I thought pensioners were excluded from this. If it was me I would gladly move out even if we have lived here for 40+ years but we don't have any spare rooms as my 2 youngest are both still living at home plus we pay full rent and council tax.
they have been asked to move. constantly. not just now. over the last 5 maybe 10 years. nothing to do with todays government. they are constantly being asked. politely.
they have been asked to move. constantly. not just now. over the last 5 maybe 10 years. nothing to do with todays government. they are constantly being asked. politely.
But why and who by? Are they undesirable neighbours or something ? If so can't they just be evicted
they have been asked to move. constantly. not just now. over the last 5 maybe 10 years. nothing to do with todays government. they are constantly being asked. politely.
But who is actually asking them to move? The council?
So you would evict old people throw them onto the streets?
,
oh and ALL pensioners are NOT exempt from the bedroom fine, its just another one of Cameron's lies, a lie deliberately told in order to fool those who either don't know or care about the truth,
SOME pensioners are indeed exempt, but in cases where "mixed age" couples under occupy then once the universal credit kicks in this October, they will not be exempt until both of them are of pension age,
In the case of myself and my partner (I will be 60 in June she is 51) WE wont be exempt until SHE turns 67... I will be 76 years old, and will have been a pensioner for for eleven years,
but don't worry, I am certain the Tories will do all in their power to make certain I don't live that long,
throw them on the streets? old hippy guy. where did i say that.?
But why do mps clam expensive they get paid too much in the first place.
THIS, it always amazes me, these...people get paid the kind of money I could only ever dream of earning, I have spent my working life working on factories or steelworks even did a brief spell down the pit in the 70s
but feeding myself at work, and getting to and from work was always MY problem, I can imagine going into my bosses office on one of the factories and saying "I need 'extra' money on top of my wages to pay for my transport to and from work and to pay for meals in a swanky restaurant... even when I am not actually AT work"
I would've been given a 2 word answer, the last one being "OFF"
So how come these people who earn so much cant afford their own transportation and food costs?
throw them on the streets? old hippy guy. where did i say that.?
You didn't and I didn't say you did, I asked what you would do with pensioners who don't WANT to move in response to this from you,
"yes. they are pensioners. they have been asked to move and refused. just because they have lived in their house since the birth of their first child shouldnt mean they can stay there. the rules should apply to them".
So, what would you do when they refuse to move? would you be OK with seeing people in their 80s being dragged out of their homes by force?, because if they refuse to obey an order to leave, then that's what it would inevitably have to come to?
Wait a few months and we WILL see people being dragged out of their homes when they cant afford to pay the bedroom fine, and some of these will be people who are disabled and some will be children, but its OK after all they are "scroungers"... it's not as though they are 'decent' people,
But who is actually asking them to move? The council?
That's what I don't understand, if it is the council then why would they ask them to move unless they are the neighbours from hell or something like that and if they are then the council could just evict them
Also were they pensioners 10 years ago when they were first asked to move if so they are probably in their 70's or 80's now. And why would they have been asked to move if they have a spare room 10 years before this bedroom tax was introduced.
That's what I don't understand, if it is the council then why would they ask them to move unless they are the neighbours from hell or something like that and if they are then the council could just evict them
Also were they pensioners 10 years ago when they were first asked to move if so they are probably in their 70's or 80's now. And why would they have been asked to move if they have a spare room 10 years before this bedroom tax was introduced.
Like a lot of questions asked about these people that katywil knows in pretty much every benefit thread, I doubt this will get an answer
But who is actually asking them to move? The council?
Any council can ask if tenants are willing to downsize, and some offer a small cash amount to help with removal costs. It is not that unusual. My mum got £200 when she moved out of her house into a 1-bed flat which had been redecorated and had a new kitchen and bathroom. It was better for her, and the council got a 3-bedroom house back. Then the new tenants bought it, and now it is privately let to sharers.
Any council can ask if tenants are willing to downsize, and some offer a small cash amount to help with removal costs. It is not that unusual. My mum got £200 when she moved out of her house into a 1-bed flat which had been redecorated and had a new kitchen and bathroom. It was better for her, and the council got a 3-bedroom house back. Then the new tenants bought it, and now it is privately let to sharers.
I find it very hard to believe that they would ask both households 'constantly'
I know councils can ask you to move, they tend to offer cash incentives too. 3 tower blocks of council flats round here are being pulled down soon. Each resident was given FIVE THOUSAND quid to leave so that the blocks could be pulled down :eek: Aswell as the cash though, the council helped them move, and put them in an area they were happy in. Incidently...some of the residents were housed in 2/3 bedroomed places..and are now deemed to be underoccupying :rolleyes:
That would be the only way I could see the council constantly hounding OAPs to move house though, if they were planning on demolishing the property.
