Warning over benefit changes (From Salisbury Journal)

WHY should pensioners be protected from the criteria of bedroom tax!, and WHAT gives them the right to rattle around in big empty council/housing association houses when there are so many desperate families on the waiting list!

Why should old people be forced out of their homes which they had probably paid full rent when they were working?

Homes where they brought up their children, where they have memories, where members of their family may come to stay.

When older people move, they often die shortly afterwards, that will cut the costs of care for the elderly, won't it?

When older people need money to heat their homes, this despicable government is taking money from them, yet millionaires get tax breaks.

This government is hitting the poor, the old, the young and the inadequate.

Not even Thatcher did that.

How do they get away with it?

Grampie - look at it this way, if someone was renting a house privately for all their working life then the children left home and they retired, should their landlord say "hey, that's ok, you don't have to pay full rent now"? If only.

They would have to either continue paying full rent OR they would have to move to cheaper (perhaps smaller?) accomodation regardless of how many memories that home may hold and the possibility that guests may come to stay.

Why should it be fair that the little old lady now gets to stay in her family sized home which is being subsidised by the private renter who had to downsize due to lack of funds?

The heating argument is another debate entirely, but could be dragged into this by asking the question: would a large house cost as much to heat as something smaller and should we be subsidising the heating as well as the home?

There's not much I agree with this government on but I do wholeheartedly agree with this stance. Particularly when there are families desperate for a home.

"Why should old people be forced out of their homes which they had probably paid full rent when they were working?"
-When they were working and paying full rent, they were rightly entitled to a large home.

"where members of their family may come to stay"
-Why don't they go and stay with their family instead!

"When older people move, they often die shortly afterwards"
-What utter twaddle you come out with sometimes Grampie!

"When older people need money to heat their homes, this despicable government is taking money from them"
-The old woman that lives next door to me has her heating on full blast 24/7. These poor old people that you are talking about are getting money from somewhere!

Thankfully Grampie... Not all old people have such selfish beliefs as you.

Favicon wrote:
Thankfully Grampie... Not all old people have such selfish beliefs as you.

What is selfish about caring about older people?

There are a lot of callous people on here today.

Thankfully the majority of people do care about people and the homes they live in.

huskydog wrote:
Grampie - look at it this way, if someone was renting a house privately for all their working life then the children left home and they retired, should their landlord say "hey, that's ok, you don't have to pay full rent now"? If only.

They would have to either continue paying full rent OR they would have to move to cheaper (perhaps smaller?) accomodation regardless of how many memories that home may hold and the possibility that guests may come to stay.

Why should it be fair that the little old lady now gets to stay in her family sized home which is being subsidised by the private renter who had to downsize due to lack of funds?

The heating argument is another debate entirely, but could be dragged into this by asking the question: would a large house cost as much to heat as something smaller and should we be subsidising the heating as well as the home?

There's not much I agree with this government on but I do wholeheartedly agree with this stance. Particularly when there are families desperate for a home.

I do not think you have understood the topic. If someone is renting in the private sector and is on housing benefit, the housing benefit will be reduced if, say for example, their partner dies. It does not matter whether he or she is in private or social housing.

Your arguments obviously come from no experience with dealing with the lives of older people. I hope that you never get into the same circumstances when you are given the choice of pay up and get out.

Favicon wrote:
Thankfully Grampie... Not all old people have such selfish beliefs as you.

By the way, I have my own place and thankfully I am lucky enough to have a choice.

Grampie wrote:

Favicon wrote: Thankfully Grampie... Not all old people have such selfish beliefs as you.

By the way, I have my own place and thankfully I am lucky enough to have a choice.

Good for you!
In that case, perhaps you'll spare a thought for the poor families that have NO choice but to wait until an old codger pops their clogs before they can have somewhere to live.
Better still, why don't you take in a couple of pensioners seeing as a) you "have your own place and thankfully lucky enough to have a choice", and b) appear to enjoy talking out of your arse whenever you get the chance.

