From April 2013 the so called ' bedroom tax ' comes into force. This is a hated piece of legislation as once again it attacks the poorest in society. I have just watched a program where people have bigger houses than they are allowed under the new welfare reforms, and yet the facts are in many areas there are no one or two bedroom properties for these people to move into.
A classic example just given was a woman who had lived in a three bed roomed property for 23 years, and recently her Husband died. She is now being forced to move from this property or pay the extra money she has for the unused spare room. Her family live local as do her friends, but there is not a single property available for her to move into within a 25 mile radius, as Housing associations got rid of one bedroom properties in many areas, as they were deemed to be uneconomical for purpose.
The Government Minister a Lord Best had no answer to the accusation put to him, that this is an unfair tax on the poor. He squirmed in his chair when asked if he had a spare room, only to say he actually had more than one spare a Lord I am sure he has a whole floor of spares rooms in his huge house.
He was stating that the Government can no longer afford the extra money to pay on Housing benefit for larger properties, where the spare rooms are not needed. I believe that by all means if that is to become law in April, then anyone after that date should be penalised, but thousands of people are going to be unfairly treated in my view, and have two options. Either pay the extra £14 a week on each spare room, or move. As I have already stated moving is not an option in many areas as there simply is not smaller accommodation available so what happens to these people?
Is the bedroom tax as unfair as the Poll Tax proved to be? Do people think that the bedroom tax is a fair and just system to use? Where do people go if there are no smaller places available? It seems to be to a very unfair way of in the wider scheme, to save a few bob. The Government give away billions every year in foreign aid, of which Cameron is rushing through new reforms of increasing the aid even further. Should we not look after a lot of these people who find themselves in a terrible situation through no fault of their own?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
The bedroom tax
Of course your comments hold some water, but what about the people who are being told to move to smaller properties and there are simply none available and will still be forced to pay the extra money?
Surely that leaves me to believe that this has not been properly researched, as Lord Best when questioned on that very thing simply did not have an answer, and blubbered some useless reply that as usual did not actually answer the question put to him.
Surely that leaves me to believe that this has not been properly researched, as Lord Best when questioned on that very thing simply did not have an answer, and blubbered some useless reply that as usual did not actually answer the question put to him.
Sex God
I'm probably going to get splinters up my arse now by sitting on the fence, mainly because I don't know enough on the subject to have a fully informed opinion. I'm sure that the coming post's will help on that front though 
In principle I agree with the tax. I think that chronic housing shortages might be eased a little if people lived in homes that weren't half empty. For example an adult couple with a three or four bedroomed house that a larger family could occupy instead.
However I don't feel that the tax is being applied correctly. It seems nonsense for people to be penalised if the only homes available are larger than there practical needs. I think pressure should be applied to housing associations to move all future tenants into suitably sized accommodation, and if that means building more one and two bedroomed homes then so be it. In addition the housing associations should pick up the penalty if people are mishoused. This methodology could be set for a future date and although it wouldn't solve everything, it would ease the suffering for those people trapped by this predicament, and allow the powers that be to plan and fund new housing if required.
I strongly believe that the tax should not be levied on people that have lived in the same residence for a long period of time.
In principle I agree with the tax. I think that chronic housing shortages might be eased a little if people lived in homes that weren't half empty. For example an adult couple with a three or four bedroomed house that a larger family could occupy instead.
However I don't feel that the tax is being applied correctly. It seems nonsense for people to be penalised if the only homes available are larger than there practical needs. I think pressure should be applied to housing associations to move all future tenants into suitably sized accommodation, and if that means building more one and two bedroomed homes then so be it. In addition the housing associations should pick up the penalty if people are mishoused. This methodology could be set for a future date and although it wouldn't solve everything, it would ease the suffering for those people trapped by this predicament, and allow the powers that be to plan and fund new housing if required.
I strongly believe that the tax should not be levied on people that have lived in the same residence for a long period of time.
My old mum before she died lived in a 4 bedroom council house which we moved to when I was 7 years old. As we all moved out to start families of our own, she dug her heels in and insisted she needed the extra space for when the grandkids stayed. As she became more infirm, she moved into the room we called the parlour on the ground floor as she could no longer manage the stairs and the house was adapted for people with mobility issues at public expense.
