| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| David Cameron facing Bedroom Tax rebellion from his OWN MPs | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 5 2015, 11:28 PM (341 Views) | |
| Phoenix One UK | Sep 5 2015, 11:28 PM Post #1 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
David Cameron facing Bedroom Tax rebellion from his OWN MPs http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-facing-bedroom-tax-6389468 Unquote:======================== The bedroom tax reminds me of the failed poll tax, which was scrapped. I believe Labour MPs will vote with Tory rebels on this one, and I suspect the makority of population would equally like to see this one binned. |
![]() |
|
| Heinrich | Sep 5 2015, 11:40 PM Post #2 |
|
Regular Guy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It was not only a daft idea from the outset, it was cruel as well. One of the nasty policies of a thoroughly nasty party. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Sep 6 2015, 12:48 AM Post #3 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There are similarities but also differences. The Poll Tax was wrong in both intent and detail but the spare room subsidy rules (that predate Cameron in office) are just woefully and callously wrong on the detail I hope some sort of change is forced through but even though the gov majority is slender I can't see it happening. But stranger things have happened |
![]() |
|
| ranger121 | Sep 6 2015, 01:35 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If they all take in a Syrian refugee family in the spare bedroom, surely that is a couple of problems solved? Just saying... |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Sep 6 2015, 06:56 AM Post #5 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It would have been scrapped ages ago if the treacherous Lib Dems had voted against it. Mind you they have got all they deserve. Agreed sooner this horrid tax gets consigned to the history books the better. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Sep 6 2015, 07:39 AM Post #6 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No Heinrich the idea is neither daft nor cruel. It it their IMPLEMENTATION of the idea that has managed to be both in staggering proportions. As with the poll tax it was implemented by a party unable to remove one foot from their mouth without promptly knocking their teeth out as the other one flew in to replace it. Had they actually from the outset exempted the disabled who needed the room to store equipment used to manage their lives (instead of standing up in parliament and saying they were NOW going to as a result of a court ruling whilst actually despatching rottweilers to have the decision reversed on appeal) and had they put in place a process where this withdrawal of state benefits only took place after the tenant had been offered an alternative place to live, in the same area and of the same type and they had refused to move, then the current sympathy vote would never have materialised. As it is, their implementation without any of these safeguards has left them open to depiction as heartless bastards. But Labour have badly mismanaged their opposition. They have attacked the process from the standpoint of dogmatic ideology instead of supporting the idea on principle and attacking the asinine way it has been done. It is Labour policy to "remove the bedroom tax". Do you not think it would have been better received by those NOT receiving this state subsidy towards ever spiralling and insanely high accomodation costs in the UK if Labour's policy had been to attack the Tories for failing to do anything about the cost of renting (not, I admit, easy when your last Prime Minister presided over the biggest boom and bust in housing costs in living memory and did fuck all to rein it in) and for failing to take into account the fact that almost everyone being slapped by this measure has nowhere else to go ??? To date I have heard NOT ONE labour spokesfuckwit stand up and attack the Tories on their decision to impose this reduction on the tenants with nowhere to go even if they wanted to. The Welsh Assembly Government can prove (because about the only useful thing the wankers have ever done was to demand welsh councils survey their housing supply and demand and thus provided these figures) the number of people in social housing in receipt of these housing benefits this side of Offa's Dyke who have been hit are numbered in the hundreds of thousands while the number of available properties suitable for them to move to and avoid this withdrawal of benefit totals 650 across the whole principality. Why have they not demanded councils they control carry out the same survey in England and Scotland, and why have they not exposed councils they do not control for failing to do likewise. |
![]() |
|
| skwirked | Sep 6 2015, 08:53 PM Post #7 |
|
On Enforced Vacation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I hope this is Camorons poll tax. That said, I'm sure we'll get a new 'council tax' under whatever govt cones next. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Sep 6 2015, 09:44 PM Post #8 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The money has got to come from somewhere. Austerity measures to balance e the nooks, be it in government, or in ordinary households between partners will always cause protest. Whinging is becoming a national pastime. |
![]() |
|
| skwirked | Sep 6 2015, 09:59 PM Post #9 |
|
On Enforced Vacation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Indeed it does (whinging has always been a national pastime). Maybe the money should come from fair taxes that don't scare tge rich off but actually get collected? Maybe the money could come from cutting our feeble war efforts? Or from introducing a levy on greedy landlords and - HA's many of whom are showing incredible greed. What about the fact that this government is actually spending more? Would you like to explain that one? If this government tried to cut the debt with a less callous approach, I think most people, probably even Blair himself wouldn't be so critical. But not only have they shown themselves as the nasty party, they've also failed to reduce the debt by a MASSIVE margin. Whingers? Yep, right bloody whingers |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Sep 7 2015, 10:30 PM Post #10 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The tax gathering system has been in place for many years, and the investigators into tax avoidance and evasion, like any professional body, are highly trained and highly experienced, and determined, and the penalties for avoiding paying what the law requires is severe. Most tax is collected by PAYE, and with all interest taxed before distribution.. I doubt that there is a lot of unpaid taxes, certainly not as much as is sometimes claimed, and I doubt that any system can be devised to make the current system much more efficient in collecting it. |
![]() |
|
| skwirked | Sep 7 2015, 10:42 PM Post #11 |
|
On Enforced Vacation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There's evidence that you're wrong but it looks like you rarely admit such, so I can't be bothered to provide it. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Sep 8 2015, 09:15 AM Post #12 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The poll tax,{not a tax but the community charge}was by far the fairest way of collecting the council tax. Everyone that used the services paid for them and had a vote on what they were wanting and willing to pay for. The current system is unfair, often penalising those that use the services the least.Those who were unable to pay were subsidised and excused the payment. The arguments from the left is more a socialist mantra than a thought through objection to the poll tax, and comes from those unwilling to make a fair contribution to the whole. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Sep 8 2015, 09:25 AM Post #13 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No it was not as I have explained many times. I did not object to the poll tax, until the two poll tax demands, came through the letter box. The was because the total amount of domestic rates charged divided by the numbers on the electoral roll in my area came to around a poll tax of £90 each. With my rates at the time being £225 per annum. My wife and I were in state of shock when we opened the letter £330 each £660 instead of the £225 rates. Some of our neighbours were left with total poll tax for their household of 4 and in some cases 5 times £330. It was not fair and even all these years afterwards NO-ONE has explained why the poll tax was so effing high. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Sep 8 2015, 09:33 AM Post #14 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I just knew the reaction the post would receive. Been there done that and wear the badges. ![]() It had for and against , but was still fairer than the current system I wont pursue it. for your peace of mind. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Sep 8 2015, 09:41 AM Post #15 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It WAS NOT fairer for many, many millions of people. The only people who ended up gaining were those in constituencies like Westminster. Where I live it caused devastation people just did not have £330 each spare to pay it. |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Sep 8 2015, 11:54 AM Post #16 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The unfairness and unpopularity of the poll tax is history. Even the govnt realised eventually that it was utter bollocks or they would not have scrapped it. |
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Sep 8 2015, 12:25 PM Post #17 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think you've hit the nail on the head there Ranger.. Why would they possibly object?.. |
![]() |
|
| Oddball | Sep 8 2015, 01:21 PM Post #18 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think if I took in a family, like two adults plus children there might be a few issues. 1/ I think the local housing folks might exception due to the fact that it is they who own the property. 2/ There would be legal crowding/overcrowding/health issues. 3/ I would have to move out of my largish single/small double bedroom and go back to the small single room. ps. Would they have problems with my dietary habits with fridge/freezer and cupboards containing non-halal, including pork and ham? Edited by Oddball, Sep 8 2015, 01:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Sep 8 2015, 01:31 PM Post #19 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And there's always that slightly uncomfortable feeling.. Will I wake up with my head 10ft away from my body wearing an orange overall?..
|
![]() |
|
| Affa | Sep 8 2015, 03:11 PM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh; they would invoke the rules regarding sub-letting ......... |
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Sep 8 2015, 03:17 PM Post #21 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's an open invitation..they wouldn't be ''sub letting'' taking on a Syrian family..sub-letting is the gardens in London with breeze block houses in their gardens..housing up to 25 immigrants.. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Sep 8 2015, 03:36 PM Post #22 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The idea was good but the implementation was pathetic. It is clear that taxes based on house size/value was just another means of transferring perceived wealth, therefore, the Community Charges, levied on assumed use of services could not be considered in isolation. It was foolish to attempt to do so as the recipients of such transfers via a subsidy to their contributions, if any, were bound to become very p155ed off. The introduction of the Community Charge should have been considered in parallel with that of Welfare. Clearly it is wrong to expect a single person to pay the same as a neighbour who has 3 or 4 wage earners and consuming more of Local Gov. Services. Unfortunately the opportunity was missed and as a consequence we are stuck with an unfair system. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Sep 8 2015, 08:31 PM Post #23 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I believe that council rules state that taking in paying guests is strictly no no in council owned properties............Please think about this before you answer, maybe the local authorities may be asking you to be complicit in breaking the rules that they set even if the council bears the cost. Edited by Rich, Sep 8 2015, 08:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Sep 8 2015, 08:45 PM Post #24 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That changed two years ago:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9970594/Council-tenants-can-rent-out-spare-rooms.html |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Sep 8 2015, 08:58 PM Post #25 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks for that Papa............mind you, I would not dream of doing so even if I had 2 spare bedrooms, privacy is everything to us. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Sep 9 2015, 09:55 AM Post #26 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It failed because you had to be on the voters register to pay it, and those that did not want to pay their fair share did not register to vote. This undermined Labours power base in local authorities, so Labour organised a campaign to demonise it. What is unfair about each member of a community paying an equal share to wards their own need of public services supplied by the council? There ids only an assumed relationship between the size of ones house and the means to pay. Many elderly people are having to pay a disproportionate amount , when they are on modest means on a fixed declining in value income, but living in their bigger family home. Perhaps we can at least agree on that? |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Sep 9 2015, 09:59 AM Post #27 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Clearly many made hay while the Sun shined and managed to avoid their contribution to such services altogether. But whilst and excellent idea the implementation was deeply flawed. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Sep 9 2015, 10:15 AM Post #28 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The context of the introduction of what was aptly referred to as the Poll Tax, was. A pre-poll tax cut in taxation for the well off. A cut in community costs for the well off and a major increase in community costs for the rest. All at a time when wage increases were limited and sometimes non-existent, along with the disappearance of much needed overtime. And at a time when the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer. The Poll Tax was just another dump on most working peoples household, adding to the further division of society. Done by a rather nasty ideologically led right-wing government. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Sep 9 2015, 10:18 AM Post #29 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It failed because for many millions of people the poll tax was hell of lot higher than they had been paying in rates. That is something the fortunate few who ended up paying less just do not seem to realise. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Sep 9 2015, 10:19 AM Post #30 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Welcome home C2 I have missed your rabid Labour jingoism. |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Sep 10 2015, 11:45 AM Post #31 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I suppose a great many would like to see the original capitation tax reintroduced? |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Sep 10 2015, 11:52 AM Post #32 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well you'd better put me in the same box then as C-Too has got that dead right The Poll Tax failed because it was as morally bankrupt as Mrs T thought she could get away with. But even much of her own party hated the idea so she was got rid of. Thus proving that every cloud has a silver lining |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Sep 10 2015, 12:32 PM Post #33 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Cheers. And I have missed the way certain facts wind you up to the point of posting such typical attacking posts.
