'Bedroom tax' warning to hundreds of Wycombe tenants (From Bucks Free Press)

"Red Kite, which took over 6,700 council homes in December, has now calculated 555 homes fall into this category."


And the rest.

What a fantastic idea!!! This should stop those who sub let out as well. At last, some sense is being put into the system. Wait for all the bleeding heart do gooders to squeal about this one!!!

spot on - even if it has taken years for them to seem the obvious

Social housing should be based on need. Therefore as childen grow up and leave home, vacating a bedroom, the need for a larger house is reduced and hence it may be suitable for the occupiers to downsize. This would release larger properties for those with growing families and help reduce overcrowding etc.
Is this a sensible example of 'nudge' politics?

Has any one considered the elderly who have been in a property for years and have many happy memories of the house and area. Their children grew up there and their life is centred there as well. Most will have a well established support network of family and friends. This can also apply to the disabled. If these people are stripped of all of this the psychological response is usually not good.

priestess29 wrote:
Has any one considered the elderly who have been in a property for years and have many happy memories of the house and area. Their children grew up there and their life is centred there as well. Most will have a well established support network of family and friends. This can also apply to the disabled. If these people are stripped of all of this the psychological response is usually not good.

Why should this be any different to some one having to down size from a house owned by them or even their family, for generations just to make ends meet because they have bought their own house etc? They have to so why not the council tennants?

There will be unforeseen circumstances. There always are with schemes dreamed up to 'save money' by short-sighted and inept politicians.
.
The non-council tenants people should not breathe a sigh of relief yet. .
.
Neither should private property owners , who may find they eventually will pay extra tax for having spare bedrooms in their own properties.
.
Please note governments and its associated bureaucracies only survive and thrive by taxing thew majority of people under their 'rule' - which ever way they can.
.
It does not matter whether they are left-wing , right-wing or something else. They all do it. And the more layers of government - the more taxes as someone has to pay for collecting and administering (re-distributing ?) it all.
.
It is like a chinese dragon eating its own tail until everything is gone . It can't help it.
.
Perhaps an external gastric band would help.

THIS COUNTRY IS FAST BECOMING A SOCIALIST STATE THAT OUR ANCESTORS FOUGHT AGAINST IN 2 WORLD WARS....
I SUGGEST IF THIS LAW APPLIES TO YOU THAT YOU START VOICING YOUR CONCERNS. WHY SHOULD THE POOER SECTIONS OF OUR ONCE BELOVED COUNTRY BE FACED WITH EVICTION FROM THE ONE PART OF THEIR LIVES THAT OFFER A SHELTER IN THE EVER TROUBLED STORM BREWING?
THIS COUNTRY IS A DISGRACE AND I BLAME SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS WHO HAS SYSTEMATICALLY DIVULGED ITSELF FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR REGULATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ALLOWING THE RICH TO GET RICHER AND THE DIVIDE BETWEEN LESS WELL OF SECTIONS OF THE POPULOUS TO WIDEN.
WE ALL NEED TO STAND UP TO THESE CHANGES AND "DO A FRANCE"
JUDGE

The Judge wrote:
THIS COUNTRY IS FAST BECOMING A SOCIALIST STATE THAT OUR ANCESTORS FOUGHT AGAINST IN 2 WORLD WARS....
I SUGGEST IF THIS LAW APPLIES TO YOU THAT YOU START VOICING YOUR CONCERNS. WHY SHOULD THE POOER SECTIONS OF OUR ONCE BELOVED COUNTRY BE FACED WITH EVICTION FROM THE ONE PART OF THEIR LIVES THAT OFFER A SHELTER IN THE EVER TROUBLED STORM BREWING?
THIS COUNTRY IS A DISGRACE AND I BLAME SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS WHO HAS SYSTEMATICALLY DIVULGED ITSELF FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR REGULATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ALLOWING THE RICH TO GET RICHER AND THE DIVIDE BETWEEN LESS WELL OF SECTIONS OF THE POPULOUS TO WIDEN.
WE ALL NEED TO STAND UP TO THESE CHANGES AND "DO A FRANCE"
JUDGE

What are you talking about?

"THIS COUNTRY IS FAST BECOMING A SOCIALIST STATE THAT OUR ANCESTORS FOUGHT AGAINST IN 2 WORLD WARS...."

No our ancestors didnt fight against socialists it was facists they fought against and alongside the socialists!!

THIS COUNTRY IS A DISGRACE AND I BLAME SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS WHO HAS SYSTEMATICALLY DIVULGED ITSELF FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR REGULATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ALLOWING THE RICH TO GET RICHER AND THE DIVIDE BETWEEN LESS WELL OF SECTIONS OF THE POPULOUS TO WIDEN.

Make your mind up, you either think we are becoming a socialist state OR we are becoming a capitalist state!

tigeran wrote:

priestess29 wrote:
Has any one considered the elderly who have been in a property for years and have many happy memories of the house and area. Their children grew up there and their life is centred there as well. Most will have a well established support network of family and friends. This can also apply to the disabled. If these people are stripped of all of this the psychological response is usually not good.

Why should this be any different to some one having to down size from a house owned by them or even their family, for generations just to make ends meet because they have bought their own house etc? They have to so why not the council tennants?

Because it's heartless to take an old or vulnerable person away from all that's familiar to them, their home, their memories just because there is a lack of social housing. Once again the poor are being made to pay for the screw ups of variuos governments.

sai-diva wrote:

tigeran wrote:

priestess29 wrote:
Has any one considered the elderly who have been in a property for years and have many happy memories of the house and area. Their children grew up there and their life is centred there as well. Most will have a well established support network of family and friends. This can also apply to the disabled. If these people are stripped of all of this the psychological response is usually not good.

Why should this be any different to some one having to down size from a house owned by them or even their family, for generations just to make ends meet because they have bought their own house etc? They have to so why not the council tennants?

Because it's heartless to take an old or vulnerable person away from all that's familiar to them, their home, their memories just because there is a lack of social housing. Once again the poor are being made to pay for the screw ups of variuos governments.

Oh well not to worry. I think it is a brilliant idea that should be enforced greatly.
Like I said home OWNERS have to so tough luck on the tennants I say. Bring it on!!

Sai-Diva

Red Kite are well aware of what goes on, at one point they nearly re-branded as Red Light.

It is a Prostitution Tax in all but name. Why should these scrubbers avoid tax, do they think they're investment bankers or something?

sai-diva wrote:

tigeran wrote:

priestess29 wrote:
Has any one considered the elderly who have been in a property for years and have many happy memories of the house and area. Their children grew up there and their life is centred there as well. Most will have a well established support network of family and friends. This can also apply to the disabled. If these people are stripped of all of this the psychological response is usually not good.

