Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

crash2006

Man Cuts His Throat Over Bed Room Tax

Recommended Posts

Yes, the job of government is to give everything to everybody in case a mentally ill person reacts badly.

Clearly George Osborne should have known that this mentally ill person would react to being given less free stuff in this way and should have maintained or even increased the level of free stuff accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government introduces a charge of £14 a week for an unused spare bedroom in your taxpayer-subsidised house.

Option A: Earn £14 more a week

Option B: Save £14 more a week

Option C: Move to smaller accommodation

Option D: Take in a lodger

Option E: Cut throat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government introduces a charge of £14 a week for an unused spare bedroom in your taxpayer-subsidised house.

Option A: Earn £14 more a week

Option B: Save £14 more a week

Option C: Move to smaller accommodation

Option D: Take in a lodger

Option E: Cut throat

Option E gets the best media coverage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government introduces a charge of £14 a week for an unused spare bedroom in your taxpayer-subsidised house.

Option A: Earn £14 more a week

Option B: Save £14 more a week

Option C: Move to smaller accommodation

Option D: Take in a lodger

Option E: Cut throat

Problem A; To earn £14 a week on top of your 'dole' - the minimum the government says you need to live on, one would have to earn £131.70, and that is before taking into account travel costs. At minimum wage that could be 21 to 27 hours of work, and that is before taking into travel costs (which could easily and most likely exceed £14).

Problem B; It is hard to save on the - the minimum the government says you need to live on. It's the minimum costs of living - much like housing benefit determines the minimum cost of rent, the lowest rate of dole, determines to lowest living costs.

Problem C; There isn't enough smaller accommodation in some areas. Whilst most of the country is trying to deal with immigration and overcrowding, some parts are still trying to recover, suffering, or still suffering from emigration. In some parts of the country, young people (who would no doubt start families), are being moved out of family accommodation along with others, and there are boarded up homes and homeless people.

The policy wouldn't be so bad if it was enacted in a sensible manner. Let people swap - overcrowded and undercrowded, encourage it with the bedroom tax, if needs be.

But in areas of low housing demand. Evicting people and ending up with empty homes and homeless people is crazy.

Perhaps we should be building modular homes, so that as soon as a person in a household dies, their clip-on shipping container can be removed and redistributed by state as they see fit, within a week. And to ensure, nobody ever has more than the minimum amount of space one is required to live.

Problem D; Hard to get a lodger in areas of low housing demand. What you have to do is travel to the next town to find someone with his housing benefit 'going to waste' so to speak, and then claim it on his behalf to avoid the bedroom tax.

Problem E; Could result in serious injury or death. Might be a cry for help, might really want to do yourself in, might end up doing it, and that's no good. When fellow UK citizens are killing themselves and struggling to eat, because they find themselves unemployed, perhaps we have to change the way our society is run, and ensure wealth transfers are from the wealthier to the poorest, rather than from the poorest to the wealthiest - via land and money monopoly.

I disagree with the notion that social housing is subsidised.

Full time working social tenants work some 2000 hours per year and can be paying one third of their income in rent. That's some 666 hours per year.

How many hours of labour do you think go into building and maintaning a house?

How many hours of labour should a man pay for a roof over his head? Should it be based on the production cost of the house?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem A; To earn £14 a week on top of your 'dole' - the minimum the government says you need to live on, one would have to earn £131.70, and that is before taking into account travel costs. At minimum wage that could be 21 to 27 hours of work, and that is before taking into travel costs (which could easily and most likely exceed £14).

Problem B; It is hard to save on the - the minimum the government says you need to live on. It's the minimum costs of living - much like housing benefit determines the minimum cost of rent, the lowest rate of dole, determines to lowest living costs.

Problem C; There isn't enough smaller accommodation in some areas. Whilst most of the country is trying to deal with immigration and overcrowding, some parts are still trying to recover, suffering, or still suffering from emigration. In some parts of the country, young people (who would no doubt start families), are being moved out of family accommodation along with others, and there are boarded up homes and homeless people.

