Bedroom Tax

[said]

Under the legislation for welfare benefits a married couple/civil partnership are allowed one bedroom.

But how is it defined if a man and a woman are claiming sharing a house as friends - yet are in fact a couple living together, or as a gay couple who have not entered into civil partnership? Surely these people have an advantage in being able to claim an extra room?

[Albion102]

Under the legislation for welfare benefits a married couple/civil partnership are allowed one bedroom.

But how is it defined if a man and a woman are claiming sharing a house as friends - yet are in fact a couple living together, or as a gay couple who have not entered into civil partnership? Surely these people have an advantage in being able to claim an extra room?

It is very straightforward, if you are a couple, whether you sleep in the same bed or not, and claim it is a house share, then you are committing benefits fraud. How you get caught is another matter, but it very definitely is benefits fraud.

[Albion102]

That having been said, the legal concept of living as man and wife and the tests for it can exercise the tax and benefits authorities as the definitions have not really kept up with social change.

But all tax and benefits rules are unfair to somebody.

[*concerned*]

"Bedroom Tax" is not a tax, and never has been !

Its simply a measure introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012, by which the amount of housing benefit paid to a claimant is reduced if the property they are renting is judged to have more bedrooms than necessary.

It does not (nor cannot) apply to renters who are not on housing benefit.

In other words, if on housing benefit and your "needs" are for a 1 bedroom accommodation, the housing benefit will be for that only, if you need 2 or more bedrooms, then the benefit will increase accordingly.

[Albion102]

It does not (nor cannot) apply to renters who are not on housing benefit.

.

Actually its purpose was to bring housing benefit for private and social tenants into line. The policy intention was to encourage empty nesters to move to smaller social properties, although there is little evidence of this happening.

[Little Londoner]

It's a pity we can't all be given a multi bedroom mansion like the instigator of the bedroom tax Duncan-Smith he marries good old Betsie and her old man gives the struggling pair a mansion.

Now we have super tax cheat Hunt buying a raft of flats at a discount off a Tory donor and he swerves the Stamp Duty thanks to Osborne looking after the rich. What a festering pack of scum bags they are. The plebs get the SH**TY end of the Tory stick once again.

[Warrior]

Perhaps you should go the same route as my neighbours and live alternate nights at each claimants address. Is it still fiddling one has a house one has a flat alternative night I think it is fiddling. Claim separately but still together. that may be the way for you to go. On paper you are not together but claim for a house or flat each and both get benefit. All legal allegedly

[susanb]

I thought the rule was, if someone slept for three nights in a week, they were living in the house/flat. It would effect the benefits.

[gazaprop]

It's a pity we can't all be given a multi bedroom mansion like the instigator of the bedroom tax Duncan-Smith he marries good old Betsie and her old man gives the struggling pair a mansion.

Now we have super tax cheat Hunt buying a raft of flats at a discount off a Tory donor and he swerves the Stamp Duty thanks to Osborne looking after the rich. What a festering pack of scum bags they are. The plebs get the SH**TY end of the Tory stick once again.

Perhaps you'd care to list those from Labour who've behaved in a similar fashion rather than plod tediously along the 'class war' path with this.

Tory, Labour, UKIP, Lib Dem - most are cut from the same cloth - when it's put on a plate human nature takes over - to suggest any different is at best extremely naive.

[Little Londoner]

Perhaps you'd care to list those from Labour who've behaved in a similar fashion rather than plod tediously along the 'class war' path with this.

Tory, Labour, UKIP, Lib Dem - most are cut from the same cloth - when it's put on a plate human nature takes over - to suggest any different is at best extremely naive.

I can only apologise for being born working class my family have all "worked" for everything they have. I am sorry if pointing out that the £multimillionaire Tory MP's are ripping into the disabled and yet seem unashamed at avoiding Tax for their own avaricious purposes.
Yes I know Politicians from ALL sides grab every ha'penny they can but the Tories take it to levels the others can only dream of.

I remember Labour getting Hospital waiting lists right down, record numbers of joint replacements taking place. Is the current near implosion of the NHS, the rising crime and low Police levels cuts to EVERY thing except MP's pay and expenses more to your liking. We are ALL in this together remember.

[Hamble]

Some people do not get the system.

Study you qualify you achieve and are paid.
Power and a good wage allow more choices for more power and wealth.
The benefits as long as they are legal bring more wealth.

Do not achieve or lose the ability for whatever reason to be financially independent you lose the scope for power and wealth
which after sometime will also decline.

The state then steps in to support fully(though it is existence financially only)providing a home a wage one does not earn medical care and schooling for you and your family plus legal aid.

The more people requiring this aid the less money is available for luxury's.

[gazaprop]

I can only apologise for being born working class my family have all "worked" for everything they have. I am sorry if pointing out that the £multimillionaire Tory MP's are ripping into the disabled and yet seem unashamed at avoiding Tax for their own avaricious purposes.
Yes I know Politicians from ALL sides grab every ha'penny they can but the Tories take it to levels the others can only dream of.

