Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

[pompeyfaith]

The Government has failed in its attempt to prevent legal action against its controversial Bedroom Tax, after a judicial review of the decision was granted permission to proceed in the High Court, lawyers Leigh Day have announced.

A Judicial Review of the Government's controversial decision to deny housing benefit to people who have more than one bedroom if they are single or a couple will now be heard in early May.

Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

[Pixie]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

This tax needs to be scrapped asap.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

Yea just go back to basics. Single person gets 1 bed flat. Couple get 1 bed flat. Couple with 2 kids get a 2 / 3 bed house (if available)

Chavs get whatever's left in the slums where no fucker wants to live. Houses of 4 beds should be cut off point. That's it.

Sorted

[Pixie]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

I will agree to disagree with you Niddy

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

I will agree to disagree with you Niddy

Whatever

Why should a single person have a 3 bed house (council house)?

Anyone that says that is acceptable is talking out their arse - anyone.

Fact.

Even if someone rents privately, but claims benefits, there should be a cut off point.

[helmsman]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

Yea just go back to basics. Single person gets 1 bed flat. Couple get 1 bed flat. Couple with 2 kids get a 2 / 3 bed house (if available)

Chavs get whatever's left in the slums where no fucker wants to live. Houses of 4 beds should be cut off point. That's it.

Sorted

In an ideal world

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

Whatever

Why should a single person have a 3 bed house (council house)?

Anyone that says that is acceptable is talking out their arse - anyone.

Fact.

Even if someone rents privately, but claims benefits, there should be a cut off point.

A bit simplistic there Niddy..A single person in a 3 bed house (how many exactly ?)..would no doubt love to move to a 1 bedroom cheaper property...but if there aren't any available....?

2nd point, private tenants receiving benefit...what 'cut off point' do you mean...a leg, an arm...maybe a head ? private tenants do not get benefits for any 'excess' bedrooms they may have anyway plus, the benefit paid is based only on the bottom 30% of rented properties in their 'area' anyway...this is nearly always less than the actual rent paid.

Also, seeing as these 'cuts' are designed to reduce the deficit..it is ironic that it could cost a lot more than it saves. The Govt argue it will encourage people to work or work more hours to make up the shortfall..which is ok to say but the reality is somewhat different.

So when you look objectively at the whole thing, it becomes quite apparent that it is a political ideology at force here...nothing else.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

I do look objectively at it, but what I think matters little.

I am anti benefits, period. I would rather they culled them. A lot of people hate my POV on it but that's all it is, my personal opinion.

They don't do what they were designed to do, people abuse them, immigrants get more than nationals - it's a feckin joke from start to end and no matter who argues back, tell me I am wrong?

I know loads of single mums in 3+ bed houses. Instead of bunging social scroat housing on nice estates to socially integrate them and make them not feel left out, they ought to spend that cash on blocks of flats. Sorry but like us, we bought in a nice area and worked hard for 25 years to get the house of our dreams to find out that 10 houses are for social welfare purposes - I mean fuck right off. Why should a scroat on benefits get to live somewhere nice just cos of Human Rights? It's a joke.

The best thing to happen was Tories getting in power cos they will strip all the shit from the damage caused by Labour and their free-giving to the spongers.

There are jobs out there, my advice - they should go get one and see what it is like working

Scrap all benefits - force those that CAN work, to work. Clearly those with disabilities get help, but that would be managed by casework as opposed to open market benefit claiming. For instance these food stamps, they need to replace benefit with them. I hate the fact my tax pays for scoats to smoke, drink, go on holiday etc when us workers can't even enjoy the same privileges.

* and breathe Niddy.....

[Spent2much]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

i think the government are evil, we have friends who worked all their lives , bought a house because it was cheaper than renting , two years later he was made redundant wife had a breakdown , they had their house repossessed now living back with parents as nowhere to live . The reason they had the house takes was because on £111.45 a week and out of that trying to pay 30 quid mortgage interest it was a toss up of either eating keeping warm or paying the rest of the interest because the government lowered the amount of help for MIS while unemployed . This is just another example of why cutting benefits is wrong.

[Spent2much]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

I do look objectively at it, but what I think matters little.

I am anti benefits, period. I would rather they culled them. A lot of people hate my POV on it but that's all it is, my personal opinion.

They don't do what they were designed to do, people abuse them, immigrants get more than nationals - it's a feckin joke from start to end and no matter who argues back, tell me I am wrong?

I know loads of single mums in 3+ bed houses. Instead of bunging social scroat housing on nice estates to socially integrate them and make them not feel left out, they ought to spend that cash on blocks of flats. Sorry but like us, we bought in a nice area and worked hard for 25 years to get the house of our dreams to find out that 10 houses are for social welfare purposes - I mean fuck right off. Why should a scroat on benefits get to live somewhere nice just cos of Human Rights? It's a joke.

The best thing to happen was Tories getting in power cos they will strip all the shit from the damage caused by Labour and their free-giving to the spongers.

There are jobs out there, my advice - they should go get one and see what it is like working

Scrap all benefits - force those that CAN work, to work. Clearly those with disabilities get help, but that would be managed by casework as opposed to open market benefit claiming. For instance these food stamps, they need to replace benefit with them. I hate the fact my tax pays for scoats to smoke, drink, go on holiday etc when us workers can't even enjoy the same privileges.