Why should this be any different to some one having to down size from a house owned by them or even their family, for generations just to make ends meet because they have bought their own house etc? They have to so why not the council tennants?

Because it's heartless to take an old or vulnerable person away from all that's familiar to them, their home, their memories just because there is a lack of social housing. Once again the poor are being made to pay for the screw ups of variuos governments.

That's what we need - varicose governments. The more debilitating , sclerotic and painful the better.
.
It might just make them look before they leap and be a bit more thoughtful , considerate and creative in their behaviour.
.
At the moment we are governed / administered by just 'Sick and Self-obsessed' people who have not got a clue about ordinary peoples' lives.
.
That's because they've never experienced it and have absolutely no intention of doing so - they stick with and in their own little gangs and operate at an entirely different level to the normal public.

Subject: Mankind
Lesson1: The ruling class and the rest
Summary: today JB and his pals learn all about how horrible people at the top make like miserable for all the nice people.
Homework: colour in this picture of Robin Hood, who was a lovely man, do not use too much green crayon.

J B Blackett wrote:
There will be unforeseen circumstances. There always are with schemes dreamed up to 'save money' by short-sighted and inept politicians.
.
The non-council tenants people should not breathe a sigh of relief yet. .
.
Neither should private property owners , who may find they eventually will pay extra tax for having spare bedrooms in their own properties.
.
Please note governments and its associated bureaucracies only survive and thrive by taxing thew majority of people under their 'rule' - which ever way they can.
.
It does not matter whether they are left-wing , right-wing or something else. They all do it. And the more layers of government - the more taxes as someone has to pay for collecting and administering (re-distributing ?) it all.
.
It is like a chinese dragon eating its own tail until everything is gone . It can't help it.
.
Perhaps an external gastric band would help.

There will be unforeseen circumstances. Is these then a reason to do nothing? Have you ever thought of becoming involved in politics? You constantly berate politicians for the decisions they make but I rarely see any coherent alternative suggested. You would make an excellent opposition politician.

If social housing is to meet the needs of the many then this seems like a simple, logical and fair policy to free resources.

As for private property owners (and by extension private landlords), they are already paying extra based on the value of their house, for which the number of bedrooms is a contributory factor.

sai-diva wrote:

tigeran wrote:

priestess29 wrote:
Has any one considered the elderly who have been in a property for years and have many happy memories of the house and area. Their children grew up there and their life is centred there as well. Most will have a well established support network of family and friends. This can also apply to the disabled. If these people are stripped of all of this the psychological response is usually not good.

Why should this be any different to some one having to down size from a house owned by them or even their family, for generations just to make ends meet because they have bought their own house etc? They have to so why not the council tennants?

Because it's heartless to take an old or vulnerable person away from all that's familiar to them, their home, their memories just because there is a lack of social housing. Once again the poor are being made to pay for the screw ups of variuos governments.

And is it heartless to tax everyone else struggling to pay a mortgage and stand on their own two feet or saving to pay a deposit and get on the housing ladder.

Whilst some elderly are vulnerable equating the elderly with the vulnerable is just patronising. This is just using emotive language to hammer home a tenuous point.

I cannot believe how many bigoted, egotistical, Sanctimonious people there are on here.

There is not one microbe of empathy for the emotional impact this will have on people. and please don't repeat that tripe about 'private individuals have to downsize so why not tenants?' Why because private individuals have money invested in their house, they can choose when to sell and where to move to. This option is not offered to the 'tenant' they are limited on where they can live and where they can move to + don't forget that people who own their own homes find over the years of ownership their mortgage goes down - becoming less of a percentage of their income. The tenant is not afforded that luxury, each year of tenancy their rent goes up and therefore becomes a larger percentage of their income, in some cases as much as a mortgage would cost.
Rather than say these people should move out and let larger families move in, why not say to people don't have more children than you have rooms for!! live within your means. As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well. By the way it takes two to whore, if the men hadn't come to your mum's house looking for sex then it wouldn't have happened.

FH Leveller wrote:

J B Blackett wrote:
There will be unforeseen circumstances. There always are with schemes dreamed up to 'save money' by short-sighted and inept politicians.
.
The non-council tenants people should not breathe a sigh of relief yet. .
.
Neither should private property owners , who may find they eventually will pay extra tax for having spare bedrooms in their own properties.
.
Please note governments and its associated bureaucracies only survive and thrive by taxing thew majority of people under their 'rule' - which ever way they can.
.
It does not matter whether they are left-wing , right-wing or something else. They all do it. And the more layers of government - the more taxes as someone has to pay for collecting and administering (re-distributing ?) it all.
.
It is like a chinese dragon eating its own tail until everything is gone . It can't help it.
.
Perhaps an external gastric band would help.

There will be unforeseen circumstances. Is these then a reason to do nothing? Have you ever thought of becoming involved in politics? You constantly berate politicians for the decisions they make but I rarely see any coherent alternative suggested. You would make an excellent opposition politician.

If social housing is to meet the needs of the many then this seems like a simple, logical and fair policy to free resources.

As for private property owners (and by extension private landlords), they are already paying extra based on the value of their house, for which the number of bedrooms is a contributory factor.

You are absolutely correct. I am about as franchised as the ordinary citizen of Chicago was when Al Capone ran that city.
.
So I can only criticize the way things are being done from the sidelines - and very subterraneanly unless there are 'repercussions'.
.
I am disinclined to join in with any of the gangs that now run this country as I do not wish to sup with the Devil.
.
Anyway I think I am still allowed to criticize politicians on a local paper. Or is that to be banned too ? Nothing , even that , would surprise me really.
.
I am sorry if I have denigrated any of your favourite politicians.. Unfortunately (for me) I don't have any
.

The Judge wrote:
THIS COUNTRY IS FAST BECOMING A SOCIALIST STATE THAT OUR ANCESTORS FOUGHT AGAINST IN 2 WORLD WARS....
I SUGGEST IF THIS LAW APPLIES TO YOU THAT YOU START VOICING YOUR CONCERNS. WHY SHOULD THE POOER SECTIONS OF OUR ONCE BELOVED COUNTRY BE FACED WITH EVICTION FROM THE ONE PART OF THEIR LIVES THAT OFFER A SHELTER IN THE EVER TROUBLED STORM BREWING?
THIS COUNTRY IS A DISGRACE AND I BLAME SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS WHO HAS SYSTEMATICALLY DIVULGED ITSELF FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR REGULATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ALLOWING THE RICH TO GET RICHER AND THE DIVIDE BETWEEN LESS WELL OF SECTIONS OF THE POPULOUS TO WIDEN.
WE ALL NEED TO STAND UP TO THESE CHANGES AND "DO A FRANCE"
JUDGE

THIS COUNTRY IS FAST BECOMING A SOCIALIST STATE THAT OUR ANCESTORS FOUGHT AGAINST IN 2 WORLD WARS....

