Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drbubb

Britain's New Bedroom "Tax" : starts in April

Recommended Posts

Britain's New Bedroom "Tax" : starts in April

 

Is it a "tax" - or the surrender of an excess entitlement?

 

(I think the latter.)

 

Iain+Duncan+Smith+.jpg

How big a room?

 

I stumbled across this story, when I followed a link over from the Mike Harris podcast.

 

MP3 : http://northwestfront.org/rfn/rfn022813.mp3

 

Harold Covington is a writer, and a leader of a white rascist movement in the Northwest states of the US.

 

Herein he responds to an email from a young British man who feels stuck in a bedroom in his parent's home. He cannot get a job, and if he leaves the home, he will expose his parents to the risk of "paying the empty bedroom tax."

 

Instead of speaking honestly about the situation, Covington spins the story so he can make some points about his own pro-gun, pro-rascist agenda.

 

Though I do not like the way he handled this story, Covington is an articulate voice in the wilderness, who does sometimes make some good points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard about this today also. Wouldn't like to comment as it doesn't apply to me.

 

Article here suggests that a room under 70 sq.ft. can't be classed as a bedroom. Read comment by Ann Arky.

 

http://www.libcom.org/blog/how-combat-bedroom-tax-tape-measure-20022013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"a room under 70 sq.ft." = A closet, perhaps?

 

room-measuring%20bedroom%20tax%20da.jpg

 

A window might be another indication of a bedroom - that's they do it in Hong Kong.

Other wise, it is just a den, or a storage room

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Everyone wants to hold onto an entitlement when they become accustomed to having it)

 

A tax on carers: Charities say 420,000 disabled people will be hit by bedroom tax

21 Feb 2013 02:41

Spare rooms are essential for many households with disabled people as they give a carer a space of their own

 

Iain+Duncan+Smith+.jpg

Taking an axe to the disabled: Iain Duncan Smith's bedroom tax

 

Thousands of disabled people could lose their homes and be plunged into debt thanks to the bedroom tax, charities say.

\Anyone in a council or housing ­association property will have their housing benefit cut by 14% if they have a spare room and by 25% if they have two or more spare rooms.

 

But campaigners say 420,000 disabled people, their families and carers will be hit harder by the changes in April. In a letter to Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith they warn today: “Unless disabled people and their families are protected, those affected face financial ­hardship or being forced to move – moving them away from their networks of support and out of homes adapted for their needs.”

 

The letter adds: “Many will be unable to cover the shortfall and may face falling into arrears, financial hardship and debt.

===

http://www.mirror.co...-people-1721706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to enforce draconian planning laws that prevent "the people" developing an excess of decent housing, forcing the cost of housing to be financially crippling for people on good incomes; then you have an obligation to house those who cannot afford to live in your potemkin village. The political classes systematically remove any viable lifestyle for the poor, then bitch about them being "benefit scroungers".

 

It's all very well saying a lot of working people cannot afford a spare room, and I get that, I live in the South East. So sort that out, make housing cheaper, sort out the supply constraint. It's not like the planning system is creating better housing stock or preventing negative environmental impacts (all they seem to allow is building inapppropriate houses on flood plains). Planning needs a thorough shake up! This bedroom "tax" issue is just a way of making a lot of noise on the subject of housing availability without actually improving the situation (and maybe an attempt to reframe peoples perception that a spare room is the most decadant of luxuries).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err.

 

Won't renting out SPARE ROOMS drive rents down?

 

Why is it a bad thing to force people to give up a part of an Entitlement that they do not need?

 

It is better than squeezing fresh supply out of the hard-pressed Middle Class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to enforce draconian planning laws that prevent "the people" developing an excess of decent housing, forcing the cost of housing to be financially crippling for people on good incomes; then you have an obligation to house those who cannot afford to live in your potemkin village. The political classes systematically remove any viable lifestyle for the poor, then bitch about them being "benefit scroungers".

...

 

bingo.

 

Err.

 

Won't renting out SPARE ROOMS drive rents down?

 

Why is it a bad thing to force people to give up a part of an Entitlement that they do not need?

 

It is better than squeezing fresh supply out of the hard-pressed Middle Class.

 

:blink: squeeze supply out of the Middle Class? how about squeezing supply from the landed gentry?

 

pitching middle class against the poor is f***ing retarded when about 40,000 familes control 75% of the land mass:

 

recommended reading:

 

http://www.amazon.co...l/dp/1841953105

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Won't renting out SPARE ROOMS drive rents down?

Yes, although the effect would be pretty marginal.

Why is it a bad thing to force people to give up a part of an Entitlement that they do not need?

