disabled will NOT be exempt from 'bedroom tax'

Bait ..... rise ..... don't. Pleeeeese!!

River , Laugh !!!

It shouldn't be, and doesn't need to be, a choice between disabled/homeless/deserving poor/undeserving poor. Somehow, this country can always find the money for a war. We need to encourage the economy to grow and building affordable/social housing would help with that, as well as meeting society's need for affordable/social housing. Building provides so much work in local communities. It's entirely possible to speedily build/renovate. If the government put its energies into that, instead of into punishing the vulnerable, I'm sure a building programme could be put into action. This bedroom tax is being introduced at a time when wages/benefits are falling or not rising, but the cost of living is.

We have a huge shortage of social/affordable housing, particularly one bedroom homes. I share the frustration about the people who fiddle our systems, but they are such a small drain on the economy when compared with tax evasion. (Moved, your point 8 above wonders what tax evasion has to do with this thread)

Tax evasion has nothing to do with this thread it is a different matter. None of us knows how much the economy loses from tax evasion or from benefit fraud. I can't see the point in combining the arguments.

It's the required response moved to any suggestion that benefits are brought under control. It's the fault of bankers, businesses, tax dodgers etc and nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that this country is massively in debt and that the last Labour Government spent money it didn't have to appease the masses. Bread and circuses Bluebell

It would indeed be wonderful if everyone could be provided with the houses they want and as much space as they require but there have to be changes. I don't think it's beyond the wit of man to make this change fair. Those who are severely disabled, who need extra equipment because of that disability should retain the space they need at no extra cost. I think part of the issue is the use of the term 'disabled' as a blanket term. What exactly does that cover? Does being depressed or having a bad back etc mean you are entitled to a spare bedroom when there is so much demand from families?

Building more social housing would be a quick fix yes and would provide employment short term but then what? The rent of those homes would be subsidised - again by the taxpayer. Labour were in power for thirteen years, blaming Mrs Thatcher, yet again just doesn't wash. Labour's policy of open door immigration has lead to strain on every aspect of social spending sadly.

I think the point is that the government prefers to make life harder for those already at the bottom of the pile, whilst turning a blind eye to the billions lost by tax avoidance. We are told the nation has a limited pot of money and that 'we are all in it together' which is patent nonsense.
In my turn, I can't see the point of using individual rogues who play the benefit system in order to justify making life intolerable for the honest majority. It is a dishonest ploy.

I wondered how long it would be before immigrants were blamed! Now stand back and wait for single mothers to get the same treatment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10071507/100bn-lost-in-tax-avoidance-by-individuals-Oxfam.html

It's all a question of fairness Greatnan nobody objects to those in need being supported but there is a laxity in many areas which is unsupportable.

I think you forgot 'and large families' from your comment.

There is certainly great laxity in the area of tax collection. I think perhaps the mention of large families on the Philpott thread may have given them a temporary respite from obliquy.
Is there any point in giving the government's own estimates of comparative losses to the exchequer?

I don't see how anyone can estimate the losses, we don't know who is doing what! That is the point, people are cheating and we can only guess but how valid is that guess?

I thought the government was trying to do something about tax avoidance? It has to be agreed internationally for it to work so is going to take some time but I really don't think they are ignoring it.

The trouble is that we all think whichever government is in power should do more for more people but there is never the money. We hear of protests about everything any government suggests but no alternative solutions of ways to make the money go round. It is so easy to moan and say that 'they' are getting it wrong but not so easy to offer solutions.

Off for the last minute shopping before I go on hols again tomorrow. Bye all.

Greatnan

I have no objection to helping single mothers or fathers who are widowed.
If they are divorced or their partner is still alive the father should be paying for the child and not the taxpayer.
When my wife died I got some abuse from some single mothers because I had an expensive house and new car etc.
The house mortgage was paid with my wife's life assurance money and I got some support from her parents as she was an only child.

Frank

And what about the rest of us, Frank? Do I belong to the deserving or undeserving poor?

Your comment about those paying the highest taxes should make the decisions....haven't you noticed they actually do.

vampirequeen

I have never been asked for my views on spending money on the Royal Family for example even though I was a 40% taxpayer when I was at work.

Frank

Fogive me If I am wrong , but I thought said a while back you did not want any of your money spent on the royal family .

Nonu

You are correct. I do not want the Royal Family or any of my money spent on them.

Frank

Frank, stop whingeing on about paying higher taxes. We pay at least what you do and I don't begrudge it if it is necessary to help the needy of our society.

EEEEEEKKKKKKKK!!

petallus

You say we.
The figures I quoted is what I pay on my own and I will pay more when I get my state pension.

Frank

kitty forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you may have meant aaaarrrggghh

So, Frank I believe I have asked you this question before, but how are you going to control what any of your money (tax, council tax, Bums & Tums subscription etc) is actually spent on, to ensure that not a penny of your income (including your famous London Pension) ends up being spent on the Royal Family?

I'll be crying in my cocoa soon Frank,you have earned it so you should pay the tax on it,if it worries you that much give it away prefferably to someone who needs it you would certainly complain if you paid the tax mr.g pays he never complains and he is also prepared to pay our care home fee's if ever needed and not squirm his way out of them,never mind what the law say's it's what you believe to be right in life.

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

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

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

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.