Torys to cut housing benefit of young

[nomadking]

It is morally wrong to insist on still living in a tax payer funded council house when all SIX children have moved out. If a house is big enough to have had SIX children in there, that house is NEEDED FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by martyh

So, are we to bankrupt the country by giving a never ending supply of money to people who are so emotionally unstable as to commit suicide when they get a over large electric bill ,or ,as in the case of the woman you linked to was refused benefits because she had enough savings.

I know of people who have suffered from depression and/or suicidal thoughts. These are people you wouldn't assume could ever suffer from such things- but they did.

Never be so flippant as to assume that it can't happen to you or someone close to you, because if it does, you'd understand. I hope it doesn't take this to change your attitude towards the mentally ill.

Originally Posted by nomadking

It is morally wrong to insist on still living in a tax payer funded council house when all SIX children have moved out. If a house is big enough to have had SIX children in there, that house is NEEDED FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.

This was the way that the Government tried to sell the idea of the Bedroom Tax (BT) to the electorate and is an oversimplification of the issue.

Numerous examples have been given as to why it's not a good idea.

In your example, what happens if there are no suitable one person properties available for the tenant?

I would agree with the BT if people had suitable alternative accommodation available and refused to move into it.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I know of people who have suffered from depression and/or suicidal thoughts. These are people you wouldn't assume could ever suffer from such things- but they did.

.

So

Never be so flippant as to assume that it can't happen to you or someone close to you, because if it does, you'd understand. I hope it doesn't take this to change your attitude towards the mentally ill.

erm I asked a question ,which you haven't answered by the way ,there has to be a line where the system says "you do not qualify for that benefit" it's nobodies fault when some people top themselves when the system says no,those same people would most likely top themselves for different reasons

This was the way that the Government tried to sell the idea of the Bedroom Tax (BT) to the electorate and is an oversimplification of the issue.

Numerous examples have been given as to why it's not a good idea.

In your example, what happens if there are no suitable one person properties available for the tenant?

I would agree with the BT if people had suitable alternative accommodation available and refused to move into it.

There is no such thing as the bedroom tax as has been pointed out many, many times in various threads it is a reduction in housing benefit based on the number of rooms you need ,exactly the same as rents in the private sector have been for decades which nobody whinged about

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by martyh

So

erm I asked a question ,which you haven't answered by the way ,there has to be a line where the system says "you do not qualify for that benefit" it's nobodies fault when some people top themselves when the system says no,those same people would most likely top themselves for different reasons

There is no such thing as the bedroom tax as has been pointed out many, many times in various threads it is a reduction in housing benefit based on the number of rooms you need ,exactly the same as rents in the private sector have been for decades which nobody whinged about

Sadly, it looks like you will probably have to experience depression and/or suicide either personally or to somebody that you love to alter your crass attitude. Your attitude towards those with mental health problems/disabilities at best can only be described as 'unhelpful' and are probably upsetting to read for the many members on this forum who have or are suffering from a mental health condition- think before you speak is a good rule of thumb in this situation.

It could happen to anybody, including you. Who would have thought that Andrew Flintoff had depression?

Nobody is suggesting that there isn't or shouldn't be claims for benefit that aren't successful- that would be ludicrous.

The coalition has changed, abused and brought in new illogical regulations in relation to the welfare state. This and the hideous way that these decisions are communicated (or in some cases claimants aren't even being informed as is their legal right) is unnecessarily contributing to the unprecedented suicide rate of some of our most vulnerable in society.

The reasons why the 'Spare Room Subsidy' is referred to and colloquially known as 'The Bedroom Tax' has been fully explained already.

You are correct in saying that private tenants have been subject to the 'Accommodation Exceeds Size Criteria' regulations since 15 January 1989.

However, the difference was that nobody currently living in their home at that point was affected, which is not the case with the Bedroom Tax. Tenants who have not moved can to this day have a Fair Rent set and the case won't be referred to the Rent Officer as it is known as a 'pre 1989 tenancy determination'.

Obviously, the majority of private tenants will have moved since the Tories introduced this regulation. The problem here is that they may not have known if the Accomodation Exceeds Size Criteria regulations affected them, so the rules were changed to allow tenants to obtain a Rent Officer determination BEFORE taking on a tenancy or moving in.

To summarise, affected council tenants had this imposed on them, whilst affected private tenants had the choice as to whether to go ahead or not once they knew if the size of the property would affect their benefit claim.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Sadly, it looks like you will probably have to experience depression and/or suicide either personally or to somebody that you love to alter your crass attitude. Your attitude towards those with mental health problems/disabilities at best can only be described as 'unhelpful' and are probably upsetting to read for the many members on this forum who have or are suffering from a mental health condition- think before you speak is a good rule of thumb in this situation.

