given what has already been said that they would be of an age where they would have to share a room, so you would not be affected in the slightest.
It is comments from ignorant selfish people such as yourself who are determined to spread fear and loathing about any attempt to claw back the over inflated dependency culture that we have in this country and in turn spread the unnecessary fear to thousands of people who will never have been affected by this policy by ruthless scaremongering and lies.

I am 42 son 2 daughter 4
My partner as a Tumor on her peturitry glad that means irregular periods and she is not suppose to be able to have Children, She is also fighting demons from her childhood and also doesn't want things that she's being through happening to our Children!!! Ie she was a single Child and always wanted a Sibling, She also believes she should look after her children and not dump them . We could never live with ourselves if in years it turn out our child minder was a nonce !!!!
So no we didn't plan save etc
I'm awaiting payout for constructive dismisal and would of recieved a lot more had I not gone into part time work which I knew before taking it up. but hey I'm a Shirker but don't let you Strivers Pay ....

So you want a family of 4 forced into a cramped house so another family who are cramped can be uncramped....

Ain't it weird how you seem to care so much about the poor low paid strivers who are in cramped conditions yet care so so little for lazy low paid shirkers will the Strivers become Shirkers once they're uncramped. Will I become a striver once I make my kids share a bed. and everything I have put is the honest truth I promise

I can't sleep yet again and am at work at 6;30

Blythespirit wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:
There's a lot of clueless people where the BEDROOM TAX is concerned. I keep hearing about why should Taxpayer pay for a Spare Room. I work on a low wage and get Housing Benefit if my wages for the month are low enough I send in details to YCC and someone works out what I can afford etc. I have 2 children a boy and a girl. We have a very small 3 bedroom house. who's bedroom do I surrender? The Bedrooms are too small for 2beds. No 2 bedroom Council Homes are available and after trying to swap homes on homeswapper for months no one wants this house it's not big enough's the general reply as countless people come look and never to hear from again. I earn less than £200 a week and Rent will rise £14 & Council tax even more than that.

If one of your rooms is smaller than 70ft square, it is not classed as a bedroom, so it could be worth checking those measurements. There are also regulations concerning the size of a room that is being shared by two children - again, maybe worth checking out.

The council have measured up but don't hold out much hope as with York being a Labour City they want this Bedroom Tax so they can use it against the Tories and Libs any bets evictions will start just before next General Election

My life story
Left school at 16 straight into a job @ Terrys
17+ yrs later Redundant
Few weeks started at Magsons
4yrs later Redundant just 4weeks after my 1st born 3 weeks before xmas 2
Day after we moved into a flat then
Agency at Tangerine getting min wage for shift work sat next to full timers on a £1+ an hr more for doing exact same job got a council house
Then 3yrs in a hell hole

I think enough's enough now, really. I don't think we need to know your life story, though, having read it, you're no more a special case than the millions of others who think as much. Now, if you're not happy with your lot, turn off the computer and go out looking for a job/opportunity that will give you the life you think you deserve.

tangwaynehall wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:
Who Mentioned Nestle
Terrys
BREL
General Acident
Glass Works
and many many more

I've worked Fulltime from 1987-2012
With two Redundancies chucked in.
I somehow lasted 3yrs in my last fulltime job but eventually had to leave due to the treatment from some management there. Ended up almost topping myself it got that bad. Only to find that ESA and ATOS were almost as bad. Leaving there was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. Dr suggested gradually building hrs up start PT as rush it and I could end up back at square 1. So 2 months after leaving FT job got a 3hr cleaning job and was starting to feel my old self was applying for other jobs but no luck. Then Bang ATOS failed their medical as I was working !!!! Luckily at the same time as my Benefits stopped I got an interview for a 2nd cleaning job. I don't honestly think I'd be here now if I hadn't got that 2nd job when I did. How would I of Supported my family on £100 a week with no Tax Credits due to not working enough hrs.
Not asking for much just a bit of help when I need it. The stress of the Bedroom Tax will see off a lot of very vunerable people. I know my feelings inside it is ripping my guts out.