In the time and place of the greatest wealth ever known to mankind, should we really be trying to ascertain how little people should be forced to live on? Reallly?

It is better than squeezing fresh supply out of the hard-pressed Middle Class.

That presupposes there is no other choice, which is how politicians like to frame the issue. If we accept framing the issue as either screw the middle or screw the poor so the richest handful can become even richer, I choose neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, although the effect would be pretty marginal.

 

In the time and place of the greatest wealth ever known to mankind, should we really be trying to ascertain how little people should be forced to live on? Reallly?

 

That presupposes there is no other choice, which is how politicians like to frame the issue. If we accept framing the issue as either screw the middle or screw the poor so the richest handful can become even richer, I choose neither.

 

Lower rents might finally drive House prices down.

And I don't see how lower Rents will benefit elites.

 

The problem is not small at the "benefits end" of the economy, because so many are on Benefits, and they have become so very accustomed to taking them. My support goes to the Middle Class, who are hard-pressed from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tories are starting to look and sound like the bunch of old c*nts 'n' toffs we knew them to be. Come election time, I'd say they've had it if this style continues. They really don't have a clue about how to pretend how to be nice-except Cameron, and even he is losing that Blairey veneer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, although the effect would be pretty marginal.

 

In the time and place of the greatest wealth ever known to mankind, should we really be trying to ascertain how little people should be forced to live on? Reallly?

 

That presupposes there is no other choice, which is how politicians like to frame the issue. If we accept framing the issue as either screw the middle or screw the poor so the richest handful can become even richer, I choose neither.

 

Yes, Yes and Yes again!!

Part of the problem is that the politicos believe what they're told by the super rich/powerful. They (and many otherwise intelligent people) have fallen hook line and sinker for the blatant lie that there is no other choice, and that we have to continue with this ridiculous, disgustingly unfair situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err.

 

Won't renting out SPARE ROOMS drive rents down?

 

Why is it a bad thing to force people to give up a part of an Entitlement that they do not need?

 

It is better than squeezing fresh supply out of the hard-pressed Middle Class.

Lots of BTL'ers don't need the Entitlement of rent either, do they? They should be taxed to kingdom come and that would bring the price of homes and rents down.

 

15 miserable quid! It's a disgrace.

 

'Hard pressed middle class', is this the 'good hard working families' that Cameron would like to keep on side? I hate this talk all the damn time of 'hard working families' trying to suggest the majority are not hard working, ie scroungers. Remember the politicians expenses fiasco? Quite a few well to do scroungers there.

 

A society of looters. Read on below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In the time and place of the greatest wealth ever known to mankind"

 

What in heavens name are you talking about?

 

The country is bust - and the Middle Class has been squeezed as much as they can afford

Now you want to protect UNEARNED ENTITLEMENTS that are not needed?

 

It is beyond ridiculous : Squeeze the entitlement class for a change, they more-than-deserve to be squeezed

(at least on something like empty rooms.)

And squeeze the wealthy too, if you like - but do it in the name of fairness, and with a fair concept.

 

This idea of forcing people to give up an Entitlement for an "extra room" is more than fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wtf?

do you seriously think freeing up a 70ft space in the corner of some council houses is preferable to freeing up an aristocrat's 300 acre estate?

 

There aren't so many aristos like that as you may think.

Why not do something on both ends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the aformentioned book has found 70% of land is still owned by less than 1% of the populatio

 

because there isn't a problem on the other end

 

I suppose we dont need ti aks how much tax you pay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we dont need ti aks how much tax you pay

 

well no, not unless you're hoping to create an ad hom to distract from the nonsense you've posted on this thread.

 

and on top of ad hom being about the lowest form of debate, there's the possibility that my tax status doesn't even allow you to make the ad hom that you're hoping it will.

 

no, better just accept that forcing people out of 70sqft rooms makes f*** all difference, when you could fit 186,685 such rooms on the 300 acre Normanby Hall estate alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well no, not unless you're hoping to create an ad hom to distract from the nonsense you've posted on this thread.

 

and on top of ad hom being about the lowest form of debate, there's the possibility that my tax status doesn't even allow you to make the ad hom that you're hoping it will.

 

no, better just accept that forcing people out of 70sqft rooms makes f*** all difference, when you could fit 186,685 such rooms on the 300 acre Normanby Hall estate alone.

 

I doubt that there would be much demand for housing out on that estate.

Where the excess Entitlement Rooms are located, there may be some demand.

 

I can understand some jealousy towards the rich, but confiscating their estates in the middle of nowhere is not going to solve a problem of insufficient supply in London

 

You complain about ad hominen attacks ( I simply asked a question), and then label my ideas as nonsense, because you disagree with them. What have you called nonsense? This:

"This idea of forcing people to give up an Entitlement on an "extra room", no longer needed.