And yet, if you are a multi-national bank with branches on every high street and you go bust, the government go out of their way to support you. What a strange world we live in.

your all missing the point ITS A NEW FORM OF TAX if your a couple there are no one bedroom properties for any one to move in to if your made redundant so what happens next £71 per week means over £20 in rent and poll tax if you live outside salisbury you have to pay to sighn on so oh dear eviction comes to mind, shanty towns or cardboard boxes while visitors from abroad are wined and dined at all of our expense

Markwillt I agree "ITS A NEW FORM OF TAX". The point that I would like to get across is that it would never have happened if it wasn't for all the unnecessary financial wastage including footing the bill for pensioners to rattle around in big empty council/housing association houses.



Grampie I apologise for accusing you of talking out of your arse.

Grampie wrote:

huskydog wrote: Grampie - look at it this way, if someone was renting a house privately for all their working life then the children left home and they retired, should their landlord say "hey, that's ok, you don't have to pay full rent now"? If only. They would have to either continue paying full rent OR they would have to move to cheaper (perhaps smaller?) accomodation regardless of how many memories that home may hold and the possibility that guests may come to stay. Why should it be fair that the little old lady now gets to stay in her family sized home which is being subsidised by the private renter who had to downsize due to lack of funds? The heating argument is another debate entirely, but could be dragged into this by asking the question: would a large house cost as much to heat as something smaller and should we be subsidising the heating as well as the home? There's not much I agree with this government on but I do wholeheartedly agree with this stance. Particularly when there are families desperate for a home.

I do not think you have understood the topic. If someone is renting in the private sector and is on housing benefit, the housing benefit will be reduced if, say for example, their partner dies. It does not matter whether he or she is in private or social housing. Your arguments obviously come from no experience with dealing with the lives of older people. I hope that you never get into the same circumstances when you are given the choice of pay up and get out.

You've missed the point I was trying to make. I was referring to someone who rents privately entirely (without subsidies/housing benefits) and comparing them to those in social housing - which can also be extended to those receiving housing benefit.

You seem to like fluffiness so let me put it this way...is it fair for someone to stay in a house "where they have memories", as you put it, when there are many families needing a family home to simply start some memories?

To quote you, every single day I am given the choice of "pay up or get out" alongside the majority of people. If I default on my mortgage payments, then my home may be repossessed. This, I agree, is a different circumstance altogether, but for me it is a choice between "paying the mortgage" or "being homeless". Again, if I was a tenant, I would have the choice of "paying the rent" or "being homeless". Life choices are essentially the same regardless of age and benefits.

It seems I may have touched a nerve in my last post and if I did, it most certainly was not intentional. I believe I am entitled to an opinion alongside anyone else, but according to you, I clearly have no experience - so perhaps I should just shut up? How very political ;o)

Favicon wrote:
Markwillt I agree "ITS A NEW FORM OF TAX". The point that I would like to get across is that it would never have happened if it wasn't for all the unnecessary financial wastage including footing the bill for pensioners to rattle around in big empty council/housing association houses.



Grampie I apologise for accusing you of talking out of your arse.

Apologies accepted. It did make me chuckle. I knew I had won the argument when you posted that.

This Government is taxing old people now?

There is an old saying about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Favicon wrote:

Grampie wrote:

Favicon wrote: Thankfully Grampie... Not all old people have such selfish beliefs as you.

By the way, I have my own place and thankfully I am lucky enough to have a choice.

Good for you!
In that case, perhaps you'll spare a thought for the poor families that have NO choice but to wait until an old codger pops their clogs before they can have somewhere to live.
Better still, why don't you take in a couple of pensioners seeing as a) you "have your own place and thankfully lucky enough to have a choice", and b) appear to enjoy talking out of your arse whenever you get the chance.