Meanwhile, the 4 bedrooms upstairs and the bathroom were seldom used.
We tried our best to convince her to move to more suited accommodation and there was such accomodation available but she insisted that the house that had been her home (at that time for over 30 years) would reman so. She was a stubborn as hell!
I'm not sure what she would have made of the bedroom tax. There were many people local to her that would look in on her and make sure se was ok
My view on this stems from personal experience thus and it is centres on the availability within reasonable distance of the home to be vacated. If nothing is available and to save too much disruption and distress, the allowance should continue to be paid if no alternate is available.
But that view relates to the elderly. I can't comment on others who may be trapped by this in respect of which a move further afield would not be so damaging to their 'human rights'. But where to draw the line.
A muddled answer, I know, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment.
Meanwhile, the 4 bedrooms upstairs and the bathroom were seldom used.
We tried our best to convince her to move to more suited accommodation and there was such accomodation available but she insisted that the house that had been her home (at that time for over 30 years) would reman so. She was a stubborn as hell!
I'm not sure what she would have made of the bedroom tax. There were many people local to her that would look in on her and make sure se was ok
My view on this stems from personal experience thus and it is centres on the availability within reasonable distance of the home to be vacated. If nothing is available and to save too much disruption and distress, the allowance should continue to be paid if no alternate is available.
But that view relates to the elderly. I can't comment on others who may be trapped by this in respect of which a move further afield would not be so damaging to their 'human rights'. But where to draw the line.
A muddled answer, I know, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment.
I have heard that this does not apply if you are a pensioner? Maybe someone knows the rules on that.
As if a family had lived in that house for many years and had their children there, and then the children moved away, it seems bloody unfair that that couple then retire and are asked to either contribute more for those extra rooms or to move from that property. It was said tonight by many people from different areas, that to downsize would mean they would have to find smaller properties, but they were simply not available.
I am yet to find out how much this new tax is likely to save the taxpayer over say a year. As I have already said, is it a huge amount in the wider scheme of Government wastage?
As if a family had lived in that house for many years and had their children there, and then the children moved away, it seems bloody unfair that that couple then retire and are asked to either contribute more for those extra rooms or to move from that property. It was said tonight by many people from different areas, that to downsize would mean they would have to find smaller properties, but they were simply not available.
I am yet to find out how much this new tax is likely to save the taxpayer over say a year. As I have already said, is it a huge amount in the wider scheme of Government wastage?
Sex God
Here is a summary of the
Sex God
Quote by GnV
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is living in subsidised accommodation with more bedrooms than he and his wife require over 10 Downing Street, will he have to pay the extra bedroom tax?
Welfare reforms will cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home.
Nice try, but no cigar
So if I understand this correctly, this "bedroom tax" is aimed solely at Housing Association/Council tenants claiming Housing benefit?
If so surely it is just bringing them into line "rulewise" with tenants living in private rented accommodation and claiming housing benefit.
Taken from my local councils website for private tenants:
"The amount of Housing Benefit you get will depend on where you live and who lives with you. Benefit is based on the number of bedrooms you need and not how much the rent is."
Its called The Local Housing Allowance instead of the bedroom tax but amounts to the same and has been around for years.
If so surely it is just bringing them into line "rulewise" with tenants living in private rented accommodation and claiming housing benefit.
Taken from my local councils website for private tenants:
"The amount of Housing Benefit you get will depend on where you live and who lives with you. Benefit is based on the number of bedrooms you need and not how much the rent is."
Its called The Local Housing Allowance instead of the bedroom tax but amounts to the same and has been around for years.
Like others I don't know all the rules under which this tax will be levied, if we are talking about taxing those that do NOT claim housing benefits but choose or under thier circumstances have spare bedrooms (like those whose children have left home) then it is wrong, if people pay thier council tax for thier home, pay the higher rent for bigger homes, buy more expensive bigger homes then surely that is thier perogative in a relatively free society.
If those renting larger properties and paying thier own way without Housing Benefit do decide to move into smaller properties there will be even less available for those that are on housing benefit to take on.