The policy wouldn't be so bad if it was enacted in a sensible manner. Let people swap - overcrowded and undercrowded, encourage it with the bedroom tax, if needs be.

But in areas of low housing demand. Evicting people and ending up with empty homes and homeless people is crazy.

Perhaps we should be building modular homes, so that as soon as a person in a household dies, their clip-on shipping container can be removed and redistributed by state as they see fit, within a week. And to ensure, nobody ever has more than the minimum amount of space one is required to live.

Problem D; Hard to get a lodger in areas of low housing demand. What you have to do is travel to the next town to find someone with his housing benefit 'going to waste' so to speak, and then claim it on his behalf to avoid the bedroom tax.

Problem E; Could result in serious injury or death. Might be a cry for help, might really want to do yourself in, might end up doing it, and that's no good. When fellow UK citizens are killing themselves and struggling to eat, because they find themselves unemployed, perhaps we have to change the way our society is run, and ensure wealth transfers are from the wealthier to the poorest, rather than from the poorest to the wealthiest - via land and money monopoly.

I disagree with the notion that social housing is subsidised.

Full time working social tenants work some 2000 hours per year and can be paying one third of their income in rent. That's some 666 hours per year.

How many hours of labour do you think go into building and maintaning a house?

How many hours of labour should a man pay for a roof over his head? Should it be based on the production cost of the house?

Excellent, rational, well thought out post.

You ought to be doing IDS job, since he is incapable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem A; To earn £14 a week on top of your 'dole' - the minimum the government says you need to live on, one would have to earn £131.70, and that is before taking into account travel costs. At minimum wage that could be 21 to 27 hours of work, and that is before taking into travel costs (which could easily and most likely exceed £14).

Problem B; It is hard to save on the - the minimum the government says you need to live on. It's the minimum costs of living - much like housing benefit determines the minimum cost of rent, the lowest rate of dole, determines to lowest living costs.

Problem C; There isn't enough smaller accommodation in some areas. Whilst most of the country is trying to deal with immigration and overcrowding, some parts are still trying to recover, suffering, or still suffering from emigration. In some parts of the country, young people (who would no doubt start families), are being moved out of family accommodation along with others, and there are boarded up homes and homeless people.

The policy wouldn't be so bad if it was enacted in a sensible manner. Let people swap - overcrowded and undercrowded, encourage it with the bedroom tax, if needs be.

But in areas of low housing demand. Evicting people and ending up with empty homes and homeless people is crazy.

Perhaps we should be building modular homes, so that as soon as a person in a household dies, their clip-on shipping container can be removed and redistributed by state as they see fit, within a week. And to ensure, nobody ever has more than the minimum amount of space one is required to live.

Problem D; Hard to get a lodger in areas of low housing demand. What you have to do is travel to the next town to find someone with his housing benefit 'going to waste' so to speak, and then claim it on his behalf to avoid the bedroom tax.

Problem E; Could result in serious injury or death. Might be a cry for help, might really want to do yourself in, might end up doing it, and that's no good. When fellow UK citizens are killing themselves and struggling to eat, because they find themselves unemployed, perhaps we have to change the way our society is run, and ensure wealth transfers are from the wealthier to the poorest, rather than from the poorest to the wealthiest - via land and money monopoly.

I disagree with the notion that social housing is subsidised.

Full time working social tenants work some 2000 hours per year and can be paying one third of their income in rent. That's some 666 hours per year.

How many hours of labour do you think go into building and maintaning a house?

How many hours of labour should a man pay for a roof over his head? Should it be based on the production cost of the house?

This is a brilliant post.

Anyone who thinks the situation many find themselves in because of the Bedroom Tax is simple is, well, simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just done the calculation for a friend, their bedroom tax is impossible to pay working on part time hours. By the time they have earned enough after Marginal Deduction Rates (MDRs) of benefit, they would no longer receive any benefit at all as their rent would be paid in full from wages and there would be no outstanding rent for bedroom tax to be charged upon.