Why did the ones in 1945 vote in an Old Labour socialist government then?

Yes - that is what the history books show. But there are socialist and National Socialists and some people might not understand there is quite a difference.
.
And it showed that the 1945 government introduced the original unadulterated National Health and free dentistry. Also universal free education for all and the nationalization of various major industries.
.
And then that lot got thrown out 5 years later.

Switzerland, you seem a little stressed.

Unfortunately there are no special prizes or recognition in this world for doing well for yourself.

Who is to say that, given their respective origins, a mother raising a child in a two bedroom Red Light property has not done equally well for herself as Roman Abramovich, who had a corporation handed to him at a tender age and was free to sell to the highest bidder, netting a huge personal fortune.

Yes, I would take the corporation from Roman just as easily as the spare bedroom from mumsy.

Society's biggest problem is the insular, unintegrated lives that so many are now leading. We all suffer by this, but none of us more than single mums, spoon-fed the house and nappy money by the State, without the faculty to see her relations severed with the rest of the world.

can't anyone see the other side of this arrangement ?

by releasing the spare bedroom(s), more people can be housed, but sadly we live in a 'me me' society hence all the bleeding heart posts above

"Here come de Judge," displaying, for all, his M.A.(Hist) FAILED; Germany was never a socialist state, so read some books, and stop shouting at the top of your voice.
While you're doing that, get a dictionary, as well, and you might find out the correct words to use, instead of making a fool of yourself by using big, important-sounding (but wrong) words. "Divulge" is to impart information; perhaps you meant "divorce?" And the people living in a country is the populace, "populous" is an adjective.
As so often, so many don't read what is actually going to happen.
1/. It will only affect those on benefits, some of which they will lose, if part of the house is not being fully used.
2/. It will only affect those of working age.
3/. People willl not be evicted; they will be moved into somewhere smaller.

The elderly can take their memories with them. And when they got their council homes, they were given them because they needed them, and now it's only fair that they move to smaller accommodation so that others can be housed with their families. I had a 4-bed council house to house my large family, and when they all left home, I moved to a 2 bed which was all I needed.
We have a housing crisis in this country and this bedroom tax has come at a time when young families are unable to be housed because so many are over-housed.

switzerland wrote:
I cannot believe how many bigoted, egotistical, Sanctimonious people there are on here.

There is not one microbe of empathy for the emotional impact this will have on people. and please don't repeat that tripe about 'private individuals have to downsize so why not tenants?' Why because private individuals have money invested in their house, they can choose when to sell and where to move to. This option is not offered to the 'tenant' they are limited on where they can live and where they can move to + don't forget that people who own their own homes find over the years of ownership their mortgage goes down - becoming less of a percentage of their income. The tenant is not afforded that luxury, each year of tenancy their rent goes up and therefore becomes a larger percentage of their income, in some cases as much as a mortgage would cost.
Rather than say these people should move out and let larger families move in, why not say to people don't have more children than you have rooms for!! live within your means. As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well. By the way it takes two to whore, if the men hadn't come to your mum's house looking for sex then it wouldn't have happened.

You are spouting about s much dribble as I have heard on here! They are tennants that dont own their house, they have enjoyed MASSIVELY subsidised rents and still do and there for space needs to made for others and sio they need to be moved on to smaller properties.

"As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well."

Another load of dribble from a bleeding heart. Utter rubbish. If they do provide this kind of service mentioned from their council home they are probably doing so to fuel a drug or alcohol addiction and NOT to feed and clothe their children.
Please do something useful and devote your own time and money to a charity of some kind if you feel so strongly about this and stop dribbling over these pages!

switzerland wrote:
I cannot believe how many bigoted, egotistical, Sanctimonious people there are on here.

There is not one microbe of empathy for the emotional impact this will have on people. and please don't repeat that tripe about 'private individuals have to downsize so why not tenants?' Why because private individuals have money invested in their house, they can choose when to sell and where to move to. This option is not offered to the 'tenant' they are limited on where they can live and where they can move to + don't forget that people who own their own homes find over the years of ownership their mortgage goes down - becoming less of a percentage of their income. The tenant is not afforded that luxury, each year of tenancy their rent goes up and therefore becomes a larger percentage of their income, in some cases as much as a mortgage would cost.
Rather than say these people should move out and let larger families move in, why not say to people don't have more children than you have rooms for!! live within your means. As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well. By the way it takes two to whore, if the men hadn't come to your mum's house looking for sex then it wouldn't have happened.

At the risk of sounding bigoted, egotistical & sanctimonious . .

“private individuals have money invested in their house, they can choose when to sell and where to move to”

Yes, because private individuals have invested and saved money rather than assume the state, i.e. everyone else, will supply them somewhere to live. These same individuals who have taken responsibility for their own finances should now be asked to pay ever more extortionate taxes to subsidise those in council accommodation who believe society owes them a home.

“each year of tenancy their rent goes up and therefore becomes a larger percentage of their income, in some cases as much as a mortgage would cost.”

Yes, it’s called inflation. Many benefits are tied to the rate of inflation, something people in work and paying a mortgage can only dream of when it comes to wages.

I won’t comment on your final paragraph beyond the fact that it sounds bigoted, egotistical & sanctimonious to me.

Ok what happens to say an elderly (or any) couple that have 3 bedrooms that sleep in seperate rooms (maybe for medical reasons or one is disabled) and the 3rd room is used every few weeks or months when long distance family visit etc? What if it WAS a bedroom that is clearly a study or a reception room or a playroom for grandchildren? The list goes on so have they really thought about this?

kevj99uk wrote:
Ok what happens to say an elderly (or any) couple that have 3 bedrooms that sleep in seperate rooms (maybe for medical reasons or one is disabled) and the 3rd room is used every few weeks or months when long distance family visit etc? What if it WAS a bedroom that is clearly a study or a reception room or a playroom for grandchildren? The list goes on so have they really thought about this?

