colhint Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Its a strange one really. Should the state provide a house or a home. I think the former really. And it can't really be right that you can have a situation where a couple have a 3 bedroom house whilst bigger families are living in B&B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villamark Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 But are there smaller houses for them to move into. Say a single mum with one child lives in a 3 bed house and been there for a number of years is it fair to tax her because she was not put into a 2 bed house in the first place or there is no 2 bed house for her to move into. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I'm sure there are 2 3 and 4 bedroom houses in the councils stock. Its just getting the right people into the right one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villamark Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I am not sure there are that many 1 & 2 bedroom houses available. While I agree with the idea the policy will cause quite a bit of harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 21, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted March 21, 2013 The country is already full of empty houses and flats. There are lots of homeless people. Young people/first time buyers cannot get mortgages. And the government insists we build more crappy Barratt boxes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 anyone been in a pub since the budget ? When it came to going up in price My mate (who was a Landrord ) always used to tell me that the headline rate in the budget was for cooking alcohol ( or something like that) which was a low proof and that therefore beyond the headline figure your stronger alcohol pints like Stella actually incurred a 3p rise in duty + Vat ... so was curious to see if a pint actually went down by a couple of pence .. or just the 1 p headline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 21, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted March 21, 2013 What the **** difference is a penny a pint (on about three quid) going to make? Just leaving it as it was would have made more sense - all those pennies add up to a decent tax revenue - but the piddling reduction isn't going to get the missing hordes of drinkers back in to save the British pub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 What the **** difference is a penny a pint (on about three quid) going to make? Just leaving it as it was would have made more sense - all those pennies add up to a decent tax revenue - but the piddling reduction isn't going to get the missing hordes of drinkers back in to save the British pub. feelgood factor i would guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 the budget calculator on BBC says i'll save £434 annually as a household due to the budget. i guess mainly personal allowance change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 21, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted March 21, 2013 What the **** difference is a penny a pint (on about three quid) going to make? Just leaving it as it was would have made more sense - all those pennies add up to a decent tax revenue - but the piddling reduction isn't going to get the missing hordes of drinkers back in to save the British pub. feelgood factor i would guess. Sure, but it's too small to have that effect. Take 50p or more off a pint, and it'd make people (read: me) feel good. But a penny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 What the **** difference is a penny a pint (on about three quid) going to make? Just leaving it as it was would have made more sense - all those pennies add up to a decent tax revenue - but the piddling reduction isn't going to get the missing hordes of drinkers back in to save the British pub. feelgood factor i would guess. Sure, but it's too small to have that effect. Take 50p or more off a pint, and it'd make people (read: me) feel good. But a penny? i meant the illusory feelgood factor of saying that "beer is cheaper" without it costing the Govt anything, rather than a real feelgood factor when you actually pay less for beer (& which would cost the govt money). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 It's populist hogwash. The guvmint is inept. The EU is inept. No one has a clue what they are doing. Thank goodness for that cheaper pint, I could do with one. Maybe with the saved up pennies I'll be able to by stocks in Gazprom. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 But are there smaller houses for them to move into. Say a single mum with one child lives in a 3 bed house and been there for a number of years is it fair to tax her because she was not put into a 2 bed house in the first place or there is no 2 bed house for her to move into. no, its not. but thats no reason not to move to an overall fairer system, even though there will be some short-term upheaval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villamark Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 But are there smaller houses for them to move into. Say a single mum with one child lives in a 3 bed house and been there for a number of years is it fair to tax her because she was not put into a 2 bed house in the first place or there is no 2 bed house for her to move into. no, its not. but thats no reason not to move to an overall fairer system, even though there will be some short-term upheaval. But they have not come up with a system that is fair. If they were to say offer a two bedroom house that was in the same school catchment area and would not cause massive upheaval and the single mother said no I am staying were I am, then yes she can pay extra. But when there is a shortage of 1 & 2 bedroom houses I think it is not fair to tax people who have a spare room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Are you sure there is a shortage of 1 & 2 bed houses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 the shortage is in family houses of 3-5 bedroom, not in 1-2 bedroom houses/flats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villamark Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Well that is what all the housing associations are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 What the **** difference is a penny a pint (on about three quid) going to make? Just leaving it as it was would have made more sense - all those pennies add up to a decent tax revenue - but the piddling reduction isn't going to get the missing hordes of drinkers back in to save the British pub. feelgood factor i would guess. Exactly that, 1p makes no difference, the part time chancellor is just hoping it makes it look like he's doing something good for people. I don't drink so it doesn't affect me anyway, it just seems to be "Ah yes, this will appease the lesser classes". Ploughing on with more of the same just will not help things. I wonder how long it will be before he makes some more U turns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) I'm sure there are 2 3 and 4 bedroom houses in the councils stock. Its just getting the right people into the right one Don't have a problem with them moving people around but whilst they are doing it don't penalize people already in many cases living on the breadline. I heard a woman on the radio the other day saying that she lives in a 3 bedroom house with her husband and three children aged 4,7 and 9. Because all the children are under 10 it is expected they can share a room so under this policy she therefore has a spare bedroom. She should therefore move out, with all the cost of moving and administration that will involve and then in under a year when the eldest child turns 10, and should have a room of their own, she can again move in to a 3 bedroom house. It is madness. Edited March 21, 2013 by markavfc40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 does everyone agree with the 'bedroom tax'? It seems totally logical to me, but seems a lot of people are against it. (not giving the carers an extra room was daft at first, but that small print has been changed now). It seems pretty reasonable to have a (social) housing policy that says that housing stock should be distributed as to need. It seems pretty unreasonable that this should not take in to account individual circumstances, though. This means more than your carers 'small print' thing, btw. It also seems pretty unreasonable that a policy should be brought in where there may not be sufficient opportunity for people to move to properties with fewer bedrooms and therefore that policy becomes just about reducing welfare payments (though in some circumstances it is probably likely that the medium term cost will be increased because there may be more movement in to the vastly overpriced private rented sector). It also fits with the coalition government's view that social housing should just be part of a temporary safety net rather than a proper supply of housing stock (assured tenancy changes, 80%+ market rents, moving LHA maximum from mean down to 30th percentile and so on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts