Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
How is that different to not having a fixed compulsory retirement age? If somebody cannot be forced to retire at 65, then they could be working at age 70 and beyond.
|
But that would be their
choice.
---------- Post added at 19:35 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
It isn’t just semantics.
A tax is something that is levied on income. A benefit is something paid out of treasury funds to those meeting certain criteria. The criteria for payment of housing benefit was changed. What is under discussion here is a reduction in state benefit, not a tax on income.
Discussing this in terms of politically loaded sound-bites (which is precisely what the term “bedroom tax” is) is itself disrespectful to those who have suffered as a result of losing benefits, because it is manipulative and dishonest. People who suffer due to lost benefits deserve to have their situations examined faithfully, not co-opted for the political advantage of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
|
It's widely known as the Bedroom Tax, in the same way that the Community Charge was referred to as the Poll Tax, or the TV licence as the Telly Tax.
Most people use this term, not just opposition parties, even though it isn't technically a tax.