* and breathe Niddy.....

niddy where are the jobs going to come from ? you know where i live and there are no jobs or decent jobs that can pay for a home and live a decent life, my hubby got a cleaning job on an evening along side the business i also clean houses now and we are fortunate that our business is working well and the job is a boost , but if all benefits are cut where are the jobs ?

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

I come across this viewpoint quite a lot, but never from anyone who is unemployed, has disabilties, has a terminal sickness, is a lone parent struggling to bring up a family after the father has beggered off...or people who have been brought up to be poor by parents who didn't give a sheet...and a society that didn't give a sheet either ...

Perhaps when you consider the biggest element of the Welfare payments is old age pensions, we should scrap those too ? Scrap free healthcare, dental treatment, bus passes, maternity care, make cancer patients go to work...oh , hang on , they are doing that now...

I do agree with you in some respects...I would love it if no benefit payments were made due to working families receiving proper 'living' wages that pushed them above the benefit limit.

Maybe tax allowances that equated with a living wage too...how does it make sense to have a 'living wage' or even a minimum wage, then tax it ?

Maybe the benefit cut off rate of £7,600 pa should be considered too, anyone above that massive wage loses 65% of every £1 they earn...incentive to work ?

Pay everyone a decent hourly rate that they can live on, pay decent pensions for people to live on and you can cut the benefits bill.

As it is, employers making vast profits by paying crap wages are being subsidised by tax payers making up the wages through benefits. meanwhile they pay themselves massive salaries and pay out bonuses regardless of the fact it's these dick heads who have knackered the economy in the first place..

Both ends of the scale are broken...too much wealth is in the hands of too few people, yes reward hard work, give people a bonus for exceptional ability..but let's have a sense of proportion...the bulk of the spending power in this country is by the working classes...put a decent wage in their pockets and they will spend it...boosting the local traders, boosting factory demand and lifting the economy out of the doldrums....

If you simply ignore the problem, it will, one day...come back to bite you...

Amen

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

I don't have a magic wand, nor all the answers. I only have my opinion.

However opening the door to approximately another 100,000 immigrants won't help will it.... people forget we are an island, and small at that

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

Ok, to set the record straight, lets look at two totally different arguments, then you'll see where I am coming with my views.

1. 18 year old girl (or younger) has a kid.
This is a prime example of parents funding. Why should the taxpayer fund this kind of lark when the lazy whore is unlikely to have paid a penny into the system? I believe in such instances the parents should be responsible, bring it up as part of society that if you want to be a slag then your mummy and daddy will be funding you - NOT the state.

That itself will change that side of things. Parents will warn kids not to have kids, or they are financially liable. No housing or nothing would be offered. Certainly not till you've paid in, so instead of retaining the JSA dual level where you operate within RITY's to allow 6 months of cont based JSA, increase that to say 2yrs for each 2yr you worked so in any 6 year period you could claim JSA for 2 of those without sanction.

2. Pensioner/Disabled Person etc.
The benefits should be paid to these groups, to an extent without question. Medical records should take precedence over the paid service contracts that currently review sick people (atos etc). I totally respect my elders and firmly believe without them we would be speaking German today so for that I am eternally grateful. I feel that the youngsters of today (especially those born in the late 80's/early 90's) take the piss.

That's my view. Love it or hate it.

I am ex DWP and was a decision maker as well as personal adviser and I suspended nearly 85% of my claimant portfolio. It all depends on the adviser you get as well, some are like me (anti sponger) whilst others pander to Labours silly notions. Let me say, I always suspended a claimant that wore posh clothes/top end trainers and let their top end phone ring..... Sorry but fuck right off. Get a job.

[CAPS ESC]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

Where the benefit system is working extremely well is for government.

It gives them even more ammunition in their 'DIVIDE & RULE' strategy,

keep the masses squabbling with each other and they won't be united in social-political rebellion

just like this thread

All opinions are valid....

but only as opinions

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Government lose Bedroom Tax challenge decision

there are a lot of misconceptions about the 'lazy benefit scroungers'...the vast majority of people receiving benefits are either retired people, sick and disabled people or people working short hours or on poor wages...ie wages below a living income.

The numbers who are actually not working for no valid reason (other than there are no jobs) is less than 10% of the total..

By all means target this group...but why use a sledge hammer to crack a nut and impose cuts on everybody ? It's like Cameron saying some families in London receive £50,000 per year in Housing benefit (and this was confirmed later as being 212 families)..so what does he do...cut all 3 million claimants housing benefits !

It's not even the fault of these folk either...maggie sold off most of the social housing stock, neither Govt has replaced it, so Private landlords fill the void..and of course we all know about private landlords in an unregulated business...

Cause and effect...Govt Policy has caused the problem, and yet still there is no mass house building program.

Maybe we should privatise government ?

using isolated incidents to justify a policy affecting millions, is vindictive Tory Govt. and no way to run a country...would you run a business that way...?

Pay a living wage, lift people out of benefits...money in their pockets and secure jobs will create a demand for new homes and a better lifestyle. deal with the 'shirkers' who will not work by all means, but spare those who are in fact victims of decades of mismanagement by successive Governments...