As I said, I extrapolated and guessed Rowntrees as this was one of the biggest companies to get bought out by a foreign buyer, my mistake, but the principle still applies.
If the management were that bad, then you should have taken them to a tribunal, topping yourself because of bullying in the workplace is never the answer. You seem to have moved around a lot, could the management maybe just not found you to be a good employee?
Again though, to have been working from 1987, I would guess that you are in your mid to late 40's and so are unlikely to have children of an age where they are unable to support themselves. As you say you were full time until 2012, then you probably didn't ever have the problem of having to fund 2 children on a part time wage.
You also claim to have £100 before tax credits, yet you fail to mention the housing benefit, the child benefit (if the your children are below 18), the free healthcare, the free education, the free prescriptions, as well as the numerous other things which are given to those who are in receipt of benefits but not to those who work full time. The £100 is the tip of the iceberg.

The "Stress of the bedroom tax" is all of your own making. I would make another guess that this will not affect you in any way, but are in fact simply attempting to make a political point with no intelligence whatsoever. If you have a boy and a girl and live in a 3 bed property I would be very surprised given what has already been said that they would be of an age where they would have to share a room, so you would not be affected in the slightest.
It is comments from ignorant selfish people such as yourself who are determined to spread fear and loathing about any attempt to claw back the over inflated dependency culture that we have in this country and in turn spread the unnecessary fear to thousands of people who will never have been affected by this policy by ruthless scaremongering and lies.

I am 42 son 2 daughter 4
My partner as a Tumor on her peturitry glad that means irregular periods and she is not suppose to be able to have Children, She is also fighting demons from her childhood and also doesn't want things that she's being through happening to our Children!!! Ie she was a single Child and always wanted a Sibling, She also believes she should look after her children and not dump them . We could never live with ourselves if in years it turn out our child minder was a nonce !!!!
So no we didn't plan save etc
I'm awaiting payout for constructive dismisal and would of recieved a lot more had I not gone into part time work which I knew before taking it up. but hey I'm a Shirker but don't let you Strivers Pay ....

So you want a family of 4 forced into a cramped house so another family who are cramped can be uncramped....

granted, now that you elaborate on the situation it seems that you have not had it great.
It does seem thought that you don't appreciate just how much help you are given, and instead choose to to worry yourself about a policy that I still do not believe will affect you.
Having looked at the policy it does not seem to mention anything about children having to share, but even if they did, so what. When I was a child we had to share rooms because we cold not afford a bigger place. You are still being gifted a house on well below the market value, if your children have to share a room, that's life, it's not even a bad thing.
What I want is those in need to get what they NEED not be handed what they aspire to. What they need is a roof, food and clothing. That is what the state should supply to all those who are work capable.
Those unable to work due to no fault of their own should get extra help.
Anything else is down to the individual to supply for themselves, if they don't have the means, it gives the incentive to strive to better themselves, if it is just given to them, then why would they.

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:
Who Mentioned Nestle
Terrys
BREL
General Acident
Glass Works
and many many more

I've worked Fulltime from 1987-2012
With two Redundancies chucked in.
I somehow lasted 3yrs in my last fulltime job but eventually had to leave due to the treatment from some management there. Ended up almost topping myself it got that bad. Only to find that ESA and ATOS were almost as bad. Leaving there was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. Dr suggested gradually building hrs up start PT as rush it and I could end up back at square 1. So 2 months after leaving FT job got a 3hr cleaning job and was starting to feel my old self was applying for other jobs but no luck. Then Bang ATOS failed their medical as I was working !!!! Luckily at the same time as my Benefits stopped I got an interview for a 2nd cleaning job. I don't honestly think I'd be here now if I hadn't got that 2nd job when I did. How would I of Supported my family on £100 a week with no Tax Credits due to not working enough hrs.
Not asking for much just a bit of help when I need it. The stress of the Bedroom Tax will see off a lot of very vunerable people. I know my feelings inside it is ripping my guts out.