If people are claiming housing benefit for larger homes WHEN smaller homes are available why cannot Local Councils simply cut thier benefit to that which they would have to pay for the right sized property, ie if they need 2 bedrooms but have 3 pay them what they would recieve if they had a 2 bedroom property.
What will be gained (apart from more tax revenue which will probably be spent assessing everyone) I do not know, I doubt many people will move to smaller properties and from what I can gather it is smaller properties that are in short supply on the Council/Housing Association waiting lists, so this may just make that situation even worse as some do move into those smaller properties that are available.
I sometimes feel these days that the only thing MP's and Lords do is sit down and work out how they can get more tax income into the coffers
If those renting larger properties and paying thier own way without Housing Benefit do decide to move into smaller properties there will be even less available for those that are on housing benefit to take on.
If people are claiming housing benefit for larger homes WHEN smaller homes are available why cannot Local Councils simply cut thier benefit to that which they would have to pay for the right sized property, ie if they need 2 bedrooms but have 3 pay them what they would recieve if they had a 2 bedroom property.
What will be gained (apart from more tax revenue which will probably be spent assessing everyone) I do not know, I doubt many people will move to smaller properties and from what I can gather it is smaller properties that are in short supply on the Council/Housing Association waiting lists, so this may just make that situation even worse as some do move into those smaller properties that are available.
I sometimes feel these days that the only thing MP's and Lords do is sit down and work out how they can get more tax income into the coffers
Sex God
The so called bedroom tax is NOT a direct taxation. It IS a reduction in benefits to certain persons as defined in my earlier post.
Quote by Trevaunance
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is living in subsidised accommodation with more bedrooms than he and his wife require over 10 Downing Street, will he have to pay the extra bedroom tax?
Welfare reforms will cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home.
Nice try, but no cigar
Of course he will if that is the law, but of course he will claim it back on his expenses too :lol:
Quote by Trevaunance
The so called bedroom tax is NOT a direct taxation. It IS a reduction in benefits to certain persons as defined in my earlier post.
This then is not so bad, providing alternative smaller accommodation is available to those recieving the housing benefits that are to be cut.
I do wonder what will happen in the cases we hear about where asylum seekers and immigrants are housed in million pound houses because they are all that are available, and where the benefits system pays the cost, they (and others) obviously cant affor thier own rent, will they (and uk citizens) be then thrown out onto the streets when they can't pay thier contribution to the rent having first being placed there by Councils who have no other accommodation available for them of the right size ?
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is living in subsidised accommodation with more bedrooms than he and his wife require over 10 Downing Street, will he have to pay the extra bedroom tax?
Welfare reforms will cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home.
Nice try, but no cigar
Of course he will if that is the law, but of course he will claim it back on his expenses too :lol:
Firstly, the chancellor cannot claim expenses against government expenditure. They were not his expenses.
Secondly, I don't believe government apartments fall under the bracket of council or housing association.
Thirdly, what benefit do you think he has had reduced to live in this accommodation? I personally think a good thing that our Chancellor doesn't have to claim housing benefit.
Bit controversial but why do we insist on long term benefits and house upgrades as out of work parents expand their family they cant already support. Give everyone 4 months benefits then they stop. Lots of jobs available but none they want to get up for .. then they can contribute like normal people and the UK saves a fortune while getting all the low level jobs filled .. I have never claimed benefits and would be embarrassed to have to. Few years of hard but needed reform would at least give us a future generation that knows work isnt watching jeremy kyle and claiming benefits for life.
You do follow your parents growing up.. two generations of illiterate dole dwellers at least now. We need to toughen up not worry if the recent reforms are punishment lol ... they need it to jolt them back into grafting normal buy your own house type of people.
Id be a great prime minister ... with Bob Diamond as Chancellor and Megan Fox as my PA
But being serious for once .. we are too soft on them and they need a kick up the arse .. not a house upgrade and more benefits .. we working people pay for them to move into houses hard working families cant afford ... cant be right surely
J
You do follow your parents growing up.. two generations of illiterate dole dwellers at least now. We need to toughen up not worry if the recent reforms are punishment lol ... they need it to jolt them back into grafting normal buy your own house type of people.