Then they have to move out as the third bedroom IS NOT NECESSARY. It really is very simple, but people like yourself keep putting hypothetical yet un-important obstcales in the way. When are you going to understand that these houses are NOT the property of the tennant, they are a luxury provided for by the state and luxuries are not a NECESSITY and thus they should be moved to smaller premises should their house be suited to a family that could use the space. Social housing was not originally created as a luxury for the tennant but a place to live and that was that. If they would like to have had the luxury of staying put and not having to move then they should have bought a house and not have chosen the easy option. What part of that can you really not understand?

tigeran wrote:

kevj99uk wrote:
Ok what happens to say an elderly (or any) couple that have 3 bedrooms that sleep in seperate rooms (maybe for medical reasons or one is disabled) and the 3rd room is used every few weeks or months when long distance family visit etc? What if it WAS a bedroom that is clearly a study or a reception room or a playroom for grandchildren? The list goes on so have they really thought about this?

Then they have to move out as the third bedroom IS NOT NECESSARY. It really is very simple, but people like yourself keep putting hypothetical yet un-important obstcales in the way. When are you going to understand that these houses are NOT the property of the tennant, they are a luxury provided for by the state and luxuries are not a NECESSITY and thus they should be moved to smaller premises should their house be suited to a family that could use the space. Social housing was not originally created as a luxury for the tennant but a place to live and that was that. If they would like to have had the luxury of staying put and not having to move then they should have bought a house and not have chosen the easy option. What part of that can you really not understand?

tigeran! I could not have said it better myself, where the thought for the next struggling generation? they need houses too, these people have had their time and too good a time too, if you don't own it then you don't have the right and the least you can do is play the game fairly for those who are in genuine need of an extra bedroom not a study! These people were given the opportunity to grow their lives through social housing and now they are bitter and think its their god given right to occupy these houses that they don't own as they wish! good luck fighting that one, maybe they should have thought about this while growing up and old instead of expecting the government to pick them up and see them through life.

I had social housing and now i own, social housing helped me better my life so I could eventually afford to buy, other people get a council house and think that's the end of their worry's, no need to work or do anything demanding for the rest of their lives.

I hate Britain today! everyone is out for what they can get and expect it all for free,

my post removed again!

tigeran wrote:

switzerland wrote:
I cannot believe how many bigoted, egotistical, Sanctimonious people there are on here.

There is not one microbe of empathy for the emotional impact this will have on people. and please don't repeat that tripe about 'private individuals have to downsize so why not tenants?' Why because private individuals have money invested in their house, they can choose when to sell and where to move to. This option is not offered to the 'tenant' they are limited on where they can live and where they can move to + don't forget that people who own their own homes find over the years of ownership their mortgage goes down - becoming less of a percentage of their income. The tenant is not afforded that luxury, each year of tenancy their rent goes up and therefore becomes a larger percentage of their income, in some cases as much as a mortgage would cost.
Rather than say these people should move out and let larger families move in, why not say to people don't have more children than you have rooms for!! live within your means. As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well. By the way it takes two to whore, if the men hadn't come to your mum's house looking for sex then it wouldn't have happened.

You are spouting about s much dribble as I have heard on here! They are tennants that dont own their house, they have enjoyed MASSIVELY subsidised rents and still do and there for space needs to made for others and sio they need to be moved on to smaller properties.

"As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well."

Another load of dribble from a bleeding heart. Utter rubbish. If they do provide this kind of service mentioned from their council home they are probably doing so to fuel a drug or alcohol addiction and NOT to feed and clothe their children.
Please do something useful and devote your own time and money to a charity of some kind if you feel so strongly about this and stop dribbling over these pages!

Jeez tigger, you really don't do 'irony' do you?

sai-diva wrote:

tigeran wrote:

switzerland wrote:
I cannot believe how many bigoted, egotistical, Sanctimonious people there are on here.

There is not one microbe of empathy for the emotional impact this will have on people. and please don't repeat that tripe about 'private individuals have to downsize so why not tenants?' Why because private individuals have money invested in their house, they can choose when to sell and where to move to. This option is not offered to the 'tenant' they are limited on where they can live and where they can move to + don't forget that people who own their own homes find over the years of ownership their mortgage goes down - becoming less of a percentage of their income. The tenant is not afforded that luxury, each year of tenancy their rent goes up and therefore becomes a larger percentage of their income, in some cases as much as a mortgage would cost.
Rather than say these people should move out and let larger families move in, why not say to people don't have more children than you have rooms for!! live within your means. As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well. By the way it takes two to whore, if the men hadn't come to your mum's house looking for sex then it wouldn't have happened.

You are spouting about s much dribble as I have heard on here! They are tennants that dont own their house, they have enjoyed MASSIVELY subsidised rents and still do and there for space needs to made for others and sio they need to be moved on to smaller properties.

"As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well."

Another load of dribble from a bleeding heart. Utter rubbish. If they do provide this kind of service mentioned from their council home they are probably doing so to fuel a drug or alcohol addiction and NOT to feed and clothe their children.
Please do something useful and devote your own time and money to a charity of some kind if you feel so strongly about this and stop dribbling over these pages!

Jeez tigger, you really don't do 'irony' do you?

Oh hang on, 'I know nothing about a topic but will bleat on anyway' has spoken..............
....

SDH wrote:

tigeran wrote:

kevj99uk wrote:
Ok what happens to say an elderly (or any) couple that have 3 bedrooms that sleep in seperate rooms (maybe for medical reasons or one is disabled) and the 3rd room is used every few weeks or months when long distance family visit etc? What if it WAS a bedroom that is clearly a study or a reception room or a playroom for grandchildren? The list goes on so have they really thought about this?

Then they have to move out as the third bedroom IS NOT NECESSARY. It really is very simple, but people like yourself keep putting hypothetical yet un-important obstcales in the way. When are you going to understand that these houses are NOT the property of the tennant, they are a luxury provided for by the state and luxuries are not a NECESSITY and thus they should be moved to smaller premises should their house be suited to a family that could use the space. Social housing was not originally created as a luxury for the tennant but a place to live and that was that. If they would like to have had the luxury of staying put and not having to move then they should have bought a house and not have chosen the easy option. What part of that can you really not understand?

tigeran! I could not have said it better myself, where the thought for the next struggling generation? they need houses too, these people have had their time and too good a time too, if you don't own it then you don't have the right and the least you can do is play the game fairly for those who are in genuine need of an extra bedroom not a study! These people were given the opportunity to grow their lives through social housing and now they are bitter and think its their god given right to occupy these houses that they don't own as they wish! good luck fighting that one, maybe they should have thought about this while growing up and old instead of expecting the government to pick them up and see them through life.

I had social housing and now i own, social housing helped me better my life so I could eventually afford to buy, other people get a council house and think that's the end of their worry's, no need to work or do anything demanding for the rest of their lives.