You may have a hard time explaining why this is nonsense. You haven't even tried that. You simply said the the government should squeeze the rich instead.

 

I imagine you can find plenty of disagreement with your ideas, if you start shopping them around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You complain about ad hominen attacks

 

if not reaching for an ad hom, then why did you bring up how much tax I pay?

 

I doubt that there would be much demand for housing out on that estate.

 

if you could be arsed using google, you might have found that the common fields in that area were inclosed in 1790

 

as summarised earlier in this thread by IgglePiggle:

 

The political classes systematically remove any viable lifestyle for the poor, then bitch about them being "benefit scroungers".

 

Where the excess Entitlement Rooms are located, there may be some demand supply.

 

fixed. when you have forced scarcity to such an extent, houses just get built in the few places they are permitted, even if it is a flood plain.

 

also interesting that you use the term ‘Entitlement’ in relation to landless peasants, rather than to titled descendents of Norman aristocracy.

 

I can understand some jealousy towards the rich, but confiscating their estates in the middle of nowhere is not going to solve a problem of insufficient supply in London

 

but it is not ‘their estates’, it is simply large areas from which the peasantry are repelled by state violence.

 

You simply said the the government should squeeze the rich instead.

 

no, I do not advocate the government doing anything. government control of people's whereabouts is the problem here (see my previous line)

 

"This idea of forcing people to give up an Entitlement on an "extra room", no longer needed.

You may have a hard time explaining why this is nonsense. You haven't even tried that.

 

yes I have. it is nonsense both morally and practically.

 

morally, these people have already been FORCED off the land and FORCED in 101 other statist dictats into being excluded from having a viable lifestyle and now you want MORE FORCE to further restrict their access by another 70sqft or so. when the problem could be solved by removing the force already in place

 

practically, I’ve already posted that 186,685 such plots could fit on just one 300 acre estate and there are over 60 million acres in Britain, so it really doesn’t make one billionth of a chicken’s testicle of a difference.

 

I imagine you can find plenty of disagreement with your ideas, if you start shopping them around.

 

but, as I’ve told you many times, a consensus doesn’t make a fact. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, I do not advocate the government doing anything. government control of people's whereabouts is the problem here (see my previous line)

You seem to be completely inconsistent in your views - I don't get your logic.

 

From what you have posted before on various threads, I would have thought you would be AGAINST ENTITLEMENTS

of any kind, being paid by the government.

 

And in this case the government is reducing one, where not needed, and you are defending it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be completely inconsistent in your views - I don't get your logic.

...

 

views? it is a fact that government control of people’s whereabouts is the problem here.

 

whenever I post a fact you don’t like, you always say it is my ‘view’ :lol:

 

oh, and my posts are consistent, thank you.

 

...

From what you have posted before on various threads, I would have thought you would be AGAINST ENTITLEMENTS

of any kind, being paid by the government.

...

 

if you stick a wild rabbit in a cage, you will need to feed it else it will starve as you have restricted its natural resource access to the point where it cannot fend for itself.

 

same applies to humans and inclosure etc.

 

if you don’t want the expense of buying rabbit food, the obvious solution* is to release the rabbit, not to starve it to death in the cage. *unless you’re mentally disturbed or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay.

 

I am not sure what any of that meant. Perhaps it was late at night.

 

Let me try to be more clear:

Am I wrong, or have you often taken a position AGAINST government interference, and government subsidies?

If so, how is cutting back an Entitlement, when no longer needed, inconsistent with your oft-cited views here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay.

 

I am not sure what any of that meant. Perhaps it was late at night.

 

Let me try to be more clear:

Am I wrong, or have you often taken a position AGAINST government interference, and government subsidies?

If so, how is cutting back an Entitlement, when no longer needed, inconsistent with your oft-cited views here?

I think the point has been made pretty clearly, but...

 

All government actions create entitlement, not just what is given to the poor, also what is given to the rich. Human A inherits a thousand acre estate while Human B inherits nothing. Human A has benefitted massively, and Human B has been royally screwed. They go through life getting their differing levels of subsidies, Human A gets thousands in CAP payments, and rental payments etc., while Human B gets enough to feed and clothe himself (but if he tries to save any to better his situation that is halted until he has FA again). Times get tough, supposedly. Should society strip freeloading Human A of some of his entitlements, or strip freeloading Human B of any entitlements?

 

Even on a pragmatic level, the fundamental problem in our society is excessive concentration of wealth, stripping the very poor of the little they have is not going to do anything but exacerbate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×