disabled will NOT be exempt from 'bedroom tax'

Frank, when you retire (I'm not sure whether you have or not) will you claim your old age pension, free bus pass and winter heating allowance or will you refuse them on the grounds that other taxpayers shouldn't have to give you money?

If you become ill or disabled would you expect to be able to receive daycare services/respite care or would you say you don't want them because it's not right that the taxpayer has to fund them?

Would you expect social services to help you to adapt your home if necessary with hand rails etc to allow you to stay independent for longer or would you insist on paying for these yourself on the grounds that the taxpayer shouldn't have to fund alterations to your house?

Stansgran

Where is the council expected to get the money from to build these new council flats?.
As a home owner I would not want to pay yet more council tax for other people to benefit from it.

Frank

No, marmot day is on 2nd of February actually. Mind you, where you live it is just about every day!

Ground Hog Day?

Common sense Granjura shame it is so uncommon!

Well said. As a taxpayer on a pension I would love to see the council build purpose built flats for the disabled preferably with a flat for a trained concierge in place so that there was someone on hand to help repair lifts wheelchairs hoists etc. instead we are having more student flats built. I just threw in the the taxpayer bit.

Well said Granjura. The voice of reason. Agree with you 100%.

It was therefore our responsibility when visiting from abroad with our family to rent a holiday flat to stay during our visit, or find a piece of land to camp... They had 2 bedrooms, and slept in separate bedrooms due to their individual needs. No way would they expect the State to pay for spare rooms for us to go and stay during our hole, and neither would we?!

And as said before, people with their own houses/flats often have to move to smaller accom, for a variety of reasons. For my parents it was two-fold, first they could not afford to maintain the family home on their pension, and secondly it just got too big for them to physically maintain, including the garden.

Because when you have your own property, the council does not come and fit a brand new kitchen and bathroom, new windows, re-paint and redecorate the place - come over to do emergency repairs, etc - oh NO...
and my parents were not the only ones to have their heart broken of having to give up over large empty nests... why should it be the 'prerogative' of those who have their own homes to have to come to the conclusion that the larger family home is no longer needed, or affordable, or maintainable?

A thoughtful post Granjura .

How can anything be discussed sensibly, to find solutions ... when people constantly divert to harp on about personal dislikes or keep saying, one bad is worse than this bad, so no need to address this one, or take anything said personally? Going round and round in circles is not going to get us anywhere.

So yes, we all agree that tax evasion and fraud is much worse... and MUST be tackled head on. We all agree that suitable smaller subsidised accommodation is not currently available (but with unemployment and the building industry as it is now, it wouldn't take long to remedy this... with proper infrastructure and where people with larger subsidised homes could move as a community) - but why does that mean the situation cannot be looked at humanely to find solutions.

I still cannot fathom how, on the one hand some people here are saying that we should support families, including larger one, and at the same time say leave them in tiny flats, bedsits, b&bs... while older people with empty nests sit in larger houses with gardens on their own.

And yes, this only applies to Council subsidized properties, because social benefits are a safety net for a basic standard of life, and not luxuries. Some have cars, some do not, some have big posh cars, and some have old bangers. Some go on long haul holidays, some even in luxury hotels, some stay at home. Life is not 'fair' - social services as in the UK are there to ensure everybody has a safe roof over their head, health care, enough to eat and keep warm - and that is fantastic. But to provide a family home for life...even when not needed, well no.

The current guidelines, as far as I understand them, is that a handicap does NOT NECESSARILY make you exempt, per se - but that individual needs would be assessed if the extra room is needed for specific cases.

One of my best friends lives in a tiny post-war bungalow with one small lounge, tiny kitchen and small bedroom with her handicapped husband, and keep his scooter in a garden shed. Their family of course can't stay there if they come to visit from abroad, and book themselves into a B&B when they come. Why should the State (no, the tax payers) pay for spare bedrooms for relatives who visit for a few days once or a couple of times a year ... when they have to pay huge sums for b&b accommodation for years for families ... let alone the psychological, emotional and educational damage this causes.