Id be a great prime minister ... with Bob Diamond as Chancellor and Megan Fox as my PA
But being serious for once .. we are too soft on them and they need a kick up the arse .. not a house upgrade and more benefits .. we working people pay for them to move into houses hard working families cant afford ... cant be right surely
J
From what I understand of the system, one of our biggest problems/costs in the benefit system comes via the EU laws.
This says that an EU member working or residing in the UK is entitled to all benefits available to UK citizens and vice versa for UK citizens living or working abroad.
The problem for us is that UK citizens are entitled to a lot more benefits than many of our counterparts from othe EU states, ie 40,000 polish children living in Poland recieve child benefit from the UK because at least one parent is residing/working in the UK, now I don't know for fact but I doubt that 40,000 UK children living here are recieving any child benefit from Poland. Other benefits paid to immigrants and migrant workers fall under the same rule.
I do know that many benefits paid to UK State citizens are stopped if the benefits office know you are living abroad, one example of that is War Pensions which may be stopped if you decide to reside abroad.
It seems to be another of those EU rules that is of greater benefit to people choosing to come to the UK than it is for UK migrants going abroad.
At a time when the government is looking to reduce the amount paid in child benefit it might be a good idea for them to bring this up in EU meetings.
Many EU countries pay no or very little in benefits making Britain the popular place it is for immigrants and migrant workers.
People waiting for asylum with no valid reason are another drain on our funds, I firmly believe that it is our duty to provide asylum for those in fear of thier lives, torture or imprisonment without a fair trial in thier own country or the even the country they reside in, but feel that someone arriving from (let's say Nigeria) via France has no case for asylum since they have already found safe (but perhaps not desirable) refuge in France, they should not even be considered for asylum but be treated as an immigrant wishing to reside in the UK, and as an immigrant we should be asking ourselves "what can they bring to the benefit of the UK" ie qualified doctors, nurses, investment, an ability to finance themselves or tradespersons in short supply.
Many countries such as the USA, New Zealand and australia have strict immigration criteria, we could learn a lot from them.
There were many asylum applicants who came to the UK to compete in the Olympics, they are all still awaiting descisons including the man whose asylum claim is based on the fact that returning to his country would result in him having to do National Service.
There are many "scroungers" in the UK who are not immigrants or asylum seekers but there are also many long term unemployed who are genuinly seeking work but simply cannot find a job that pays enough (without being greedy).
Perhaps a policy of "child benefit only for the first two children could be debated".
Perhaps a system whereby people taking lower paid jobs have thier wages "topped up" with benefits so that they would get the same amount of money each week that they currently recieve in benefits encouraging people to find meaningfull jobs whilst lowering the amount they currently get in benefits without taking it all away (now we have a minimum wage Companies should not be able to take advantage of that too much).
And on the subject of minimum wage perhaps we could look at having varying minimums, ie those in certain professions should have higher minimum wages than say unskilled jobs, offering the minimum wage to a law graduate would seem a bit wrong.
I have long supported a new form of National Service whereby the long term unemployed be required to train for other jobs as part of a National Emergency organisation that could assist with dissaters, floods, extreme weather conditions, trained to operate de-commissioned fire engines to pump water out of flooded areas, trained as medics, or simply to erect tents for evacuees, cook food for evacuees etc. This would provide a much needed UK wide service, whilst giving people a chance to earn thier benefits whilst assisting the nation.
We have many disused army camps that could be used as bases for the National Emergency Force. We could train people and have them available when needed run in Military style without the need to train them in any form of combat duties.
This says that an EU member working or residing in the UK is entitled to all benefits available to UK citizens and vice versa for UK citizens living or working abroad.
The problem for us is that UK citizens are entitled to a lot more benefits than many of our counterparts from othe EU states, ie 40,000 polish children living in Poland recieve child benefit from the UK because at least one parent is residing/working in the UK, now I don't know for fact but I doubt that 40,000 UK children living here are recieving any child benefit from Poland. Other benefits paid to immigrants and migrant workers fall under the same rule.
I do know that many benefits paid to UK State citizens are stopped if the benefits office know you are living abroad, one example of that is War Pensions which may be stopped if you decide to reside abroad.
It seems to be another of those EU rules that is of greater benefit to people choosing to come to the UK than it is for UK migrants going abroad.
At a time when the government is looking to reduce the amount paid in child benefit it might be a good idea for them to bring this up in EU meetings.
Many EU countries pay no or very little in benefits making Britain the popular place it is for immigrants and migrant workers.
People waiting for asylum with no valid reason are another drain on our funds, I firmly believe that it is our duty to provide asylum for those in fear of thier lives, torture or imprisonment without a fair trial in thier own country or the even the country they reside in, but feel that someone arriving from (let's say Nigeria) via France has no case for asylum since they have already found safe (but perhaps not desirable) refuge in France, they should not even be considered for asylum but be treated as an immigrant wishing to reside in the UK, and as an immigrant we should be asking ourselves "what can they bring to the benefit of the UK" ie qualified doctors, nurses, investment, an ability to finance themselves or tradespersons in short supply.
Many countries such as the USA, New Zealand and australia have strict immigration criteria, we could learn a lot from them.
There were many asylum applicants who came to the UK to compete in the Olympics, they are all still awaiting descisons including the man whose asylum claim is based on the fact that returning to his country would result in him having to do National Service.
There are many "scroungers" in the UK who are not immigrants or asylum seekers but there are also many long term unemployed who are genuinly seeking work but simply cannot find a job that pays enough (without being greedy).
Perhaps a policy of "child benefit only for the first two children could be debated".
Perhaps a system whereby people taking lower paid jobs have thier wages "topped up" with benefits so that they would get the same amount of money each week that they currently recieve in benefits encouraging people to find meaningfull jobs whilst lowering the amount they currently get in benefits without taking it all away (now we have a minimum wage Companies should not be able to take advantage of that too much).
And on the subject of minimum wage perhaps we could look at having varying minimums, ie those in certain professions should have higher minimum wages than say unskilled jobs, offering the minimum wage to a law graduate would seem a bit wrong.
I have long supported a new form of National Service whereby the long term unemployed be required to train for other jobs as part of a National Emergency organisation that could assist with dissaters, floods, extreme weather conditions, trained to operate de-commissioned fire engines to pump water out of flooded areas, trained as medics, or simply to erect tents for evacuees, cook food for evacuees etc. This would provide a much needed UK wide service, whilst giving people a chance to earn thier benefits whilst assisting the nation.
We have many disused army camps that could be used as bases for the National Emergency Force. We could train people and have them available when needed run in Military style without the need to train them in any form of combat duties.
I have long supported a new form of National Service whereby the long term unemployed be required to train for other jobs as part of a National Emergency organisation that could assist with disasters, floods, extreme weather conditions, trained to operate de-commissioned fire engines to pump water out of flooded areas, trained as medics, or simply to erect tents for evacuees, cook food for evacuees etc. This would provide a much needed UK wide service, whilst giving people a chance to earn their benefits whilst assisting the nation.
We have many disused army camps that could be used as bases for the National Emergency Force. We could train people and have them available when needed run in Military style without the need to train them in any form of combat duties.
Sounds very much like a labour camp.
Quote by VoyeurJ
But being serious for once .. we are too soft on them and they need a kick up the arse .. not a house upgrade and more benefits .. we working people pay for them to move into houses hard working families cant afford ... cant be right surely
J
Them? Who are them exactly? It could be you or anyone of us. The researches say around 68% of working people are only 3 pay packets away from being absolutely skint. You may be one of the lucky ones but there are a lot of people out there through no fault of their own, find themselves in need from the State.
You know with people with attitudes like yours above with the rather harsh comment of ' we working people ',I wonder matey how safe is your job? If you lost your job I wonder how you would feel with some smart arse taxpayer belittling you with those kinds of comments.
By saying the things you say, you really have not got a bloody clue matey.
Quote by Rogue_Trader
I have long supported a new form of National Service whereby the long term unemployed be required to train for other jobs as part of a National Emergency organisation that could assist with disasters, floods, extreme weather conditions, trained to operate de-commissioned fire engines to pump water out of flooded areas, trained as medics, or simply to erect tents for evacuees, cook food for evacuees etc. This would provide a much needed UK wide service, whilst giving people a chance to earn their benefits whilst assisting the nation.
We have many disused army camps that could be used as bases for the National Emergency Force. We could train people and have them available when needed run in Military style without the need to train them in any form of combat duties.
Sounds very much like a labour camp.
Some might call it a labour camp, some might call it a National Emergency Force who worked 9-5 like others for a fair wage, some might gain from the training they recieved there, some might enjoy the feeling of "doing something usefull" that comes from helping those in need, some might enjoy the comradship and friendships gained working with others for a good cause, some might gain the respect of those who think being unemployed is only for the lazy and useless, some might hate it.
We have fire engines being scrapped because they are no longer needed yet these can pump water in flooded areas, we have military vehicles like green goddess fire engines sitting idle, we have surplus army vehicles sold for a pittance because they are out of date having been replaced by newer designs, we have empty army camps, tutors in trades seeking work, rarely used military camps.
Just think of the range of skills that could be taught, get industry to donate old equipment and trainers once a month, I am sure JCB would love to see more people trained to use thier vehicles, vehicles that can do immense good in times of emergency.
Perhaps just do it as we do the Territorial Army requiring long term unemployed to spend a short time each month or year training for emergency work. The idea should not be shelved through short sightedness without looking into the pro's can con's of it.
We pay the wages anyway, I believe a lot of people would find work after benefitting from training in other aspects of life.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
From what I understand of the system, one of our biggest problems/costs in the benefit system comes via the EU laws.
This says that an EU member working or residing in the UK is entitled to all benefits available to UK citizens and vice versa for UK citizens living or working abroad.
The problem for us is that UK citizens are entitled to a lot more benefits than many of our counterparts from othe EU states, ie 40,000 polish children living in Poland recieve child benefit from the UK because at least one parent is residing/working in the UK, now I don't know for fact but I doubt that 40,000 UK children living here are recieving any child benefit from Poland. Other benefits paid to immigrants and migrant workers fall under the same rule.
I do know that many benefits paid to UK State citizens are stopped if the benefits office know you are living abroad, one example of that is War Pensions which may be stopped if you decide to reside abroad.
It seems to be another of those EU rules that is of greater benefit to people choosing to come to the UK than it is for UK migrants going abroad.
At a time when the government is looking to reduce the amount paid in child benefit it might be a good idea for them to bring this up in EU meetings.
Many EU countries pay no or very little in benefits making Britain the popular place it is for immigrants and migrant workers.
People waiting for asylum with no valid reason are another drain on our funds, I firmly believe that it is our duty to provide asylum for those in fear of thier lives, torture or imprisonment without a fair trial in thier own country or the even the country they reside in, but feel that someone arriving from (let's say Nigeria) via France has no case for asylum since they have already found safe (but perhaps not desirable) refuge in France, they should not even be considered for asylum but be treated as an immigrant wishing to reside in the UK, and as an immigrant we should be asking ourselves "what can they bring to the benefit of the UK" ie qualified doctors, nurses, investment, an ability to finance themselves or tradespersons in short supply.
Many countries such as the USA, New Zealand and australia have strict immigration criteria, we could learn a lot from them.
There were many asylum applicants who came to the UK to compete in the Olympics, they are all still awaiting descisons including the man whose asylum claim is based on the fact that returning to his country would result in him having to do National Service.
There are many "scroungers" in the UK who are not immigrants or asylum seekers but there are also many long term unemployed who are genuinly seeking work but simply cannot find a job that pays enough (without being greedy).
Perhaps a policy of "child benefit only for the first two children could be debated".
Perhaps a system whereby people taking lower paid jobs have thier wages "topped up" with benefits so that they would get the same amount of money each week that they currently recieve in benefits encouraging people to find meaningfull jobs whilst lowering the amount they currently get in benefits without taking it all away (now we have a minimum wage Companies should not be able to take advantage of that too much).
And on the subject of minimum wage perhaps we could look at having varying minimums, ie those in certain professions should have higher minimum wages than say unskilled jobs, offering the minimum wage to a law graduate would seem a bit wrong.
I have long supported a new form of National Service whereby the long term unemployed be required to train for other jobs as part of a National Emergency organisation that could assist with dissaters, floods, extreme weather conditions, trained to operate de-commissioned fire engines to pump water out of flooded areas, trained as medics, or simply to erect tents for evacuees, cook food for evacuees etc. This would provide a much needed UK wide service, whilst giving people a chance to earn thier benefits whilst assisting the nation.
