Spare bedroom tax

Sponsored Links
what do you think about the new spare bedroom tax that is coming in soon?

"Welfare reforms will cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom"

Giving people less money = Tax

:rolleyes:


And what do I think?

My parents bought me up in a 1 bedroom flat, why should they pay tax so others can have spare bedrooms.
 
People should be allocated 'social housing' on a lease basis, ie 10 years then be reallocated and maybe moved on to bigger/smaller or out.
Why should they be allocated a house for life.
 
Sponsored Links
People should be allocated 'social housing' on a lease basis, ie 10 years then be reallocated and maybe moved on to bigger/smaller or out.
Why should they be allocated a house for life.

One could invent a name for them,

Nomads !!! ( No fixed dwelling place)
 
People should be allocated 'social housing' on a lease basis, ie 10 years then be reallocated and maybe moved on to bigger/smaller or out.
Why should they be allocated a house for life.

One could invent a name for them,

Nomads !!! ( No fixed dwelling place)
10 years that aint bad, most people dont stay in the same morgaged property that long.
 
I've got no problem with it...

If of course they start at the top...

There is a certain building with 52 bedrooms (on top of the 188 staff bedrooms) occupied occasionally by a married couple...

And since they don't own it, there's an awful lot of 'bedroom subsidy' we could claim back from the millions of benefits that they receive each year!
 
I've got no problem with it...

If of course they start at the top...

There is a certain building with 52 bedrooms (on top of the 188 staff bedrooms) occupied occasionally by a married couple...

And since they don't own it, there's an awful lot of 'bedroom subsidy' we could claim back from the millions of benefits that they receive each year!
But oh boy dont they bring some money in.
 
I've got no problem with it...

If of course they start at the top...

There is a certain building with 52 bedrooms (on top of the 188 staff bedrooms) occupied occasionally by a married couple...

And since they don't own it, there's an awful lot of 'bedroom subsidy' we could claim back from the millions of benefits that they receive each year!
But oh boy dont they bring some money in.
No THEY don't...

The history and the buildings bring in the tourists...

And history is where the biggest benefit scroungers in the country belong!
 
People should be allocated 'social housing' on a lease basis, ie 10 years then be reallocated and maybe moved on to bigger/smaller or out.
Why should they be allocated a house for life.

Possibly another way forward is to allocate social housing on a changing needs basis. Where there is a material change in the amount of people in the house (ie when the kids grow up and leave home) then the tenancy is looked at and tenants made to downsize. ;) ;)
 
People should be allocated 'social housing' on a lease basis, ie 10 years then be reallocated and maybe moved on to bigger/smaller or out.
Why should they be allocated a house for life.

Possibly another way forward is to allocate social housing on a changing needs basis. Where there is a material change in the amount of people in the house (ie when the kids grow up and leave home) then the tenancy is looked at and tenants made to downsize. ;) ;)

I'm assuming the wink wink is because that's what they are doing?
 
People should be allocated 'social housing' on a lease basis, ie 10 years then be reallocated and maybe moved on to bigger/smaller or out.
Why should they be allocated a house for life.

Possibly another way forward is to allocate social housing on a changing needs basis. Where there is a material change in the amount of people in the house (ie when the kids grow up and leave home) then the tenancy is looked at and tenants made to downsize. ;) ;)
Or maybe we should adopt the model of rent control, enabling people who are deprived of the right to choose a place to live on the basis of OTT house prices, to have a chance to rent what they can reasonably afford - rather than being dictated to as to what they deserve or do not deserve...

Of course if the large proportion of "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" council houses hadn't fallen into the hands of rich people's portfolios, then maybe there would still be almost enough to go around!
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top