This is where I am probably going in contradiction to what I have been saying, those recently made redundant I think need a bigger safety net to fall on at least initially so they can keep their head above water for about three months, then it could be tapered down to standard jobseekers rates and so on.
Disability benefits the myriad that exist aren't targeted more effectively, it just seems we throw money at the problem as opposed to dealing with the root causes. For example an elderly lady who can't climb the stairs has difficulty getting mobile, throwing money at the issue doesn't necessarily give the support. I know this support can be spent on chair lifts and mobility scooters and what not. When people are struggling in the home, physically and mentally support should be forthcoming of course., but it should be with a range of options from home help to a carer assisting them out for their shopping. The focus seems to be on throwing money at the situation.
They throw money at it so that we can PAY for the care we need. My local council charges £16.85 an hour for help with things like getting washed/dressed/bed made etc. It is means tested, but because I receive the care componant of DLA that money has to be used to pay for the care. I see very little of it.
up to now, people near me have refused to move. ive been accused of lying on here , or inventive, but the people i mention are real.
mrs A. she has a grown up family. she has a 4 bedroomed council house which she shares with her husband and one unemployed son. local council offers of a two bedroom flat have been declined.
across the road from me is a retired couple in a three bed semi. councils have offered them a smaller place. they can have smaller house with a garden or a flat. this couple has declined the offers because they want their spare rooms for their son when he visits. these two examples are both retired people so are exempt from HB reductions. so, my point is, that there are places to move to. and if a young overcrowded family moves into a 3 bed house , their small flat will be available for others who have moved out of their 3 bed house. easy eh?
Why should people move? Yes they have spare rooms, but so what? Yes there are people with families that could use those rooms.. so?
People see rooms and that is all. To the people that live in these places it's more than that. I was a carer to my Grandmother until she died. I have so many emotional attachments to this flat both good and bad. I don't give a flying you know what about other people needing somewhere to live when it comes to the memories and the emotional connections i have with this flat.
Other people will have their own memories. Yes their kids have grown up, moved out etc but for the people that live there it's their family home with so many memories of their own.
Another thing that people need to understand is the rules about social housing has changed. If you have lived in a council property for years you are a safe tenant for life as long as you pay your rent, council tax etc. However now if you get into social housing that isn't the case and it's harder for succession of tenancy as well.
They can now tell you to get out because you don't deserve, need social housing etc even if you are all up-to-date in payments and not in debt.
Why would somebody who has security scale down and go into somewhere that in a few years time they may get told get out because someone else needs the place?
I was speaking to a person who works for my local council. She said the problem they have is there aren't enough council one-bedroom flats for people in social housing to scale down into to free up the bigger properties.
Even she said they don't know what to do because the minute you go to someone and say we want you to move out into a private rented property that has a much higher rent they say why would I do that and be worse off financially?
THIS, it always amazes me, these...people get paid the kind of money I could only ever dream of earning, I have spent my working life working on factories or steelworks even did a brief spell down the pit in the 70s
but feeding myself at work, and getting to and from work was always MY problem, I can imagine going into my bosses office on one of the factories and saying "I need 'extra' money on top of my wages to pay for my transport to and from work and to pay for meals in a swanky restaurant... even when I am not actually AT work"
I would've been given a 2 word answer, the last one being "OFF"
So how come these people who earn so much cant afford their own transportation and food costs?
"all in it together"?
You get substinance expenses for when you are away from home in doing your job, which most MP's are. You would have got them too if your employer sent you to work somewhere that required you to stay overnight.
Most MP's expenses go towards employing secretary's and researchers and running an office.
You get substinance expenses for when you are away from home in doing your job, which most MP's are. You would have got them too if your employer sent you to work somewhere that required you to stay overnight.
Most MP's expenses go towards employing secretary's and researchers and running an office.
Assuming you mean 'subsistence', do MPs have special digestive systems that can only tolerate the most expensive breakfasts? Or heads that can only sleep on the most expensive pillows in the most expensive hotels? Subsistence for you and me would mean paying for all our living costs from benefits of around £70 a week. Please don't pretend that MPs are just using expenses to 'get by'.
let me try using small simple words. the council have asked these people to accept a smaller property. ok so far? the council has offered help with moving costs . i dont care who lives where. i dont care if the couple across the road stay there for ever. im just saying that there are smaller places available.
let me try using small simple words. the council have asked these people to accept a smaller property. ok so far? the council has offered help with moving costs . i dont care who lives where. i dont care if the couple across the road stay there for ever. im just saying that there are smaller places available.
But not for most people there is not, you have to look at the bigger picture
Assuming you mean 'subsistence', do MPs have special digestive systems that can only tolerate the most expensive breakfasts? Or heads that can only sleep on the most expensive pillows in the most expensive hotels? Subsistence for you and me would mean paying for all our living costs from benefits of around £70 a week. Please don't pretend that MPs are just using expenses to 'get by'.
Subsistence expenses are a tax deductible item for everyone, not just MP's.
If you are an employer you can claim tax back, if you are an employee then you will claim all expenses from your employer.
and yes, I've stayed in some pretty swanky hotels paid for by expenses. You pay for it by having to put up with some excruciatingly boring conferences.
let me try using small simple words. the council have asked these people to accept a smaller property. ok so far? the council has offered help with moving costs . i dont care who lives where. i dont care if the couple across the road stay there for ever. im just saying that there are smaller places available.
Well thats a bit different to being constantly asked to move then as you claimed isnt it...
Anyway. Councils all over the country have confirmed the smaller properties arent available. So to say that there are the places available..just because 2 households that you know were asked to move 5-10 years ago(again, as you said)..is a bit silly, dont you think?
I've just read that story - they want the 'dinner expense' to be used at lunchtimes so MP's can have a choice of whether their main meal of the day is taken at lunchtime or at night if working late. They aren't asking for an increase to the £15 dinner allowance just that the £15 can be used at lunchtime.
That is actually bloody outrageous. I can, just about, see why they might sort of deserve out of hours expenses, so if they have to stay late for a vote or something then fair enough but for their midday meal? Really?? FFS in that case why on earth wouldn't every worker in the land get a free midday meal? The only reason they can have for wanting to be allowed to claim for the midday meal is that they will not be working that evening. So why the hell should they get their lunch paid for?
let me try using small simple words. the council have asked these people to accept a smaller property. ok so far? the council has offered help with moving costs . i dont care who lives where. i dont care if the couple across the road stay there for ever. im just saying that there are smaller places available.
Lol, in pretty much every benefit topic you always "know" someone in your street who claims the benefit being discussed are you a curtain twitcher?
Subsistence expenses are a tax deductible item for everyone, not just MP's.
If you are an employer you can claim tax back, if you are an employee then you will claim all expenses from your employer.
and yes, I've stayed in some pretty swanky hotels paid for by expenses. You pay for it by having to put up with some excruciatingly boring conferences.
When your employer is the population and your expenses are being met from taxation - during a period of austerity in which the people claiming these expenses are telling everyone paying for them that they have to 'tighten their belts' and that it is not fair that some people should be living lifestyles better than those who are paying for them can afford to live - then they should be looking at ways of massively reducing these expenses, which means not staying in the most expensive hotels and not ordering the most expensive meals at the population's expense. It's hypocritical and obscene.
If your boss wants to pay for you to do that then it is his business. If the government want to pay themselves to do that then it is ours.
When your employer is the population and your expenses are being met from taxation - during a period of austerity in which the people claiming these expenses are telling everyone paying for them that they have to 'tighten their belts' and that it is not fair that some people should be living lifestyles better than those who are paying for them can afford to live - then they should be looking at ways of massively reducing these expenses, which means not staying in the most expensive hotels and not ordering the most expensive meals at the population's expense. It's hypocritical and obscene.
If your boss wants to pay for you to do that then it is his business. If the government want to pay themselves to do that then it is ours.
Doctors earn more than MP's and claim similar expenses, but there are a lot more of them.
Comments
But why and who by? Are they undesirable neighbours or something ? If so can't they just be evicted
But who is actually asking them to move? The council?
THIS, it always amazes me, these...people get paid the kind of money I could only ever dream of earning, I have spent my working life working on factories or steelworks even did a brief spell down the pit in the 70s
but feeding myself at work, and getting to and from work was always MY problem, I can imagine going into my bosses office on one of the factories and saying "I need 'extra' money on top of my wages to pay for my transport to and from work and to pay for meals in a swanky restaurant... even when I am not actually AT work"
I would've been given a 2 word answer, the last one being "OFF"
So how come these people who earn so much cant afford their own transportation and food costs?
"all in it together"?
You didn't and I didn't say you did, I asked what you would do with pensioners who don't WANT to move in response to this from you,
"yes. they are pensioners. they have been asked to move and refused. just because they have lived in their house since the birth of their first child shouldnt mean they can stay there. the rules should apply to them".
So, what would you do when they refuse to move? would you be OK with seeing people in their 80s being dragged out of their homes by force?, because if they refuse to obey an order to leave, then that's what it would inevitably have to come to?
Wait a few months and we WILL see people being dragged out of their homes when they cant afford to pay the bedroom fine, and some of these will be people who are disabled and some will be children, but its OK after all they are "scroungers"... it's not as though they are 'decent' people,
That's what I don't understand, if it is the council then why would they ask them to move unless they are the neighbours from hell or something like that and if they are then the council could just evict them
Also were they pensioners 10 years ago when they were first asked to move if so they are probably in their 70's or 80's now. And why would they have been asked to move if they have a spare room 10 years before this bedroom tax was introduced.