It could happen to anybody, including you. Who would have thought that Andrew Flintoff had depression?

Nobody is suggesting that there isn't or shouldn't be claims for benefit that aren't successful- that would be ludicrous.

The coalition has changed, abused and brought in new illogical regulations in relation to the welfare state. This and the hideous way that these decisions are communicated (or in some cases claimants aren't even being informed as is their legal right) is unnecessarily contributing to the unprecedented suicide rate of some of our most vulnerable in society.

The reasons why the 'Spare Room Subsidy' is referred to and colloquially known as 'The Bedroom Tax' has been fully explained already.

You are correct in saying that private tenants have been subject to the 'Accommodation Exceeds Size Criteria' regulations since 15 January 1989.

However, the difference was that nobody currently living in their home at that point was affected, which is not the case with the Bedroom Tax. Tenants who have not moved can to this day have a Fair Rent set and the case won't be referred to the Rent Officer as it is known as a 'pre 1989 tenancy determination'.

Obviously, the majority of private tenants will have moved since the Tories introduced this regulation. The problem here is that they may not have known if the Accomodation Exceeds Size Criteria regulations affected them, so the rules were changed to allow tenants to obtain a Rent Officer determination BEFORE taking on a tenancy or moving in.

To summarise, affected council tenants had this imposed on them, whilst affected private tenants had the choice as to whether to go ahead or not once they knew if the size of the property would affect their benefit claim.

I really have no idea why you keep on going on about how I will have experience depression or suicide to appreciate it ,I have neither agreed nor disagreed with you about it .What I have said is that those with depression or suicidal tendencies will commit suicide or try to for any number of reasons ,the woman you linked to had savings that prevented her claiming so the obvious conclusion is that she would have commited suicide anyway ,regardless of the DWP's decision

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by techguyone

You'd have thought that if only 3 bedroom houses were available, that it would be deemed as 'using what's available' rather than 'choosing to live in a bigger place' and paying the tax and an exemption would apply.

I fully agree.

Originally Posted by martyh

such as ? I can't think off the top of my head of any reason why a single unemployed 19 yr old without disability and without children should be able to leave home and get housed by the state

A couple more reasons to add to what Mr Angry provided you with.

- Just because you have a good relationship with your parents, don't assume that everybody has. Some people are estranged from their parents. As an example, I once had an employee who was thrown out and disowned by his parents because he was gay.

- Some of these young people won't have any parents as they will have been brought up in care. Partly as a result of the possibility of this policy going ahead, it is being considered that it may be necessary to let such children stay in care until they are 21. How much extra will this cost the taxpayer?

- Some of these young people will have been the victims of child abuse, be this of a sexual, physical or emotional nature. As a young man, would you want to continue to live with an adult who had, for example, sexually abused you as a child?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I fully agree.



A couple more reasons to add to what Mr Angry provided you with.

- Just because you have a good relationship with your parents, don't assume that everybody has. Some people are estranged from their parents. As an example, I once had an employee who was thrown out and disowned by his parents because he was gay.

- Some of these young people won't have any parents as they will have been brought up in care. Partly as a result of the possibility of this policy going ahead, it is being considered that it may be necessary to let such children stay in care until they are 21. How much extra will this cost the taxpayer?

- Some of these young people will have been the victims of child abuse, be this of a sexual, physical or emotional nature. As a young man, would you want to continue to live with an adult who had, for example, sexually abused you as a child?

the proposal by the government is only aimed at single adults on JS not disabled or vulnerable children

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by martyh

the proposal by the government is only aimed at single adults on JS not disabled or vulnerable children

Someone coming out of care, someone thrown out of their home because of their sexuality and someone who was sexually abused as a child would not qualify under this proposed scheme.

Unless these situations resulted in physical or mental incapacity to the point of not being able to work, the people in the examples given would be in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance if they were unable to secure employment.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Someone coming out of care, someone thrown out of their home because of their sexuality and someone who was sexually abused as a child would not qualify under this proposed scheme.

Unless these situations resulted in physical or mental incapacity to the point of not being able to work, the people in the examples given would be in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance if they were unable to secure employment.

Where does it specifically say that?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Where does it specifically say that?

It doesn't. By definition, such people would not be classed as disabled, so would be claiming JSA. As such, they wouldn't be entitled to Housing Benefit under this reform of the regulations, despite it not being appropriate for them to be able or expected to remain with their former caregivers.

