Bedroom tax protesters take to the street to make their voices heard (From Darlington and Stockton Times)

WAL666 wrote:
This is not a tax... If you want to live in a huge house fine... Pay for it!

Taxpaying Homeowner wrote:
If you want to make your voices heard go to London and do it. Don't rub it in the faces of those who pay full rent, morgages, Council Tax, Income Tax etc.

This whole thing wasn't thought out very well, even if benefits realignment desperately needed...... The unemployed and diables should be excluded. The emplyed are getting a tax break next month so they should expect that as their income is rsing their benefits will be reduced.

I find the way people are attacking those who question the proportion of benefits paid out disgusting.......... Equally, branding everyone who is reciept of benefits as a sponger is unfair.

johnny_p wrote:
"Can't pay- won't pay"? It's not a tax so how does that work? If you want to be greedy and live in a council house that's too big for what you need tough- lose benefits.

Jonn wrote:

johnny_p wrote:
"Can't pay- won't pay"? It's not a tax so how does that work? If you want to be greedy and live in a council house that's too big for what you need tough- lose benefits.

Defintion of a Tax: A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer, an individual or legal entity by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law.
The Government are imposing a charge on an individual, payable if you have a spare room, punishable if you don't pay, therefore, it's a tax.

Taxpaying Homeowner wrote:

Jonn wrote:

johnny_p wrote:
"Can't pay- won't pay"? It's not a tax so how does that work? If you want to be greedy and live in a council house that's too big for what you need tough- lose benefits.

Defintion of a Tax: A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer, an individual or legal entity by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law.
The Government are imposing a charge on an individual, payable if you have a spare room, punishable if you don't pay, therefore, it's a tax.

Come on Jonn.

You seem to be forgetting the small matter of the Housing Benefit that is paid out in the first place......... Try and be a bit balanced!!!!

Robert_ wrote:
Much as I hate this new tax, even though it doesn't actually affect me, the protest will make no difference whatsoever and is a complete waste of time

spragger wrote:
One would have thought these stupid people would have been more concerned about the Spare Room Subsidy

- We need a taxpayers protest about how such people waste our money

Voice-of-reality wrote:
The requirements of all families change over time. As the family grows one needs more rooms and once 'they have flown the nest' fewer rooms are required. In the private sector this results in people moving up the housing ladder and thereafter downsizing. Why should it be any different with public sector housing. There are one and two bedroom flats freely available. If people wish to live in larger houses than that which they need - they should pay for it. If I choose to have a five bedroom house - whilst single - I have to pay extra council tax, extra water rates and more of a mortgage. It is my choice. If I continue to live in such a houses when retired it is my choice to spend the extra money. In the same way, if the public housing tenant wishes to be in a larger house than that which they need - they should pay for it - rather than expecting another hand-out. This is not, as some posts have suggested a tax, neither is it an attack on the poor. It is, however, a realisation that in providing social housing it needs to be 'appropriate housing' 2 bedrooms for parents and one child, 3 bedrooms for parents and 2 children etc - not a free for all. Resources are limited and those in subsidised housing need to realise that they have a duty of responsibility to the rest of society as well.

BMD wrote:
The protest started at 1 pm and they still turned up in their pyjamas and onesies.

If it had been 8 am the streets would have been empty of protestors. Only the tax-payers are awake at that hour of the day.

Birdyy wrote:
Those who brand themselves 'the tax payers' discuss these topics as if they are not in receipt of any benefits (which society provides).

This us and them approach is a root cause of all the bitterness and envy which politician's exploit with their rhetoric.

Housing Tax (or whatever you want to call it) sounds simple but in implementation causes suffering to many.

Jonn wrote:

BMD wrote: The protest started at 1 pm and they still turned up in their pyjamas and onesies. If it had been 8 am the streets would have been empty of protestors. Only the tax-payers are awake at that hour of the day.

There were about 100 people and I didn't see anyone in their pyjamas or onsies. Everyone is a tax payer. Try paying the gas or electric bill without paying a tax. The poorest spend the highest proportion of their money on tax than any other.