I hate Britain today! everyone is out for what they can get and expect it all for free,

SDH - I too had social housing before I bought. I paid my mortgage and believed that one day I would own outright. Then, after eight years I was made redundant and my wife and I spent the next two years trying to juggle part time jobs (because that's all we could get) and childcare to make ends meet. Eventually the debts were so high we had to sell and lived for two further years in my father in law's spare bedroom before we got a council house.
Now, if these rules had been in place then, we would have been literally on the streets as the council said we had made ourselves intentionally homeless.
Eventually we were offered a council house and now, five and a half years later, whilst still struggling to juggle part time jobs to the detriment of our childrens' upbringing, and recieving no benefits other than tax credits, we have decided to re locate from Sheffield to High Wycombe for the chance of a fresh start, a better life and future for our children.
Some people fall on hard times through no fault of their own.
Some people need a little breathing space to help them get their lives back on track.
Some people never fully recover thanks to the fractional nature of the economy and the high levels of regional unemployment that follows.
Forcing people to move because they have a spare room and don't earn enough to pay the full rent will solve nothing. The only reason there is a shortage of social housing is because a large proportion of it got sold off in the eighties, then snapped up by private landlords in the nineties pushing up rents and the cost of benefits.

"I hate Britain today! everyone is out for what they can get and expect it all for free."

Most people are probably out for what they can get. And when the gold plated pensions of corrupt MPs, police chiefs etc are abolished, and the rightful justice is imposed on those who have robbed the country of it's assets, then perhaps we can have a serious debate about the responsibility of citizens. Until that day, I will oppose any policy that seeks to demonise the poor whose only crime is being poor.

Myself and husband live in housing **** house, not Red Kite, and we have rasied our 3 children in it and now there is just the 2 of us and i agree in principle with the idea of giving up the house as there are familes in greater need than us of the 3 bedrooms i do think there should be a scheme where by the housing **** can assist with this and maybe providing list of properties that they have on their list available to move to that are smaller than our present one. I approached our association some time back and said that i would like to move to maybe a nice 2 bedroom flat as dont really need a garden either now but would like to stay located in this area as both my husband and myself work and always have done, they said that they dont have a provison for this and i just need to arrange a private swap. I have joined a swop site but find a lot of time wasters on there. Maybe the housing associations could think about a scheme along the lines of this as i am sure there are lots of people like myself that would be happy to move to somewhere smalled. I also agree that people who have been on benefits for years and live in larger bedroomed houses that necessary should move as this is being paid for by taxes from us workers. I have always paid my full rent and council tax even whilst bringing up small children.

Dont know why it put **** in there as didnt swear just abbreviated the word association !!!

Studentbob wrote:

SDH wrote:

tigeran wrote:

kevj99uk wrote:
Ok what happens to say an elderly (or any) couple that have 3 bedrooms that sleep in seperate rooms (maybe for medical reasons or one is disabled) and the 3rd room is used every few weeks or months when long distance family visit etc? What if it WAS a bedroom that is clearly a study or a reception room or a playroom for grandchildren? The list goes on so have they really thought about this?

Then they have to move out as the third bedroom IS NOT NECESSARY. It really is very simple, but people like yourself keep putting hypothetical yet un-important obstcales in the way. When are you going to understand that these houses are NOT the property of the tennant, they are a luxury provided for by the state and luxuries are not a NECESSITY and thus they should be moved to smaller premises should their house be suited to a family that could use the space. Social housing was not originally created as a luxury for the tennant but a place to live and that was that. If they would like to have had the luxury of staying put and not having to move then they should have bought a house and not have chosen the easy option. What part of that can you really not understand?

tigeran! I could not have said it better myself, where the thought for the next struggling generation? they need houses too, these people have had their time and too good a time too, if you don't own it then you don't have the right and the least you can do is play the game fairly for those who are in genuine need of an extra bedroom not a study! These people were given the opportunity to grow their lives through social housing and now they are bitter and think its their god given right to occupy these houses that they don't own as they wish! good luck fighting that one, maybe they should have thought about this while growing up and old instead of expecting the government to pick them up and see them through life.

I had social housing and now i own, social housing helped me better my life so I could eventually afford to buy, other people get a council house and think that's the end of their worry's, no need to work or do anything demanding for the rest of their lives.

I hate Britain today! everyone is out for what they can get and expect it all for free,

SDH - I too had social housing before I bought. I paid my mortgage and believed that one day I would own outright. Then, after eight years I was made redundant and my wife and I spent the next two years trying to juggle part time jobs (because that's all we could get) and childcare to make ends meet. Eventually the debts were so high we had to sell and lived for two further years in my father in law's spare bedroom before we got a council house.
Now, if these rules had been in place then, we would have been literally on the streets as the council said we had made ourselves intentionally homeless.
Eventually we were offered a council house and now, five and a half years later, whilst still struggling to juggle part time jobs to the detriment of our childrens' upbringing, and recieving no benefits other than tax credits, we have decided to re locate from Sheffield to High Wycombe for the chance of a fresh start, a better life and future for our children.
Some people fall on hard times through no fault of their own.
Some people need a little breathing space to help them get their lives back on track.
Some people never fully recover thanks to the fractional nature of the economy and the high levels of regional unemployment that follows.
Forcing people to move because they have a spare room and don't earn enough to pay the full rent will solve nothing. The only reason there is a shortage of social housing is because a large proportion of it got sold off in the eighties, then snapped up by private landlords in the nineties pushing up rents and the cost of benefits.

"I hate Britain today! everyone is out for what they can get and expect it all for free."

Most people are probably out for what they can get. And when the gold plated pensions of corrupt MPs, police chiefs etc are abolished, and the rightful justice is imposed on those who have robbed the country of it's assets, then perhaps we can have a serious debate about the responsibility of citizens. Until that day, I will oppose any policy that seeks to demonise the poor whose only crime is being poor.

I whole heartedly feel for you and your family as you are the very people I wish the system would bend over backwards to help but it doesn't just like you have experienced. The problem is, you tried to do whats right and brought up your family in the right way, had you not bothered, not tought your family whats right and whats wrong, not tried to better yourself and be a decent person, you would probably have had no problems at all. That is why SOMETHING has to change. The wrong people get all the help. If you dont bother from the start, have loads of kids because you can from an early age and dont care about anything, then this system will take care of you and your family for all time! Thats the problem. You tried.

This is article is the second from top one of the ‘Most popular Most read’ articles on the BFP website - under this heading there are ten articles. Eight of them have been posted on the BFP site within the last 48 hours since 25 September.