Like a lot of questions asked about these people that katywil knows in pretty much every benefit thread, I doubt this will get an answer
She seems to disappear when questions get asked.
Will be glad to be proven wrong though.
Any council can ask if tenants are willing to downsize, and some offer a small cash amount to help with removal costs. It is not that unusual. My mum got £200 when she moved out of her house into a 1-bed flat which had been redecorated and had a new kitchen and bathroom. It was better for her, and the council got a 3-bedroom house back. Then the new tenants bought it, and now it is privately let to sharers.
I find it very hard to believe that they would ask both households 'constantly'
I know councils can ask you to move, they tend to offer cash incentives too. 3 tower blocks of council flats round here are being pulled down soon. Each resident was given FIVE THOUSAND quid to leave so that the blocks could be pulled down :eek: Aswell as the cash though, the council helped them move, and put them in an area they were happy in. Incidently...some of the residents were housed in 2/3 bedroomed places..and are now deemed to be underoccupying :rolleyes:
That would be the only way I could see the council constantly hounding OAPs to move house though, if they were planning on demolishing the property.
They throw money at it so that we can PAY for the care we need. My local council charges £16.85 an hour for help with things like getting washed/dressed/bed made etc. It is means tested, but because I receive the care componant of DLA that money has to be used to pay for the care. I see very little of it.
Why should people move? Yes they have spare rooms, but so what? Yes there are people with families that could use those rooms.. so?
People see rooms and that is all. To the people that live in these places it's more than that. I was a carer to my Grandmother until she died. I have so many emotional attachments to this flat both good and bad. I don't give a flying you know what about other people needing somewhere to live when it comes to the memories and the emotional connections i have with this flat.
Other people will have their own memories. Yes their kids have grown up, moved out etc but for the people that live there it's their family home with so many memories of their own.
Another thing that people need to understand is the rules about social housing has changed. If you have lived in a council property for years you are a safe tenant for life as long as you pay your rent, council tax etc. However now if you get into social housing that isn't the case and it's harder for succession of tenancy as well.
They can now tell you to get out because you don't deserve, need social housing etc even if you are all up-to-date in payments and not in debt.
Why would somebody who has security scale down and go into somewhere that in a few years time they may get told get out because someone else needs the place?
I was speaking to a person who works for my local council. She said the problem they have is there aren't enough council one-bedroom flats for people in social housing to scale down into to free up the bigger properties.
Even she said they don't know what to do because the minute you go to someone and say we want you to move out into a private rented property that has a much higher rent they say why would I do that and be worse off financially?
You get substinance expenses for when you are away from home in doing your job, which most MP's are. You would have got them too if your employer sent you to work somewhere that required you to stay overnight.
Most MP's expenses go towards employing secretary's and researchers and running an office.
Assuming you mean 'subsistence', do MPs have special digestive systems that can only tolerate the most expensive breakfasts? Or heads that can only sleep on the most expensive pillows in the most expensive hotels? Subsistence for you and me would mean paying for all our living costs from benefits of around £70 a week. Please don't pretend that MPs are just using expenses to 'get by'.
But not for most people there is not, you have to look at the bigger picture
Subsistence expenses are a tax deductible item for everyone, not just MP's.
If you are an employer you can claim tax back, if you are an employee then you will claim all expenses from your employer.
and yes, I've stayed in some pretty swanky hotels paid for by expenses. You pay for it by having to put up with some excruciatingly boring conferences.
Well thats a bit different to being constantly asked to move then as you claimed isnt it...
Anyway. Councils all over the country have confirmed the smaller properties arent available. So to say that there are the places available..just because 2 households that you know were asked to move 5-10 years ago(again, as you said)..is a bit silly, dont you think?
That is actually bloody outrageous. I can, just about, see why they might sort of deserve out of hours expenses, so if they have to stay late for a vote or something then fair enough but for their midday meal? Really?? FFS in that case why on earth wouldn't every worker in the land get a free midday meal? The only reason they can have for wanting to be allowed to claim for the midday meal is that they will not be working that evening. So why the hell should they get their lunch paid for?
Lol, in pretty much every benefit topic you always "know" someone in your street who claims the benefit being discussed
When your employer is the population and your expenses are being met from taxation - during a period of austerity in which the people claiming these expenses are telling everyone paying for them that they have to 'tighten their belts' and that it is not fair that some people should be living lifestyles better than those who are paying for them can afford to live - then they should be looking at ways of massively reducing these expenses, which means not staying in the most expensive hotels and not ordering the most expensive meals at the population's expense. It's hypocritical and obscene.
If your boss wants to pay for you to do that then it is his business. If the government want to pay themselves to do that then it is ours.
Doctors earn more than MP's and claim similar expenses, but there are a lot more of them.
maybe he is English so goes to the bottom of the list