Jonn wrote:
100%Union. Rejoice that we still have people in this country and in this region that have not given up and still fight to retain a society with dignity and respect....
This is the core point. I'm becoming increasingly aware that our basic democratic right to freedom of speech and to protest is being taken away from under our noses.
There are more and more cases appearing of people being arrested for peaceful demonstration and these are not being reported in the mainstream media.
I was glad to attend yesterday as I found out one very unnerving fact. Remember the Work Programme Pound Shop news item recently, when the scheme was declared unlawful in the appeal court. Well, the Government are currently preparing legislation to pass in Parliament nextweek to have laws BACKDATED in order to avoid paying out £100 million in money for their illegal actions. In essence, they admit they broke the law, that those on the scheme were working unlawfully and so are now rewriting history to avoid the consequences of the law.
This is a fundamental abuse of Democracy. You should all be very afraid of this Government. I shall be lobbying my MP about this.

BMD wrote:

Jonn wrote:

BMD wrote: The protest started at 1 pm and they still turned up in their pyjamas and onesies. If it had been 8 am the streets would have been empty of protestors. Only the tax-payers are awake at that hour of the day.

There were about 100 people and I didn't see anyone in their pyjamas or onsies. Everyone is a tax payer. Try paying the gas or electric bill without paying a tax. The poorest spend the highest proportion of their money on tax than any other.

100 people (less than 1% of the local population) even Darlington 1883 raise a bigger crowd at the Heritage Park ground (Bishop Auckland)

Income Tax
National Insurance
Council Tax

Theres 3 taxes they dont pay

johnny_p wrote:

Jonn wrote:
100%Union. Rejoice that we still have people in this country and in this region that have not given up and still fight to retain a society with dignity and respect....
This is the core point. I'm becoming increasingly aware that our basic democratic right to freedom of speech and to protest is being taken away from under our noses.
There are more and more cases appearing of people being arrested for peaceful demonstration and these are not being reported in the mainstream media.
I was glad to attend yesterday as I found out one very unnerving fact. Remember the Work Programme Pound Shop news item recently, when the scheme was declared unlawful in the appeal court. Well, the Government are currently preparing legislation to pass in Parliament nextweek to have laws BACKDATED in order to avoid paying out £100 million in money for their illegal actions. In essence, they admit they broke the law, that those on the scheme were working unlawfully and so are now rewriting history to avoid the consequences of the law.
This is a fundamental abuse of Democracy. You should all be very afraid of this Government. I shall be lobbying my MP about this.

Phone tapping, cameras on every street corner, monitoring emails, using the Police to break up peaceful demonstrations and using "anti terrorist" legislation for their own means.

Isn't it Labour who were taking away basic human rights? We don't have such short memories.

Anyway Jonn what has your comment got to do with the (incorrectly labelled) "bedroom tax"?

You've just been copy and pasting there I'm afraid.

argo2013 wrote:
V.Or.. I think you will find private landlords will charge more for rent,then ex council tenants who move to their properties will generate higher h.b. if they qualify,so how will the government save money?,this has been pointed out several times in recent weeks on this subject,do catch up!!!

Voice-of-reality wrote:
In response to the post above which seems more than a little confused. The point is that those who own their own homes may downsize and if they do not they continue to pay more - in council tax, rates, heating etc - their choice.
Whereas those in the maintained sector expect to be kept in a style that is no longer becoming of their status (where for instance the rest of the family has left) and expect to be further subsidised. If you want more rooms than you need - pay for it. Either through a mortgage or through not being subsidised. The retired homeowner who can no longer afford too many rooms has to downsize because they are responsible for their own finances (and will not be bailed out). - why should the same level of responsibility not also be expected of those who are subidised but expect (wrongly) the home for life.
If you want more than you need pay for it.

argo2013 wrote:
o for goodness sake it just doesn't get through does it ,and while i'm here what tax paying minority according to the government there are more tax payers than ever,and i'll say it one more time THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SMALLER HOMES ANYWHERE IN THE REGION CAN YOU HEAR WHAT I AM SAYING NOW FFS.

Robert_ wrote:
Much as I hate this new tax, even though it doesn't actually affect me, the protest will make no difference whatsoever and is a complete waste of time

WAL666 wrote:
Sponge Tax....