The article on the man who was airlifted to hospital after what must have been a right-on confrontation at Downley was posted one day earlier on 24 September.

The other article more than 48 hours old is is ‘1. Wycombe's inspiration for The Mighty Boosh’ - apparently the most read article on the site. This has been the most read article in the BFP since it was posted at lunchtime on Saturday 10th September – seventeen days ago and comments are no longer allowed on it. The Mighty Boosh is the name for a two-man comedy team – I wonder if one of them is the one has a close relation at a senior level of management in Newsquest – possibly at Loudwater.

tigeran wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

tigeran wrote:

switzerland wrote:
I cannot believe how many bigoted, egotistical, Sanctimonious people there are on here.

There is not one microbe of empathy for the emotional impact this will have on people. and please don't repeat that tripe about 'private individuals have to downsize so why not tenants?' Why because private individuals have money invested in their house, they can choose when to sell and where to move to. This option is not offered to the 'tenant' they are limited on where they can live and where they can move to + don't forget that people who own their own homes find over the years of ownership their mortgage goes down - becoming less of a percentage of their income. The tenant is not afforded that luxury, each year of tenancy their rent goes up and therefore becomes a larger percentage of their income, in some cases as much as a mortgage would cost.
Rather than say these people should move out and let larger families move in, why not say to people don't have more children than you have rooms for!! live within your means. As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well. By the way it takes two to whore, if the men hadn't come to your mum's house looking for sex then it wouldn't have happened.

You are spouting about s much dribble as I have heard on here! They are tennants that dont own their house, they have enjoyed MASSIVELY subsidised rents and still do and there for space needs to made for others and sio they need to be moved on to smaller properties.

"As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well."

Another load of dribble from a bleeding heart. Utter rubbish. If they do provide this kind of service mentioned from their council home they are probably doing so to fuel a drug or alcohol addiction and NOT to feed and clothe their children.
Please do something useful and devote your own time and money to a charity of some kind if you feel so strongly about this and stop dribbling over these pages!

Jeez tigger, you really don't do 'irony' do you?

Oh hang on, 'I know nothing about a topic but will bleat on anyway' has spoken..............

....

How much is the subsidy (just asking)?

Studentbob wrote:

SDH wrote:

tigeran wrote:

kevj99uk wrote:
Ok what happens to say an elderly (or any) couple that have 3 bedrooms that sleep in seperate rooms (maybe for medical reasons or one is disabled) and the 3rd room is used every few weeks or months when long distance family visit etc? What if it WAS a bedroom that is clearly a study or a reception room or a playroom for grandchildren? The list goes on so have they really thought about this?

Then they have to move out as the third bedroom IS NOT NECESSARY. It really is very simple, but people like yourself keep putting hypothetical yet un-important obstcales in the way. When are you going to understand that these houses are NOT the property of the tennant, they are a luxury provided for by the state and luxuries are not a NECESSITY and thus they should be moved to smaller premises should their house be suited to a family that could use the space. Social housing was not originally created as a luxury for the tennant but a place to live and that was that. If they would like to have had the luxury of staying put and not having to move then they should have bought a house and not have chosen the easy option. What part of that can you really not understand?

tigeran! I could not have said it better myself, where the thought for the next struggling generation? they need houses too, these people have had their time and too good a time too, if you don't own it then you don't have the right and the least you can do is play the game fairly for those who are in genuine need of an extra bedroom not a study! These people were given the opportunity to grow their lives through social housing and now they are bitter and think its their god given right to occupy these houses that they don't own as they wish! good luck fighting that one, maybe they should have thought about this while growing up and old instead of expecting the government to pick them up and see them through life.

I had social housing and now i own, social housing helped me better my life so I could eventually afford to buy, other people get a council house and think that's the end of their worry's, no need to work or do anything demanding for the rest of their lives.

I hate Britain today! everyone is out for what they can get and expect it all for free,

SDH - I too had social housing before I bought. I paid my mortgage and believed that one day I would own outright. Then, after eight years I was made redundant and my wife and I spent the next two years trying to juggle part time jobs (because that's all we could get) and childcare to make ends meet. Eventually the debts were so high we had to sell and lived for two further years in my father in law's spare bedroom before we got a council house.
Now, if these rules had been in place then, we would have been literally on the streets as the council said we had made ourselves intentionally homeless.
Eventually we were offered a council house and now, five and a half years later, whilst still struggling to juggle part time jobs to the detriment of our childrens' upbringing, and recieving no benefits other than tax credits, we have decided to re locate from Sheffield to High Wycombe for the chance of a fresh start, a better life and future for our children.
Some people fall on hard times through no fault of their own.
Some people need a little breathing space to help them get their lives back on track.
Some people never fully recover thanks to the fractional nature of the economy and the high levels of regional unemployment that follows.
Forcing people to move because they have a spare room and don't earn enough to pay the full rent will solve nothing. The only reason there is a shortage of social housing is because a large proportion of it got sold off in the eighties, then snapped up by private landlords in the nineties pushing up rents and the cost of benefits.

"I hate Britain today! everyone is out for what they can get and expect it all for free."

Most people are probably out for what they can get. And when the gold plated pensions of corrupt MPs, police chiefs etc are abolished, and the rightful justice is imposed on those who have robbed the country of it's assets, then perhaps we can have a serious debate about the responsibility of citizens. Until that day, I will oppose any policy that seeks to demonise the poor whose only crime is being poor.

There are too many rich people in this country.
.
There are also too many poor people in this country.
.
In fact there are too many people in this country - and not enough jobs for them either.
.
The rich and the poor will always be with us - and that applies is so-called 'egalitarian' societies too.
.
So the people in the middle are obliged to pay taxes to support quite a few of the rest who cannot work for whatever reason. Even when there are no jobs or no prospect of any. That's the way this British / Euro system is set up to work.
.
So if providing accommodation is part of that set-up then it has to be paid for.
.
The people at the very top appear to some to be quite untouchable and get away with paying the least tax (percentage-wise). That's the system our politicians have devised - as it appears to suit quite a few of them.
.
However as long as there are too many people in the world , these problems can only get worse , as governments seem to have no answer to it and pretend it does not exist.
.
So there is no answer to that for the ordinary man /woman in the street.