I have a couple of old codgers in my house.

huskydog wrote:

Grampie wrote:

huskydog wrote: Grampie - look at it this way, if someone was renting a house privately for all their working life then the children left home and they retired, should their landlord say "hey, that's ok, you don't have to pay full rent now"? If only. They would have to either continue paying full rent OR they would have to move to cheaper (perhaps smaller?) accomodation regardless of how many memories that home may hold and the possibility that guests may come to stay. Why should it be fair that the little old lady now gets to stay in her family sized home which is being subsidised by the private renter who had to downsize due to lack of funds? The heating argument is another debate entirely, but could be dragged into this by asking the question: would a large house cost as much to heat as something smaller and should we be subsidising the heating as well as the home? There's not much I agree with this government on but I do wholeheartedly agree with this stance. Particularly when there are families desperate for a home.

I do not think you have understood the topic. If someone is renting in the private sector and is on housing benefit, the housing benefit will be reduced if, say for example, their partner dies. It does not matter whether he or she is in private or social housing. Your arguments obviously come from no experience with dealing with the lives of older people. I hope that you never get into the same circumstances when you are given the choice of pay up and get out.

You've missed the point I was trying to make. I was referring to someone who rents privately entirely (without subsidies/housing benefits) and comparing them to those in social housing - which can also be extended to those receiving housing benefit.

You seem to like fluffiness so let me put it this way...is it fair for someone to stay in a house "where they have memories", as you put it, when there are many families needing a family home to simply start some memories?

To quote you, every single day I am given the choice of "pay up or get out" alongside the majority of people. If I default on my mortgage payments, then my home may be repossessed. This, I agree, is a different circumstance altogether, but for me it is a choice between "paying the mortgage" or "being homeless". Again, if I was a tenant, I would have the choice of "paying the rent" or "being homeless". Life choices are essentially the same regardless of age and benefits.

It seems I may have touched a nerve in my last post and if I did, it most certainly was not intentional. I believe I am entitled to an opinion alongside anyone else, but according to you, I clearly have no experience - so perhaps I should just shut up? How very political ;o)

"You've missed the point I was trying to make. I was referring to someone who rents privately entirely (without subsidies/housing benefits) and comparing them to those in social housing - which can also be extended to those receiving housing benefit."

Many people living in social housing pay the full rent. the only thing they do not pay for is the profit the landlord makes (which he or she pays tax on, but still makes a lot of money). With social housing the profit goes back top the community. With housing benefits to those in social or council housing, the benefit money goes back to the council or the housing association.

You do not get housing benefit if your income is low, which happens to a lot of older people. Obviously you do not know any older people living in social housing.

Would you like to knock on an old lady's door and say "Sling your hook missus. I don't care if you have lived here for forty years and fully paid your rent until recently I want your 3 bedroom semi because we can't be bothered to build any more. Did your old man have a good funeral?"

or are you happy for other people to do it?

Happy New Year

these benefits are for those who sweep the streets pick up the crap clean up the blood in your hospitals and clear your rubbish so have some espect as they are not scroungers they were born without the silver spoon

markwillt wrote:
these benefits are for those who sweep the streets pick up the crap clean up the blood in your hospitals and clear your rubbish so have some espect as they are not scroungers they were born without the silver spoon

So true, Mark. When people become comfortable in life, they forget about those who do the menial, but essential jobs for our society and are probably the worst paid.

Us tax payers subsidise the low wages paid by their employers, whilst the rich have tax breaks to make them work harder.

It's the school bully syndrome. They go after the easy targets because, well, it's easier. The difficult harder targets? that wouldn't be bullying then would it?
So keep throwing money at banks and, allowing tax avoidance and the rest and hoping people won't notice. Except some people do notice and, they inform others and record the evidence for future generations
So when this government are finally ousted there will be a permanent record of their activities and behaviour and, justice will be done, in time.

its comical how councillor jeans comments they need to plan how to pay the extra WAKE UP A LOT WONT BE ABLE TO then they will be forced to split up famillies following eviction and imprisonment for non payement of council tax, this is draconian and as an ex tory i believe will be the end of this government along with the librals for many years to come