The state benefits system mega-thread.

[RichardCoulter]

Aye, it's just semantics.

Thousands upon thousands have died as a result of these changes, yet this is the only thing he has to say.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Aye, it's just semantics.

Thousands upon thousands have died as a result of these changes, yet this is the only thing he has to say.

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.

[jfman]

In fairness in the minds of the long term benefit recipient, with no aspiration of gainful employment, that is their income.

[peanut]

AKA - The under-occupancy penalty (also known as the under occupation penalty, Spare Room Subsidy, under-occupancy charge, under-occupation charge or size criteria). - From Wiki. But come on who calls it the 'The under-occupancy penalty'.... It is the bedroom tax in all but being pedantic. It's all too easy to have an opinion when it doesn't affect those and usually it is those with the loudest voices...

Shame it wasn't extended to the oldies. That's where most of the under occupancy properties are. Anyway it's all bull.. Those with extra bedrooms that have tried to downsize only to find out they couldn't. What's fair about that?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Unbelievable. Imagine a fire officer being expected to rescue someone on a ladder in their 70's!

I'm encouraged by some of the comments to this article, maybe people are finally beginning to wake up to what's happening.

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.

[RichardCoulter]

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 ----------

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I hate to be pedantic, but there never was a tax on bedrooms.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

But that would be their choice.

---------- Post added at 19:35 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------



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.

It isn't a tax at all, which was my point. 'Bedroom tax' is a politically charged term designed to make people believe this subsidy reduction is something it isn't. Nobody is being taxed for having too many bedrooms.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It isn't a tax at all, which was my point. 'Bedroom tax' is a politically charged term designed to make people believe this subsidy reduction is something it isn't. Nobody is being taxed for having too many bedrooms.

Whether someone on a low income receives even less money due to extra taxation, or whether they receive the same amount of money, but have to pay extra rent out of this money (which has not been updated with inflation for years) is largely irrelevant to the tenant in question as the net effect is the same.

Only about 5% of people affected have been able to move to a smaller property because they simply don't exist and, of the other 95%, about 2/3 of them are disabled.

I believe that there are measures that can be taken to make more efficient use of social housing stock and be fair to taxpayers and tenants alike. I agree that if someone refuses a reasonable offer to move to a smaller property that is available, that they should be financially penalised after a time.

When the overlarge rule for private rented accommodation came in, I argued to a committee that it wasn't fair on private tenants to treat tenants of social housing differently. At that time, private tenants were paid the full rent for 13 weeks to give them chance to find somewhere else, renegotiate the rent with the landlord or prepare to adjust their budget for the extra that they would have to pay in three months time.

Another idea would be for the stock of 2/3 bedrooms homes to be reconfigured to provide more, but smaller, housing for the growing number of single people.

It really is a nonsense that someone can be penalised for having two tiny bedrooms, whilst another with one large bedroom with a total floor space greater than the two small rooms put together receives no penalty at all!

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

But that would be their choice.

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.

... as a result of a deliberate political campaign designed to condition the way the debate is conducted, even the way the subject may be thought about, by dictating the language that may be used. The value of this approach is evident in your comments - you argue for its use based on the breadth of its uptake, to the point of insinuating someone is callous towards the deaths of thousands of people, simply for insisting on referring to the matter in other terms. As well you might. After all, it’s a tax, right? Anyone who appears to justify, excuse or dissemble when poor people are literally being taxed to death deserves it, don’t they?

The tragedy is, this is actually, genuinely, a key theme in George Orwell’s 1984, a book so widely referenced with regards to totalitarian government that few people realise how many of the tactics of the Ministry of Truth are in common use in our democratic politics.

”But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Whether someone on a low income receives even less money due to extra taxation, or whether they receive the same amount of money, but have to pay extra rent out of this money (which has not been updated with inflation for years) is largely irrelevant to the tenant in question as the net effect is the same.

Only about 5% of people affected have been able to move to a smaller property because they simply don't exist and, of the other 95%, about 2/3 of them are disabled.

I believe that there are measures that can be taken to make more efficient use of social housing stock and be fair to taxpayers and tenants alike. I agree that if someone refuses a reasonable offer to move to a smaller property that is available, that they should be financially penalised after a time.

When the overlarge rule for private rented accommodation came in, I argued to a committee that it wasn't fair on private tenants to treat tenants of social housing differently. At that time, private tenants were paid the full rent for 13 weeks to give them chance to find somewhere else, renegotiate the rent with the landlord or prepare to adjust their budget for the extra that they would have to pay in three months time.

Another idea would be for the stock of 2/3 bedrooms homes to be reconfigured to provide more, but smaller, housing for the growing number of single people.

It really is a nonsense that someone can be penalised for having two tiny bedrooms, whilst another with one large bedroom with a total floor space greater than the two small rooms put together receives no penalty at all!

I agree with your first paragraph, but you should describe it correctly. The measure you are talking about was designed simply to bring social housing renters into line with those in the private sector and was not designed simply to attack the poor.

There are many people renting from the private sector who are no better off. Their rents are sky-high compared to those in social housing and their security of tenure is virtually non-existent. You have said nothing about their plight.

Life isn't fair - never has been. Never will be. We have just started to emerge from the impact of a Labour-induced recession, and so it is no wonder that services and subsidies had to be cut. Now, as we emerge from the impact of that, hopefully we can find more money to improve our public services, but everything has to be prioritised. The NHS and adult social care need to be top of that list.

[jfman]

A Labour induced recession that hit every major economy in the world. Quite an incredible achievement.

Yes, I think Labour induced is a bit of a stretch, but public spending was on the up at a point in the economic cycle when it would have been more prudent to be paying down public debt. Our economy was less well prepared than it should have been, and that’s even without considering whether the Labour government had created the best possible regulatory environment in the banking sector.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

A Labour induced recession that hit every major economy in the world. Quite an incredible achievement.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

A Labour induced recession that hit every major economy in the world. Quite an incredible achievement.

It was Labour induced because had Gordon Brown not sold off our gold reserves and squandered all our balances, we would have been better able to weather the storm.

[jfman]

Would we have weathered it though? Probably not. It's just twisting reality for a cheap, and easily rebutted, party political point.