Mr Morrow says "For some tenants it may mean finding a smaller home and Mr Morrow said Red Kite wants to help them prepare and downsize if that proves their best option".
.
.
This is all very well and good but where are the smaller homes? We have an acute housing shortage, not just social housing, housing in general that is affordable to anyone one on an average wage! It is all well and good reducing benefits, most of us agree that in some cases the benefit system has enabled people to be work shy but a bedroom tax, as it is called, can only be achieved if there are suitable alternatives on offer. I also understand that this welfare reform and bedroom tax only affects those under 61, isn't it the case that most 3 bedroom homes/ family homes, are under occupied by pensioners?

tigeran wrote:
What a fantastic idea!!! This should stop those who sub let out as well. At last, some sense is being put into the system. Wait for all the bleeding heart do gooders to squeal about this one!!!

Tenants have the right, legally, to take in lodgers, which could be a way of making up the shortfall if they fall within the bedroom tax criteria. Sub letting is a management issue, isn't it? Surely a tenant audit would stop ILLEGAL sub letting and once the tenant that is sub letting loses their tenancy another family home becomes available. If you know of someone sub letting you should let Red Kite know.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
This is article is the second from top one of the ‘Most popular Most read’ articles on the BFP website - under this heading there are ten articles. Eight of them have been posted on the BFP site within the last 48 hours since 25 September.

The article on the man who was airlifted to hospital after what must have been a right-on confrontation at Downley was posted one day earlier on 24 September.

The other article more than 48 hours old is is ‘1. Wycombe's inspiration for The Mighty Boosh’ - apparently the most read article on the site. This has been the most read article in the BFP since it was posted at lunchtime on Saturday 10th September – seventeen days ago and comments are no longer allowed on it. The Mighty Boosh is the name for a two-man comedy team – I wonder if one of them is the one has a close relation at a senior level of management in Newsquest – possibly at Loudwater.

Or if their admirers are multiple-clicking on the article.

tigeran wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

tigeran wrote:

switzerland wrote:
I cannot believe how many bigoted, egotistical, Sanctimonious people there are on here.

There is not one microbe of empathy for the emotional impact this will have on people. and please don't repeat that tripe about 'private individuals have to downsize so why not tenants?' Why because private individuals have money invested in their house, they can choose when to sell and where to move to. This option is not offered to the 'tenant' they are limited on where they can live and where they can move to + don't forget that people who own their own homes find over the years of ownership their mortgage goes down - becoming less of a percentage of their income. The tenant is not afforded that luxury, each year of tenancy their rent goes up and therefore becomes a larger percentage of their income, in some cases as much as a mortgage would cost.
Rather than say these people should move out and let larger families move in, why not say to people don't have more children than you have rooms for!! live within your means. As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well. By the way it takes two to whore, if the men hadn't come to your mum's house looking for sex then it wouldn't have happened.

You are spouting about s much dribble as I have heard on here! They are tennants that dont own their house, they have enjoyed MASSIVELY subsidised rents and still do and there for space needs to made for others and sio they need to be moved on to smaller properties.

"As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well."

Another load of dribble from a bleeding heart. Utter rubbish. If they do provide this kind of service mentioned from their council home they are probably doing so to fuel a drug or alcohol addiction and NOT to feed and clothe their children.
Please do something useful and devote your own time and money to a charity of some kind if you feel so strongly about this and stop dribbling over these pages!

Jeez tigger, you really don't do 'irony' do you?

Oh hang on, 'I know nothing about a topic but will bleat on anyway' has spoken..............

....

Back to the insults again, yawn.

Stalemate wrote:
Sai-Diva

Red Kite are well aware of what goes on, at one point they nearly re-branded as Red Light.

It is a Prostitution Tax in all but name. Why should these scrubbers avoid tax, do they think they're investment bankers or something?

Your logic is a bit flawed. If, as you say there are single mothers working out of red kite housing (which may or may not be true, Evidence?) then all single mothers who live in red kite housing are prostitutes? Is that what you're saying?
I'm sure ther are 'ladies of the night' in red house accomodation, they're a big concern, as there are probably young professionals, nurses, cleaners, factory workers and some 'dodgy characters' as well, just as there are in wider society

sai-diva wrote:

tigeran wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

tigeran wrote:

switzerland wrote:
I cannot believe how many bigoted, egotistical, Sanctimonious people there are on here.

There is not one microbe of empathy for the emotional impact this will have on people. and please don't repeat that tripe about 'private individuals have to downsize so why not tenants?' Why because private individuals have money invested in their house, they can choose when to sell and where to move to. This option is not offered to the 'tenant' they are limited on where they can live and where they can move to + don't forget that people who own their own homes find over the years of ownership their mortgage goes down - becoming less of a percentage of their income. The tenant is not afforded that luxury, each year of tenancy their rent goes up and therefore becomes a larger percentage of their income, in some cases as much as a mortgage would cost.
Rather than say these people should move out and let larger families move in, why not say to people don't have more children than you have rooms for!! live within your means. As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well. By the way it takes two to whore, if the men hadn't come to your mum's house looking for sex then it wouldn't have happened.

You are spouting about s much dribble as I have heard on here! They are tennants that dont own their house, they have enjoyed MASSIVELY subsidised rents and still do and there for space needs to made for others and sio they need to be moved on to smaller properties.

"As for the poor person who was brought up with his mother whoring in their spare bedroom and is harbouring resentment to all single mothers, perhaps your mum was left with no other option as she wanted to ensure you were fed well and clothed well."

Another load of dribble from a bleeding heart. Utter rubbish. If they do provide this kind of service mentioned from their council home they are probably doing so to fuel a drug or alcohol addiction and NOT to feed and clothe their children.
Please do something useful and devote your own time and money to a charity of some kind if you feel so strongly about this and stop dribbling over these pages!

Jeez tigger, you really don't do 'irony' do you?

Oh hang on, 'I know nothing about a topic but will bleat on anyway' has spoken..............


....

Back to the insults again, yawn.

Unfortunatley your blind ignorance has always meant that the only thing that will stop you from your torrent of misguided, rose tinted tripe is a few direct, well chosen words that unfortunatley may seem a bit hard edged. This is a necessary evil due to the nature of your blinkered and slightly skewed view on the world. Sorry.

Or....insults are the last resort of the ignorant who don't have the intelligence to carry on a reasoned argument.
I love your use of 'blind ignorance' and 'torrent' in regard to myself.
Coming from someone who believes all travellers(I shan't use your usual racist term) should be 'sent back'. that all benefit claiments are 'scum' and should have their benefits cut to a minimum, that all prisoners should be hanged or kept in a 6 x 4 cell, fed the bare minimum,and that cyclists should be forced off the road I think the words 'pot' 'kettle' spring to mind.
I can't say for certain but I would imagine that I'm better educated than you are as well, I'm certainly better mannered.

williamjames wrote:
Social housing should be based on need. Therefore as childen grow up and leave home, vacating a bedroom, the need for a larger house is reduced and hence it may be suitable for the occupiers to downsize. This would release larger properties for those with growing families and help reduce overcrowding etc.
Is this a sensible example of 'nudge' politics?