We have many disused army camps that could be used as bases for the National Emergency Force. We could train people and have them available when needed run in Military style without the need to train them in any form of combat duties.
Welcome back Jed, and I agree with all of the above.
John
Quote by Rogue_Trader
We pay the wages anyway, I believe a lot of people would find work after benefitting from training in other aspects of life.
Well here's an idea, let's change the law
let us introduce a law that is fair for the workers, where their benefits are part of a wage structure, where they CAN recieve training to assist them in finding a decent job, where they can give something to the Country in return for what the Country gives to them. So many unemployed want to earn a living, want to feel good about the benefits they receive, want to learn a skill or trade, don't want to fall into the problem many long term unemployed have with not being able to get back onto the "employed ladder" after sitting at home all day for so long. Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
We have fire engines being scrapped because they are no longer needed yet these can pump water in flooded areas, we have military vehicles like green goddess fire engines sitting idle
You would be hard pushed to find fire vehicles being scrapped these days. They are generally donated through Op Florian, which I believe the consortium insists upon as a condition of the initial supply contract.
Green goddesses are not military vehicles and never have been, as you well know. Not that it matters much as the only ones in this country belong to museums or private enthusiasts.
Quote by Trevaunance
We have fire engines being scrapped because they are no longer needed yet these can pump water in flooded areas, we have military vehicles like green goddess fire engines sitting idle
You would be hard pushed to find fire vehicles being scrapped these days. They are generally donated through Op Florian, which I believe the consortium insists upon as a condition of the initial supply contract.
Green goddesses are not military vehicles and never have been, as you well know. Not that it matters much as the only ones in this country belong to museums or private enthusiasts.
That's the trouble with being old, back in 1977 when I was a driving a GG for the firemens strike (yes back then they were firemen not firefighters) we had around a 1000 of them, I know they sold off 40 in 2005 to test the market, a quick check shows that they did sell of the rest (mostly to african nations) however it does also state that there is a stock of red engines stored to replace them, and yes we did consider them to be military vehicles though your right they did actually belong to the auxillery services.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
That's the trouble with being old, back in 1977 when I was a driving a GG for the firemens strike (yes back then they were firemen not firefighters) we had around a 1000 of them, I know they sold off 40 in 2005 to test the market, a quick check shows that they did sell of the rest (mostly to african nations) however it does also state that there is a stock of red engines stored to replace them, and yes we did consider them to be military vehicles though your right they did actually belong to the auxillery services.
The red vehicles you mention are private vehicles, not public. They belong to an AIM listed company called AssetCo. AssetCo and is subsidiary arms own almost all the UK's current fleet of fire vehicles and lease them to the local fire authorities. In some cases such as London fire brigade they own and maintain the appliances, in most other areas they simply own them and lease them to the fire authority. There are around 300 vehicles used as running replacements for servicing or training vehicles across the UK (Excluding London). There are not however warehouses full of them, nor should there be.
Quote by VoyeurJ
Bit controversial but why do we insist on long term benefits and house upgrades as out of work parents expand their family they cant already support. Give everyone 4 months benefits then they stop. Lots of jobs available but none they want to get up for .. then they can contribute like normal people and the UK saves a fortune while getting all the low level jobs filled .. I have never claimed benefits and would be embarrassed to have to. Few years of hard but needed reform would at least give us a future generation that knows work isnt watching jeremy kyle and claiming benefits for life.
You do follow your parents growing up.. two generations of illiterate dole dwellers at least now. We need to toughen up not worry if the recent reforms are punishment lol ... they need it to jolt them back into grafting normal buy your own house type of people.
Id be a great prime minister ... with Bob Diamond as Chancellor and Megan Fox as my PA
But being serious for once .. we are too soft on them and they need a kick up the arse .. not a house upgrade and more benefits .. we working people pay for them to move into houses hard working families cant afford ... cant be right surely
J
illiterate dole dwellers...well by the fook have been called some things in my time! Why the hell is everyone who claims benefits seen as some sort of scrounger & whats gives you the right to call people who claim benefit illiterate?