|
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Sep 10 2015, 05:59 PM Post #34 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well the poll tax did have a single good point, for it got rid of Thatcher. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Sep 10 2015, 06:25 PM Post #35 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
did you actually read what you quoted? |
![]() |
|
| Marconi | Sep 10 2015, 10:29 PM Post #36 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If they reintroduce the Poll Tax you could well find Calais empty and the Eastern Europeans here clambering to get the hell out. I'm going to write to Mr Farage... |
![]() |
|
| Ewill | Sep 10 2015, 10:44 PM Post #37 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You mean that they objected to paying their ''fair share'' of local council charges and would rather local public services remain subsidised by smaller households Amuses me somewhat that such types whinge and moan that others should pay their fair share of taxes whilst exempting themselves |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Sep 10 2015, 10:50 PM Post #38 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
An interesting interpretation of 'fair' there Ewill I thought it grossly unfair that Mrs T decided to kill off the only real tax we had that made big houseowners pay more for the benefit they get from an organised society and instead dump the burden on some of the most unable to pay. |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Sep 11 2015, 06:53 AM Post #39 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
At the time of the poll tax, there were 3 people living in my house. What those three people paid individually was 3 times what was being paid on the rates. Just as an example, we only got one dustbin emptied, but we had to pay 3 times for that bin emptying. To be fair, we should have had 3 bins provided. To me, it's like using a taxi. You use it alone, you pay the full cost. You share with 3 other people, you pay a quarter of the fare each. What would the reaction be if the taxi driver said "It's full fare for everybody as you have all benefited from the service I have provided"? Small point I know, but it would apply to other things too. Taking it to a final Tory capitalist train of thought, "everyone should pay for what they get." Well lets examine that one. I remember the council providing a pie chart explaining where the money went. Not many of the items applied to me, so on a truly Tory way of looking at it, I shouldn't have to pay anything much at all. Lets go a little bit deeper and more selfish. First off, we have the biggest slice of the pie, education. If I were to adopt the Tory mindset, I shouldn't have had to pay anything here. I wasn't using the education system at the time so why should I pay for it? I had no children using it either, so again, why should I have to pay? Let those who use it pay, that's the Tory mindset isn't it? Going further on this particular subject, why should someone with only one child in education be forced to subsidise the education of someone else's children when they have several children using it? Surely the education cost should have been "fairer" with someone having three kids educated paying three times more than someone with only one? It's their choice to have loads of kids, why should those who don't have to subsidise the education of other people's kids? This is the Tory mindset taken to it's logical conclusion. I thank the lord that I am not of the Tory mindset. Police and fire service: Very rarely need the police personally, as I live in a bit of an isolated backwater. When I have needed them, their response has been next to useless. I could manage without them quite easily, so why should I pay for something I don't use or am dissatisfied with? Basically, the same argument could be said of the fire service. Tory thinking would suggest I should not have to pay for things I personally don't receive. Again, thank the lord I'm not a Tory. Services and amenities: Again, living in a backwater, there are no such things readily available. Quite a hike to the nearest bus stop. The road and general area I live in is neglected as regards maintenance in every way. Potholed road, dangerous single pavement, poor street lighting, never see a roadsweeper, grass verges and hedgerows never cut. Never gritted in winter. Heavy snow is never cleared. Yet I have to pay for it. I once took a councillor to task over this. His answer was "You pay for your privacy." Funny, I never saw that slice of the pie chart. We could go into every slice of the communal pie, but I won't be tedious. However, I'm happy to be part of a community and as such I pay for things other people do benefit from. Thank god I'm not a Tory who thinks you should only pay for what you receive. Edited by disgruntled porker, Sep 11 2015, 06:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nanzilela Obejane | Sep 11 2015, 09:53 AM Post #40 |
|
Junior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I do get annoyed that I pay the same for services compared to a house with 7 in it. Pay for what you do use - have a chip in your bins so you get billed for each time it is emptied. I assume a house with 7 in will waste more than that with 2 in. OK, not a good idea as flytipping will get out of hand. Perhaps a mathematical formulae based on size of house and occupants. Big house - big payment, many occupants - big payment |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






8:30 AM Jul 11