I can't believe the terrible comments some people post on here ,hiding behind their keyboards.....
Anyway back to the subject in hand. I totally agree with the "bedroom tax". People in council tenancies already have a lower rent than in the private sector. As the family leave home you down size. As regard private homeowners can afford to live where they like and the size of house they would like etc. No they can't always. People have to buy the size house their mortgage allows them to. If due to a change they cannot afford that house, they then have to try an move.
Do not drivel on about their surroundings etc. My mother has recently had to downsize. You make new friends where you are moving to. Also if somebody is in a larger house than they require, and they cannot really afford to live in it so they get housing benefit...ie money from the taxpayer..why should they be allowed to continue living there ,without some sort of penalty. If they can afford the increased rent all well and good. If they can't then they should move to a property they can afford. I suggest you reqd the money saving expert forums to see what taxpayers think of this idea on there. My background is that i grew up in council housing, so i can see it from both sides.

scaredlady10 wrote:

williamjames wrote:
Social housing should be based on need. Therefore as childen grow up and leave home, vacating a bedroom, the need for a larger house is reduced and hence it may be suitable for the occupiers to downsize. This would release larger properties for those with growing families and help reduce overcrowding etc.
Is this a sensible example of 'nudge' politics?

I can't believe the terrible comments some people post on here ,hiding behind their keyboards.....
Anyway back to the subject in hand. I totally agree with the "bedroom tax". People in council tenancies already have a lower rent than in the private sector. As the family leave home you down size. As regard private homeowners can afford to live where they like and the size of house they would like etc. No they can't always. People have to buy the size house their mortgage allows them to. If due to a change they cannot afford that house, they then have to try an move.
Do not drivel on about their surroundings etc. My mother has recently had to downsize. You make new friends where you are moving to. Also if somebody is in a larger house than they require, and they cannot really afford to live in it so they get housing benefit...ie money from the taxpayer..why should they be allowed to continue living there ,without some sort of penalty. If they can afford the increased rent all well and good. If they can't then they should move to a property they can afford. I suggest you reqd the money saving expert forums to see what taxpayers think of this idea on there. My background is that i grew up in council housing, so i can see it from both sides.

IT IS ALL TOO EASY TO MORALISE WHEN YOU SIT BACK IN YOUR COMFY LEATHERETTE RECLINER SUGGESTING THAT YOU ARE IMPARTIAL. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT THOSE IN COUNCIL HOUSING GO THROUGH A STRICT CRITERIA THAT GOVERNS THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. ALBEIT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE OVER TIME - BUT TO SUGGEST THIS AUTHORITIE'S CASH STRAPPED TORY DISPARATE PLAN IS EQUITABLE IS NONSENSE. I NOTE THAT YOU ARE NO LONGER IN SOCIAL HOUSING AND WILL NOT HAVE TO FACE THE HARSH REALITIES AND A TAX THAT WILL DIRECTLY AFFECT PEOPLES HOMES AND IN MOST CASES THEIR LIVES.....
I SUSPECT THE SUICIDE RATE WILL INCREASE IN BUCKS AND THIS WILL BE ON THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO BRING IN THE LUDICROUS IDEA AND OF THOSE WHO SUPPORT IT.
JUDGE

Not sure I like your presentation skills Judge but the sentiment is right. It is a really worrying time for those that will suffer as a result of this "tax" and in actual fact the burden on the tax payer could end up being higher than it is now. Incentives to downsize come out of somebody's pocket, Ill health! We all contribute towards the treatment. Extra staff will be required to cope with the extra work that this reform will generate which means more pension etc etc. there is always a bigger picture and each new policy reducing someone's income will have a negative ripple effect.

If people have become accustomed to their surroundings and their relatives/neighbours around them and they are requested to move to make room for others, they are going to get upset.
.
If someone is receiving 'benefits' or special allowances and it is taken away from them , they are going to get upset.
.
I think they really should be a lot more upset than the indignant protesting MPs who falsely (and criminally) claimed millions of pounds by fiddling their 'expenses' ,'fees' and 'allowances'. Elected to positions in which they performed very very poorly as it turned out. And then tried to cover it all up.
.
And they should be even more upset by the deceitful arrogant bankers and friends who got 'special allowances' and 'grants' (up to £60,000,000 each in the case of Barclays Bank) for just doing a job they were employed with very high salaries to do anyway. Jobs they did very very badly as it turned out. And then tried to cover all the deceit up.
.
In spite of a string of inept but posturing and lying PMs and Chancellors - money to pay these cheats all inevitably and eventually comes out of other people's pockets.
.
And all that disappears out of sight into the murky depths of some undeserving people's vast treasure stores.

That's the reason people are having cuts in resources , facilities and services of all sorts inflicted on them and that includes being shifted around areas on the whim of two-faced politicians and their lackeys.
.
What's not to understand ?

Exactly! Stop all the cheating, bankers politicians, benefit cheats, tax evaders etc.etc. don't punish the elderly, ill or vulnerable.

Barbara B wrote:
Exactly! Stop all the cheating, bankers politicians, benefit cheats, tax evaders etc.etc. don't punish the elderly, ill or vulnerable.

GLAD TO SEE LIKE MINDED PEOPLE VOICING CONCERNS AND WHO DONT JUST ASSUME YOU CAN MOVE THE ELDERLY AND EXPECT THEM TO "ENJOY MAKING NEW FRIENDS" ......SCAREDLADY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HERSELF...PUSHING HER POOR MOTHER OUT OF HER HOME TO FACE THE UNKNOWN. ALL I CAN SAY IS I AM GLAD SHE IS NOT MY DAUGHTER.....
JUDGE

sai-diva wrote:
Or....insults are the last resort of the ignorant who don't have the intelligence to carry on a reasoned argument.
I love your use of 'blind ignorance' and 'torrent' in regard to myself.
Coming from someone who believes all travellers(I shan't use your usual racist term) should be 'sent back'. that all benefit claiments are 'scum' and should have their benefits cut to a minimum, that all prisoners should be hanged or kept in a 6 x 4 cell, fed the bare minimum,and that cyclists should be forced off the road I think the words 'pot' 'kettle' spring to mind.
I can't say for certain but I would imagine that I'm better educated than you are as well, I'm certainly better mannered.

Your views are that of a very ignorant, and extremely sheltered person at best! Bless!