The Bedroom Tax - The big lie

[Ducado]

Still waiting for someone to justify this 25 percent subsidy to home owners no takers it would appear

If it's the 25% reduction in Council Tax you're talking about then that's applied to whoever's paying the Council Tax for the property. I'm currently renting a 1bedroom place and as I'm paying the bills get the discount despite not owning the place. From what I gather the discount is there because they calculate the Council tax based on 2 or more people in a property. (Might be wrong on the reasoning)

So why is it ok for you to get a 25 percent discount from the taxpayers for being a single occupant of a private property,but an occupant in social housing would be penalized by 14 percent per room over and above the one bedroom this government has decided is necessary. This is not an attack on you I just want the individuals on here who agree with the bedroom tax to explain why it's ok to subsidize one set of individuals but penalize a different set.I am particularly interested in their justification for the second home subsidy when the said home is unoccupied,unfortunately the silence is deafening

May be because one is tax and the other is rent you seem to be getting mixed up on that point

 

[Pieblue]

If it's the 25% reduction in Council Tax you're talking about then that's applied to whoever's paying the Council Tax for the property. I'm currently renting a 1bedroom place and as I'm paying the bills get the discount despite not owning the place. From what I gather the discount is there because they calculate the Council tax based on 2 or more people in a property. (Might be wrong on the reasoning)

So why is it ok for you to get a 25 percent discount from the taxpayers for being a single occupant of a private property,but an occupant in social housing would be penalized by 14 percent per room over and above the one bedroom this government has decided is necessary. This is not an attack on you I just want the individuals on here who agree with the bedroom tax to explain why it's ok to subsidize one set of individuals but penalize a different set.I am particularly interested in their justification for the second home subsidy when the said home is unoccupied,unfortunately the silence is deafening

May be because one is tax and the other is rent you seem to be getting mixed up on that point

What, behave yourself is that your justification I will rest the case after that pathetic attempt.

 

[Ducado]

So why is it ok for you to get a 25 percent discount from the taxpayers for being a single occupant of a private property,but an occupant in social housing would be penalized by 14 percent per room over and above the one bedroom this government has decided is necessary. This is not an attack on you I just want the individuals on here who agree with the bedroom tax to explain why it's ok to subsidize one set of individuals but penalize a different set.I am particularly interested in their justification for the second home subsidy when the said home is unoccupied,unfortunately the silence is deafening

May be because one is tax and the other is rent you seem to be getting mixed up on that point

What, behave yourself is that your justification I will rest the case after that pathetic attempt.

Eh? I was pointing out something you fail to understand one is a tax and the other is rent so there is no comparison perhaps that's why no one took you on because your point is not valid

 

[Pieblue]

May be because one is tax and the other is rent you seem to be getting mixed up on that point

What, behave yourself is that your justification I will rest the case after that pathetic attempt.

Eh? I was pointing out something you fail to understand one is a tax and the other is rent so there is no comparison perhaps that's why no one took you on because your point is not valid

So you feel that it is valid for a taxpayer living in social housing to subsidise by 25 percent a home owner with either an unoccupied second home and or an under occupied primary home,whilst at the same time for that same taxpayer in social housing to be penalised by 14 percent for having an extra bedroom. You're reasoning being based upon one being a tax and the other rent.Although it would be more accurate to describe it as a subsidy not rent.plenty of posters on this thread have expressed an opinion along the lines of,if you can't pay for the extra bedroom then you can f##k off and down size.Well maybe our taxpayer in his social housing might feel that if a home owner needs a 25 percent tax break to pay his council tax on his second home,or because his primary home is under occupied then perhaps he should either sell the second home or get a f#####g lodger

 

[dazdon]

So you feel that it is valid for a taxpayer living in social housing to subsidise by 25 percent a home owner with either an unoccupied second home and or an under occupied primary home,whilst at the same time for that same taxpayer in social housing to be penalised by 14 percent for having an extra bedroom. You're reasoning being based upon one being a tax and the other rent.Although it would be more accurate to describe it as a subsidy not rent.plenty of posters on this thread have expressed an opinion along the lines of,if you can't pay for the extra bedroom then you can f##k off and down size.Well maybe our taxpayer in his social housing might feel that if a home owner needs a 25 percent tax break to pay his council tax on his second home,or because his primary home is under occupied then perhaps he should either sell the second home or get a f#####g lodger

To be fair you've got a very good point there.

Arguing over the semantics of tax and rent isn't really explaining the unfairness of it all.

 

[The Northern Baptist]

Whether you own your own home or rent, if you are the sole adult in the property you will get 25% discount on the COUNCIL TAX bill.

It's completely different to the Under Occupancy charge applied to claimants Housing benefit

 

[johnmc]

So tax and rent are the same now. Basically, because it suits an argument.

I disagree with the bedroom tax in a lot of instances, and agree with it in others. It needs to be imposed in a way fitting to the circumstances of each case and not a blanket approach but that would take too much work.

 

[penalty spot]

I recommend a book called "chavs the demonization of the working class" by owen jones just a suggestion it opened my eyes for sure. Only a tenner well spent.

 

[metalblue]

What, behave yourself is that your justification I will rest the case after that pathetic attempt.

Eh? I was pointing out something you fail to understand one is a tax and the other is rent so there is no comparison perhaps that's why no one took you on because your point is not valid

So you feel that it is valid for a taxpayer living in social housing to subsidise by 25 percent a home owner with either an unoccupied second home and or an under occupied primary home,whilst at the same time for that same taxpayer in social housing to be penalised by 14 percent for having an extra bedroom. You're reasoning being based upon one being a tax and the other rent.Although it would be more accurate to describe it as a subsidy not rent.plenty of posters on this thread have expressed an opinion along the lines of,if you can't pay for the extra bedroom then you can f##k off and down size.Well maybe our taxpayer in his social housing might feel that if a home owner needs a 25 percent tax break to pay his council tax on his second home,or because his primary home is under occupied then perhaps he should either sell the second home or get a f#####g lodger

I don't get why you are drawing parallels with the two. Do you think aligning size of social housing to number of occupants unreasonable? Personally I don't, I think it is absolutely the right thing to do, what is wrong is the way it is being done but that doesn't mean the principle is flawed.

 

[Mustard Dave]

I recommend a book called "chavs the demonization of the working class" by owen jones just a suggestion it opened my eyes for sure. Only a tenner well spent.

From what I gather from reviews (I would not part with a hard-earned tenner for that lefty drip), the book discusses Jade Goody (shit-thick racist bully), Shannon Matthews' family (bunch of shiftless child-abusing scum-bags and a rag nonce) and the little toe-rags that smashed up our cities because the rozzers shot a gun toting drug dealer.

What qualifies a pinko Oxford educated son of a university lecturer to speak for the working class? I am working class and I take great offence every time somebody suggests this sort of vermin is of equal social status to me. They are not working class - they are underclass and should be kept in cages in Piccadilly Gardens where decent people can jab them through the bars with sharpened sticks.