---------- Post added at 13:17 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

I really have no idea why you keep on going on about how I will have experience depression or suicide to appreciate it ,I have neither agreed nor disagreed with you about it .What I have said is that those with depression or suicidal tendencies will commit suicide or try to for any number of reasons ,the woman you linked to had savings that prevented her claiming so the obvious conclusion is that she would have commited suicide anyway ,regardless of the DWP's decision

I am trying to impress on you that your flippant and crass casual remarks about suicide and deoression are wrong and to get you to think a little more about such matters. When people make casual uneducated remarks about others, it's often useful to get them to think about how they would feel if it happened to them or someone close to them.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I am trying to impress on you that your flippant and crass casual remarks about suicide and deoression are wrong and to get you to think a little more about such matters. When people make casual uneducated remarks about others, it's often useful to get them to think about how they would feel if it happened to them or someone close to them.

I think you may be doing martyh a disservice Richard. Clearly, you feel passionately about the topic but perhaps in making your point you've selected a random target.

Depression and suicide are serious issues; I can't imagine that anyone really takes them lightly.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Kursk

I think you may be doing martyh a disservice Richard. Clearly, you feel passionately about the topic but perhaps in making your point you've selected a random target.

Depression and suicide are serious issues; I can't imagine that anyone really takes them lightly.

It looked to me like he was after his dismissive and indifferent comments about the subject, but I hope i'm wrong.

Incidentally, it has been leaked that the DWP are believed to have done their own investigations and found that approx 500 people have died/committed suicide as a result of their policies and ways of working.

They now want to keep their findings secret, but campaigners are going to try to force them to make the findings of this report public by using the law.

where has this been leaked, please?

No worries, found it - it wasn't "leaked", it was gained under a FOI request.

http://www.mind.org.uk/news-campaign.../#.VQhmZLL46rU

You appear to be twisting the words

since February 2012, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has carried out “60 peer reviews following the death of a customer”. Internal DWP guidance advises a peer review take place when suicide or alleged suicide is “associated with a DWP activity”.

There's a big difference between "associated with a DWP activity" and "died/committed suicide as a result of their policies/ways of working".

And 60, whilst a terrible number, is not approx. 500...

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It doesn't. By definition, such people would not be classed as disabled, so would be claiming JSA. As such, they wouldn't be entitled to Housing Benefit under this reform of the regulations, despite it not being appropriate for them to be able or expected to remain with their former caregivers.
.

Which is the whole point ,if an adult is not disabled and does not have children they would not qualify for HB,that is where the line is drawn because there is not a never ending supply of money to pay everybody

I am trying to impress on you that your flippant and crass casual remarks about suicide and deoression are wrong and to get you to think a little more about such matters. When people make casual uneducated remarks about others, it's often useful to get them to think about how they would feel if it happened to them or someone close to them

What flippant and crass remarks ,be so kind as to point them out

---------- Post added at 18:41 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Someone coming out of care, someone thrown out of their home because of their sexuality and someone who was sexually abused as a child would not qualify under this proposed scheme.

Unless these situations resulted in physical or mental incapacity to the point of not being able to work, the people in the examples given would be in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance if they were unable to secure employment.

People coming out of care would be adults ,people abused as children grow up and become adults ,non disabled adults are expected to look after themselves

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

where has this been leaked, please?

No worries, found it - it wasn't "leaked", it was gained under a FOI request.

http://www.mind.org.uk/news-campaign.../#.VQhmZLL46rU

You appear to be twisting the words

There's a big difference between "associated with a DWP activity" and "died/committed suicide as a result of their policies/ways of working".

And 60, whilst a terrible number, is not approx. 500...

The information that I provided is not in the public domain- campaigners hope to change this. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that EVERYTHING is on the internet- it isn't.

Originally Posted by martyh

Which is the whole point ,if an adult is not disabled and does not have children they would not qualify for HB,that is where the line is drawn because there is not a never ending supply of money to pay everybody





What flippant and crass remarks ,be so kind as to point them out

---------- Post added at 18:41 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------



People coming out of care would be adults ,people abused as children grow up and become adults ,non disabled adults are expected to look after themselves

Your attitude towards suicide is appalling. In fact, you are so ignorant of the subject that you are actually asking for assistance to point out where you said anything wrong.

This lady and her children can better explain why your 'they would have done it anyway even if their benefits hadn't been stopped, so it doesn't really matter' attitude is so offensive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05n2922

The idea of this proposed scheme is to prevent those in this client group from being able to claim Housing Benefit. The notion is that if they haven't got a job, then they should stay at home until they find one.

What if somebody reaches adulthood after being systematically sexually abused by a parent and is unable to secure reasonably well paid employment? Do you think that it is appropriate for them to be expected stay at home for some years?

Even the Thatcher administration had built in safeguards for those estranged from their parent/s when they legislated to prevent 16 and 17 year olds from claiming benefits by reason of unemployment.