Voice-of-reality wrote:
So, that is nine families moved in Darlington, freeing up their larger houses for others in social housing presently in smaller accommodation. Those thereafter moving from that smaller accommodation free up the accommodation they have left ... thereby continuing the virtuous circle. Moreover, if you cannot find the house you need in the immediate vicinity - look further afield - its what people who buy have to do. All persons need to live within their means - not merely the tax paying minority.

Voice-of-reality wrote:
One notes that it always those of a particular political persuasion who start the swearing in what has, hitherto, been a robust but well toned debate. The 'tax paying minority' was an ironic comment on the fact that those who expect to have 'all of their wishes paid for by others' - of which there appear to be an ever increasing number are in the ascendancy whereas those who make a net positive contribution to the state (ie pay in more than they receive in benefits and services) seem to be dwindling in number. As for the number of houses available there are plenty - a fact that can be easily shown by walking through any of the towns in the region and noting the number of 'too let' signs as well as empty properties.

Voice-of-reality wrote:
One notes that it always those of a particular political persuasion who start the swearing in what has, hitherto, been a robust but well toned debate. The 'tax paying minority' was an ironic comment on the fact that those who expect to have 'all of their wishes paid for by others' - of which there appear to be an ever increasing number are in the ascendancy whereas those who make a net positive contribution to the state (ie pay in more than they receive in benefits and services) seem to be dwindling in number. As for the number of houses available there are plenty - a fact that can be easily shown by walking through any of the towns in the region and noting the number of 'too let' signs as well as empty properties.

Voice-of-reality wrote:
John, I do wish one person families to move into one bedroom properties - that is what they require. Neither more nor less. The one person family certainly does not require a three bedroom council house that could be put to better use housing mum,dad and two kids. or would you prefer to see the larger family in accommodation too small for their needs?

Jonn wrote:

BMD wrote:

Jonn wrote:

BMD wrote: The protest started at 1 pm and they still turned up in their pyjamas and onesies. If it had been 8 am the streets would have been empty of protestors. Only the tax-payers are awake at that hour of the day.

There were about 100 people and I didn't see anyone in their pyjamas or onsies. Everyone is a tax payer. Try paying the gas or electric bill without paying a tax. The poorest spend the highest proportion of their money on tax than any other.

100 people (less than 1% of the local population) even Darlington 1883 raise a bigger crowd at the Heritage Park ground (Bishop Auckland) Income Tax National Insurance Council Tax Theres 3 taxes they dont pay

Just to inform you of the facts, Darlington is one of the few fortunate Councils not to have many under occupancy tennants. Less than 12% of DBC stock has an empty bedroom, so 100 people is a very good turnout. Compare that to Darlingtons private rented sector which is 20% under occupied and the owner occupied sector of which 49% is under occupied. This Governments main arguement is about fairness so lets ask the largest group of under occupiers in Darlington to pay a tax or move shall we? Also, just because you are in receipt of Housing Benefit, doesn't mean you receive the full rental amount, doesn't mean you don't pay towards Council Tax and doesn't mean you don't pay National Insurance.

BMD wrote:

Jonn wrote:

BMD wrote:

Jonn wrote:

BMD wrote: The protest started at 1 pm and they still turned up in their pyjamas and onesies. If it had been 8 am the streets would have been empty of protestors. Only the tax-payers are awake at that hour of the day.

There were about 100 people and I didn't see anyone in their pyjamas or onsies. Everyone is a tax payer. Try paying the gas or electric bill without paying a tax. The poorest spend the highest proportion of their money on tax than any other.

100 people (less than 1% of the local population) even Darlington 1883 raise a bigger crowd at the Heritage Park ground (Bishop Auckland) Income Tax National Insurance Council Tax Theres 3 taxes they dont pay

Just to inform you of the facts, Darlington is one of the few fortunate Councils not to have many under occupancy tennants. Less than 12% of DBC stock has an empty bedroom, so 100 people is a very good turnout. Compare that to Darlingtons private rented sector which is 20% under occupied and the owner occupied sector of which 49% is under occupied. This Governments main arguement is about fairness so lets ask the largest group of under occupiers in Darlington to pay a tax or move shall we? Also, just because you are in receipt of Housing Benefit, doesn't mean you receive the full rental amount, doesn't mean you don't pay towards Council Tax and doesn't mean you don't pay National Insurance.