Oh sorry yes I forgot your one of them god damn tax payers..well lucky you.
I used to be one of those people but through no fault of my own I lost my job 10 months ago, primarily because I got rightly pissed off with the fat greasy boss thinking it was his right to be able to touch me up & make inappropriate suggestions whenever he pleased making it impossible for me to stay in his employment. I didn't realise it would be so difficult to find another job ( have had 17 rejection letters in the past 7 days alone). Have you any idea what that does to a persons self confidence & self esteem. You also talk as if living on benefits is an easy solution, I have to survive on £56 a week, thats food, heating and cover all my bills...do you really think that is a lifestyle choice? So trust me I get a kick up the arse every time I open another 'dear john' letter. I don't live, I exist!!!....Living is about having choices, the only choices I have are do I pay my water bill this week or am gonna have to blag it out for another fortnight, because if I pay it this week I'll have no money to feed the gas meter, meaning no heating or fuel to cook my food
Maybe some people do opt for a life on benefits, but that is down to the goverment allowing a system that gives decent income for people with children to stay at home & bring them up, but either way it is by no means an easy option & am getting sick of listening to sactimonious people suggesting it is.
Re the 'bedroom tax' ...it does not apply to people in private rented accomodation, so thankfully out of my big £56 I dont have to find the £11 for my spare bedroom, otherwise to put it bluntly I'd be fooked. It also does not apply to pensioners, who probably are the biggest majority of people living in larger than need houses.
Oh & just to set the record straight am currently part way through a degree course, so can't be that bloody illiterate.
Sex God
When we need fire vehicles for disaster or floods we cannot simply lease them. They are already leased out on contracts to local fire authorities, that would already be using them to mitigate the effects of the disaster or flood.
Quote by starlightcouple
But being serious for once .. we are too soft on them and they need a kick up the arse .. not a house upgrade and more benefits .. we working people pay for them to move into houses hard working families cant afford ... cant be right surely
J
Them? Who are them exactly? It could be you or anyone of us. The researches say around 68% of working people are only 3 pay packets away from being absolutely skint. You may be one of the lucky ones but there are a lot of people out there through no fault of their own, find themselves in need from the State.
You know with people with attitudes like yours above with the rather harsh comment of ' we working people ',I wonder matey how safe is your job? If you lost your job I wonder how you would feel with some smart arse taxpayer belittling you with those kinds of comments.
By saying the things you say, you really have not got a bloody clue matey.
Evening Starlights,
I appreciate that some people get hurt and cant work but the vast majority wont get out to work because the last government created a situation where they would bring home less money working than on benefits. It is simply an opinion and everyones is different. I believe you make your own luck in life. I have and continually work studying after work still to ensure I don't have to consider unemployment. In the current climate I think everyone working has a right to be a bit humpty with whole housing estates on benefit. At least get them out fixing roads, litter collecting etc. The polish arriving these days that Ive bumped into may be in the minimum rate jobs here but they take them and graft. Is that too much to ask? If you allow long term benefits without work, how on earth do you expect them to join the workforce. All they have to do is find something they enjoy, retrain themselves and be willing to start at the bottom. There are jobs out there, they just believe they are below them and too poorly paid. Which is why I think if you create a max length if not injured then they have to take a job available at the bottom, that'd be a start. I wasnt belittling anyone but if you dont agree we have at least two generations now who only know their parents sitting at home claiming benefits. Those will think that is perfectly normal too. What kind of example is that to set. Toughen up on it and all would regain a work ethic and should begin to climb the career ladder learning new skills along the way. I agree I have a lack of clues in many areas but working hard, doing well and achieving id say my clues are well up to scratch. I didnt mean to belittle at all. Just dont understand how labours social consience and lack of ability bordering on incompetence causes people to believe they deserve a handout. Id personally be ashamed getting handouts and ive worked hard, studied hard to ensure I never have to.
Apologies if i have caused upset to anyone, but simply my opinion, clueless or not I believe it should be made tougher and the country would benefit from getting the huge number on benefits out in the morning to work.
What would you suggest for the capable long term on benefits then? Do you think its right that an unemployed couple with 6 kids can live in a 6 bedroom house on benefits that most middle paid workers couldnt afford to rent?
J