As I said, I extrapolated and guessed Rowntrees as this was one of the biggest companies to get bought out by a foreign buyer, my mistake, but the principle still applies.
If the management were that bad, then you should have taken them to a tribunal, topping yourself because of bullying in the workplace is never the answer. You seem to have moved around a lot, could the management maybe just not found you to be a good employee?
Again though, to have been working from 1987, I would guess that you are in your mid to late 40's and so are unlikely to have children of an age where they are unable to support themselves. As you say you were full time until 2012, then you probably didn't ever have the problem of having to fund 2 children on a part time wage.
You also claim to have £100 before tax credits, yet you fail to mention the housing benefit, the child benefit (if the your children are below 18), the free healthcare, the free education, the free prescriptions, as well as the numerous other things which are given to those who are in receipt of benefits but not to those who work full time. The £100 is the tip of the iceberg.

The "Stress of the bedroom tax" is all of your own making. I would make another guess that this will not affect you in any way, but are in fact simply attempting to make a political point with no intelligence whatsoever. If you have a boy and a girl and live in a 3 bed property I would be very surprised given what has already been said that they would be of an age where they would have to share a room, so you would not be affected in the slightest.
It is comments from ignorant selfish people such as yourself who are determined to spread fear and loathing about any attempt to claw back the over inflated dependency culture that we have in this country and in turn spread the unnecessary fear to thousands of people who will never have been affected by this policy by ruthless scaremongering and lies.

I am 42 son 2 daughter 4
My partner as a Tumor on her peturitry glad that means irregular periods and she is not suppose to be able to have Children, She is also fighting demons from her childhood and also doesn't want things that she's being through happening to our Children!!! Ie she was a single Child and always wanted a Sibling, She also believes she should look after her children and not dump them . We could never live with ourselves if in years it turn out our child minder was a nonce !!!!
So no we didn't plan save etc
I'm awaiting payout for constructive dismisal and would of recieved a lot more had I not gone into part time work which I knew before taking it up. but hey I'm a Shirker but don't let you Strivers Pay ....

So you want a family of 4 forced into a cramped house so another family who are cramped can be uncramped....

granted, now that you elaborate on the situation it seems that you have not had it great.
It does seem thought that you don't appreciate just how much help you are given, and instead choose to to worry yourself about a policy that I still do not believe will affect you.
Having looked at the policy it does not seem to mention anything about children having to share, but even if they did, so what. When I was a child we had to share rooms because we cold not afford a bigger place. You are still being gifted a house on well below the market value, if your children have to share a room, that's life, it's not even a bad thing.
What I want is those in need to get what they NEED not be handed what they aspire to. What they need is a roof, food and clothing. That is what the state should supply to all those who are work capable.
Those unable to work due to no fault of their own should get extra help.
Anything else is down to the individual to supply for themselves, if they don't have the means, it gives the incentive to strive to better themselves, if it is just given to them, then why would they.

York City Council as a shortage of 1&2bedroom homes according to the estate manager!!!
We def have to pay 10% extra as legally Ruby & Billy don't have to have seperate rooms but when they're 10 they legally have to. does that mean we move her to what ever area becomes available leaving her school and freinds to have to uproot all over again in 6yrs.
What about the 6 bedroom council houses who will fill them?
I'm guessing very large familys from other areas of the country

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:

Maquis wrote:

tangwaynehall wrote:
Who Mentioned Nestle
Terrys
BREL
General Acident
Glass Works
and many many more

I've worked Fulltime from 1987-2012
With two Redundancies chucked in.
I somehow lasted 3yrs in my last fulltime job but eventually had to leave due to the treatment from some management there. Ended up almost topping myself it got that bad. Only to find that ESA and ATOS were almost as bad. Leaving there was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. Dr suggested gradually building hrs up start PT as rush it and I could end up back at square 1. So 2 months after leaving FT job got a 3hr cleaning job and was starting to feel my old self was applying for other jobs but no luck. Then Bang ATOS failed their medical as I was working !!!! Luckily at the same time as my Benefits stopped I got an interview for a 2nd cleaning job. I don't honestly think I'd be here now if I hadn't got that 2nd job when I did. How would I of Supported my family on £100 a week with no Tax Credits due to not working enough hrs.
Not asking for much just a bit of help when I need it. The stress of the Bedroom Tax will see off a lot of very vunerable people. I know my feelings inside it is ripping my guts out.