So a £20.37/week charge would not be some 3 hours of work to clear.

They would have to work a minimum* of 26.84 hours and break free of benefits to avoid their income being decreased by a single penny due to the bedroom tax. (The amount of labour hours would increase in October/April, as above inflation rent rises kick in, whilst the minimum wage decease in real tems - below inflation increase)

*- and this is before taking in to travel to work costs, work clothing and food costs, and also NI of 12% for any hours over the first 24!

Pretty soon, and no doubt already, many will have to work over 30 hours and claim working tax credit in order to pay their bedroom tax and keep their income above the minimum benefits level of a person in a 1bed property or bedsit.

Work 30 hours to claim in-work benefits in order to counteract a out-of-work benefits tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, rational, well thought out post.

You ought to be doing IDS job, since he is incapable.

I'm too busy peasant farming with hand tools, paying a land value tax of some £800 per acre, out of my dole.

If others paid land value tax to the same degree, we could raise some £50 billion per year. That'd be about £50 per year for a person with a 3bed 1930 semi upon a 1/16th of an acre plot. (Much cheaper than the council tax).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, are you saying that he

(1) couldn't get a lodger for £63 a month? really?

(2) couldn't get hardship funds from the council for the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem A; To earn £14 a week on top of your 'dole' - the minimum the government says you need to live on, one would have to earn £131.70, and that is before taking into account travel costs. At minimum wage that could be 21 to 27 hours of work, and that is before taking into travel costs (which could easily and most likely exceed £14).

Problem B; It is hard to save on the - the minimum the government says you need to live on. It's the minimum costs of living - much like housing benefit determines the minimum cost of rent, the lowest rate of dole, determines to lowest living costs.

Problem C; There isn't enough smaller accommodation in some areas. Whilst most of the country is trying to deal with immigration and overcrowding, some parts are still trying to recover, suffering, or still suffering from emigration. In some parts of the country, young people (who would no doubt start families), are being moved out of family accommodation along with others, and there are boarded up homes and homeless people.

The policy wouldn't be so bad if it was enacted in a sensible manner. Let people swap - overcrowded and undercrowded, encourage it with the bedroom tax, if needs be.

But in areas of low housing demand. Evicting people and ending up with empty homes and homeless people is crazy.

Perhaps we should be building modular homes, so that as soon as a person in a household dies, their clip-on shipping container can be removed and redistributed by state as they see fit, within a week. And to ensure, nobody ever has more than the minimum amount of space one is required to live.

Problem D; Hard to get a lodger in areas of low housing demand. What you have to do is travel to the next town to find someone with his housing benefit 'going to waste' so to speak, and then claim it on his behalf to avoid the bedroom tax.

Problem E; Could result in serious injury or death. Might be a cry for help, might really want to do yourself in, might end up doing it, and that's no good. When fellow UK citizens are killing themselves and struggling to eat, because they find themselves unemployed, perhaps we have to change the way our society is run, and ensure wealth transfers are from the wealthier to the poorest, rather than from the poorest to the wealthiest - via land and money monopoly.

I disagree with the notion that social housing is subsidised.

Full time working social tenants work some 2000 hours per year and can be paying one third of their income in rent. That's some 666 hours per year.

How many hours of labour do you think go into building and maintaning a house?

How many hours of labour should a man pay for a roof over his head? Should it be based on the production cost of the house?

Interesting post, however as a single childless man who has rented privately for most of my life my immediate reaction to people moaning about a slight increase in their

subsidised housing costs is fukc 'em, none of them seemed to give a toss when I was homeless.

Judging by the amount of new Mercs and beemers outside council housing round here most of them can afford it.

However I fully agree it all comes back to Liz and The Firm distorting everones lives, they are a curse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 243 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.