I know somebody in leisure services finance.

Frank

How have you come by this information ? Hope not snooping . LOL

As far as I am concerned they could cut the subsidy to leisure centres as long as they cut the council tax.
As it happens the centre I use just about breaks even.
The ones in the other areas of Birmingham do not.

Frank

Frank abolishing the Royal Family is not going to happen, so please change the record. I could also state that subsidised leisure facilities might also be regarded as "non essential"

You just can't keep a good man down.

Yes if we abolish the royal family and stop councils spending money on non essential things ie christmas decorations and bunting for things like the royal weddings taxes could probably be reduced.

Frank

I have missed a bit, Are we now talking about how old Frank is, how much tax he pays, his views on Royalty etc? If we are, I have, unusually, nothing to contribute, controversially or otherwise. Some would be "glad" and doubtless want to continue analysing, dissecting, Frank.Forgive me I don't want to trivialise what you consider to be a serious subject but would prefer to, temporally, if you do not mind return to the original subject. We have had numerous "takes" on the subject, many with merit. None with a satisfactory solution. If the combined mental output of the "professional"contributors to GN cannot agree on a satisfactory solution that would be applicable to all situations, how do you think anyone else can?
Do you not think that rather than getting your proverbial s in a twist, and slagging off people you partially disagree with, we could agree that it is a difficult problem, which doesn't mean it should be abandoned,and consider a point I mentioned in the beginning,that cases be considered on their merit.
I was not heartless as was suggested, I did not need reminding that some people live in second floor flats, or even pent house suites, or basements. I didn't imply that they were ALL scroungers.I knew everyone was not able to have a shed, for their "stuff"( That was a sprat to catch a mackerel ) Which drew out the more heartless and vindictive amongst you.
Increasingly the point seems to be who can we belittle for their opinions, and how many others can we recruit to agree with ME. How can we gloss over what has been said and misunderstand it almost to the point of appearing senile ourselves.
The facts are cuts need to be made, this is one way, it isn't ideal, it suits few, it's already being administered incorrectly( deliberately, in some cases) It needs to be based on the individual needs, and not across the board. That in itself is difficult to achieve. It can however weed out some of the scroungers.
Perhaps we could stop giving countries that have space programmes, and are richer than we are, millions in aid? We could perhaps all have an increase in pension, benefit etc.

Aka, bluebell and Bez

Bez said they owned the house on a tenants in common basis to make sure their children gets their inheritance and both estates do not go to another family.
My mother and father earned about the same amount of money during their working lives.
My mother bought the point up that if one of my parents passed away the other could get married again and all the money could go to another family so they had tenants in common ownership for the same reason as Bez.
I was glad my mother had put the house in to tenants in common ownership when my father's so called lady friend suddenly wanted the house willing to her family.
Dad told her in no uncertain terms that would not happen but it was nice to know I could certainly have stopped him willing at least half the house to the other family.
I would have also objected to him willing the other half as it said no sale, transfer, or charge to be given over the property without the consent of both parties both parties being myself and my father.
Even if Dad had willed his half over to that woman I may have been able to stop the transfer of the title in to her name.
Also the house could not have been taken for care fees as I was an owner occupier but I may have been able to block any sale if I had not been an occupier as I would have not given my consent for the house to be sold under these circumstances.
I am not sure however if this clause has been tested in law.

Frank

I don't know how people define tax evasion.
As long as people keep within the law no action can be taken against them.
If it is decided that what a company / person is doing is wrong then a law could be made to prevent it happening again but laws can not be made retrospective of date.

Frank

Thanks Ana , must have been doing something interesting , did not hear him say that !!!

frank although I said 'we' the pension is all his. I don't get anything worth mentioning and there are two of us living off it, plus relatives, so count your blessings.

Nonu, Frank has told us many times that he is only 64!

Given the choice I'd rather be in the 40% tax bracket than where I am now.

I thought you were already in receipt of your state pension Frank ?