As I said, I extrapolated and guessed Rowntrees as this was one of the biggest companies to get bought out by a foreign buyer, my mistake, but the principle still applies.
If the management were that bad, then you should have taken them to a tribunal, topping yourself because of bullying in the workplace is never the answer. You seem to have moved around a lot, could the management maybe just not found you to be a good employee?
Again though, to have been working from 1987, I would guess that you are in your mid to late 40's and so are unlikely to have children of an age where they are unable to support themselves. As you say you were full time until 2012, then you probably didn't ever have the problem of having to fund 2 children on a part time wage.
You also claim to have £100 before tax credits, yet you fail to mention the housing benefit, the child benefit (if the your children are below 18), the free healthcare, the free education, the free prescriptions, as well as the numerous other things which are given to those who are in receipt of benefits but not to those who work full time. The £100 is the tip of the iceberg.

The "Stress of the bedroom tax" is all of your own making. I would make another guess that this will not affect you in any way, but are in fact simply attempting to make a political point with no intelligence whatsoever. If you have a boy and a girl and live in a 3 bed property I would be very surprised given what has already been said that they would be of an age where they would have to share a room, so you would not be affected in the slightest.
It is comments from ignorant selfish people such as yourself who are determined to spread fear and loathing about any attempt to claw back the over inflated dependency culture that we have in this country and in turn spread the unnecessary fear to thousands of people who will never have been affected by this policy by ruthless scaremongering and lies.

I am 42 son 2 daughter 4
My partner as a Tumor on her peturitry glad that means irregular periods and she is not suppose to be able to have Children, She is also fighting demons from her childhood and also doesn't want things that she's being through happening to our Children!!! Ie she was a single Child and always wanted a Sibling, She also believes she should look after her children and not dump them . We could never live with ourselves if in years it turn out our child minder was a nonce !!!!
So no we didn't plan save etc
I'm awaiting payout for constructive dismisal and would of recieved a lot more had I not gone into part time work which I knew before taking it up. but hey I'm a Shirker but don't let you Strivers Pay ....

So you want a family of 4 forced into a cramped house so another family who are cramped can be uncramped....

granted, now that you elaborate on the situation it seems that you have not had it great.
It does seem thought that you don't appreciate just how much help you are given, and instead choose to to worry yourself about a policy that I still do not believe will affect you.
Having looked at the policy it does not seem to mention anything about children having to share, but even if they did, so what. When I was a child we had to share rooms because we cold not afford a bigger place. You are still being gifted a house on well below the market value, if your children have to share a room, that's life, it's not even a bad thing.
What I want is those in need to get what they NEED not be handed what they aspire to. What they need is a roof, food and clothing. That is what the state should supply to all those who are work capable.
Those unable to work due to no fault of their own should get extra help.
Anything else is down to the individual to supply for themselves, if they don't have the means, it gives the incentive to strive to better themselves, if it is just given to them, then why would they.

York City Council as a shortage of 1&2bedroom homes according to the estate manager!!!
We def have to pay 10% extra as legally Ruby & Billy don't have to have seperate rooms but when they're 10 they legally have to. does that mean we move her to what ever area becomes available leaving her school and freinds to have to uproot all over again in 6yrs.
What about the 6 bedroom council houses who will fill them?
I'm guessing very large familys from other areas of the country

You could always put the kids in one room and take in a lodger, or wait until a 2 bed house turns up.
And if you have to move again in six years, so what. You don't own the house and most people I know move more often than that anyway. There is every chance they will be in the same catchment area and not have to move schools.
You are in a privileged position being given cheap housing. If there is an inconvenience in the plan for you, deal with it. The benefits far outweigh the downside. Your arguments are full of what ifs and maybes. Maybe something suitable with 2 bedrooms comes up when you look, what if you get more hours or a better job. These are all possible but you would still find something to make yourself a victim of.

"The End".

CHISSY1 wrote:
"The End".

Get Peter Jackson involved .
Im sure there's a trilogy in this somewhere.

Last word :)