I remember Labour getting Hospital waiting lists right down, record numbers of joint replacements taking place. Is the current near implosion of the NHS, the rising crime and low Police levels cuts to EVERY thing except MP's pay and expenses more to your liking. We are ALL in this together remember.

....or costing the lives of hundreds of young soldiers whilst saddling hundreds of others with life changing injuries - all for an ego trip.
Financially mis-managing the countries finances (arguably as a deliberate action to saddle the Tories with the repurcussions as Labour knew they wouldn't win), causing thousands to lose their homes and jobs, relationships etc.
The waiting list and surgical procedure levels you refer to were only acheived by employing 'agency' nurses and doctors at vastly inflated rates which had the net effect of taking money out of the NHS - sounds like a Tory trick doesn't it?

The point is - if an argument is prosecuted in a ranting and 'yeah, but look at what those rich *******s did' tone, then the force of it is diluted now matter how valid the point.
Adversaries can also inevitably point to a blinkered outlook when it's clear as day that the other side are equally at fault.

Incidentally - your roots, which mirror mine, are not something to apologise for - class is an accident of birth and can be changed as Hamble has so eloquently pointed out.

[Little Londoner]

....or costing the lives of hundreds of young soldiers whilst saddling hundreds of others with life changing injuries - all for an ego trip.
Financially mis-managing the countries finances (arguably as a deliberate action to saddle the Tories with the repurcussions as Labour knew they wouldn't win), causing thousands to lose their homes and jobs, relationships etc.
The waiting list and surgical procedure levels you refer to were only acheived by employing 'agency' nurses and doctors at vastly inflated rates which had the net effect of taking money out of the NHS - sounds like a Tory trick doesn't it?

The point is - if an argument is prosecuted in a ranting and 'yeah, but look at what those rich *******s did' tone, then the force of it is diluted now matter how valid the point.
Adversaries can also inevitably point to a blinkered outlook when it's clear as day that the other side are equally at fault.

Incidentally - your roots, which mirror mine, are not something to apologise for - class is an accident of birth and can be changed as Hamble has so eloquently pointed out.

You don't say anything about the WORLD FINANCIAL breakdown which entailed Labour spending £Billions bailing out our banks, so forgetting that liitle problem is a convenient lack of the realisation of what went on.
YOU obviously (by your lack of gratitude for Labour saving your hard earned savings) wanted the Banks to fail which I suspect had the Tory Party been in power they would have done then they could really have taken us back to serfdom.
Stop reading the Mail they are making you look an idiot.

By the way all this "NEW" money your heroic tories are putting into the NHS is straight from your book of Tory Bull*hit.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a8211226.html

[Hamble]

You don't say anything about the WORLD FINANCIAL breakdown which entailed Labour spending £Billions bailing out our banks, so forgetting that liitle problem is a convenient lack of the realisation of what went on.
YOU obviously (by your lack of gratitude for Labour saving your hard earned savings) wanted the Banks to fail which I suspect had the Tory Party been in power they would have done then they could really have taken us back to serfdom.
Stop reading the Mail they are making you look an idiot.

By the way all this "NEW" money your heroic tories are putting into the NHS is straight from your book of Tory Bull*hit.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a8211226.html

BlairBrown legacy.
Quote
"Our weakness in 2008 was compounded by our bloated banking sector and pumped-up credit markets. These two were also a legacy of Brown policies that Blair had failed to keep in check. When making the Bank of England independent, the chancellor took banking supervision away from Threadneedle Street, giving it instead to a body he had created, the Financial Services Authority. Basically a Treasury handmaiden, the FSA did whatever its Whitehall masters told it to do. As a result, UK banks were allowed to do pretty much as they pleased from 1997, as long as it made the economy grow faster, sooner, reflecting glory on Brown.

This was a disastrous, deeply irresponsible state of affairs — condoned by Blair — which, again, made the UK much more vulnerable when the credit crunch came. Yes, the UK economy is now “fully recovered”, with GDP reaching its pre-Lehman high. But our recovery has been the weakest in the Western world. It’s taken seven years and billions of pounds of output have been lost forever. Our banks, meanwhile, remain far too large and systemically dangerous — a direct result of those disastrous Brown years and despite the FSA’s recent abolition.

Blair let Brown have his way on pension and welfare policy too. In 1997, the Prime Minister failed to block the Treasury’s disastrous pension stealth tax, which has since taken at least £5bn a year from our retirement funds. And Blair could, and should, have prevented Brown from hounding Frank Field out of office in 1998. The former minister for welfare reform’s predictions on the dangers of mass means-testing and tax credits have since come all too true.

Blair deserves credit for greater investment in UK infrastructure under New Labour. Crossrail and the successful Olympic bid owe much to Blair. But, again to avoid a row with his chancellor, Blair allowed a huge expansion of the private finance initiative. Brown’s Treasury signed hundreds of PFI contracts to construct, service and maintain schools, hospitals and other public buildings. While these kept spending off the government’s books as Brown wished, many were terrible value for money. New Labour signed PFI deals providing schools and hospitals worth £43bn, at a long-term cost to taxpayers of £150bn. "
.............


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...h-economy.html


Labours gambling Laws?
The have and have nots have been made homeless and left in poverty stricken debt from the fall out.