Are you a Lunatic?

The 49% owner occupiers are paying the full Council Tax.

And for the rest of your comments regarding council tax and National insurance payments - Pure Tosh and I suggest you jump back in your spaceship and return to orbiting planet buffoon

Jonn wrote:

BMD wrote:

Jonn wrote:

BMD wrote:

Jonn wrote:

BMD wrote: The protest started at 1 pm and they still turned up in their pyjamas and onesies. If it had been 8 am the streets would have been empty of protestors. Only the tax-payers are awake at that hour of the day.

There were about 100 people and I didn't see anyone in their pyjamas or onsies. Everyone is a tax payer. Try paying the gas or electric bill without paying a tax. The poorest spend the highest proportion of their money on tax than any other.

100 people (less than 1% of the local population) even Darlington 1883 raise a bigger crowd at the Heritage Park ground (Bishop Auckland) Income Tax National Insurance Council Tax Theres 3 taxes they dont pay

Just to inform you of the facts, Darlington is one of the few fortunate Councils not to have many under occupancy tennants. Less than 12% of DBC stock has an empty bedroom, so 100 people is a very good turnout. Compare that to Darlingtons private rented sector which is 20% under occupied and the owner occupied sector of which 49% is under occupied. This Governments main arguement is about fairness so lets ask the largest group of under occupiers in Darlington to pay a tax or move shall we? Also, just because you are in receipt of Housing Benefit, doesn't mean you receive the full rental amount, doesn't mean you don't pay towards Council Tax and doesn't mean you don't pay National Insurance.

Are you a Lunatic?

The 49% owner occupiers are paying the full Council Tax.

And for the rest of your comments regarding council tax and National insurance payments - Pure Tosh and I suggest you jump back in your spaceship and return to orbiting planet buffoon

You are another one who is ignorant of the basic facts and goes into denial to keep your anger towards the 'scroungers' pure.
I said, this Governments MAIN argument in all this is about fairness. They say some families are living in over crowded homes so deciding to penalise under occupiers. Why just pick on the social housing sector when it's the owner occupier sector that are by far the biggest culprits of under occupying?
I personally have no problem with an owner occupier pensioner living alone in a 3 bedroom house, it's their home. But, for the Government to use fairness as there main argument is outrageously disengenuous.
My comment about people who claim HB doesn't mean they don't pay towards Council Tax and don't pay National Insurance is not pure tosh at all. You can be in work and still claim HB and a reduction in CT. Therefore, if you are in work then you will be paying National Insurance.
90% of all new claims HB claims in the last 2 years were made by people IN WORK.

Voice-of-reality wrote:
One notes that it always those of a particular political persuasion who start the swearing in what has, hitherto, been a robust but well toned debate. The 'tax paying minority' was an ironic comment on the fact that those who expect to have 'all of their wishes paid for by others' - of which there appear to be an ever increasing number are in the ascendancy whereas those who make a net positive contribution to the state (ie pay in more than they receive in benefits and services) seem to be dwindling in number. As for the number of houses available there are plenty - a fact that can be easily shown by walking through any of the towns in the region and noting the number of 'too let' signs as well as empty properties.

Voice-of-reality wrote:
There are plenty of 2 bedroom terraced houses empty in the north-east to accommodate those who need to downsize. You only need to look at the housing statistics for the area as compiled by the census and other sources to note just how many of these houses there are.
As for 'there can't have been many sold before 1980' - actually not true. It was, as you may recall, an integral part of the 1949 Housing Act - the same act that also empowered councils to build more 2 bedroom houses - with, thereafter, 1953 being the best of the immediate post-war years in terms of the number of social houses built.
That people could not afford the houses they bought it quite simple - there fault. If I buy a house I cannot afford I have to sell it - why should that be any different for someone who bought their former council house at a massively knocked down price.
I am sure a lot of people are not looking forward to moving - on that I agree with you - but moving is a 'fact of life' unless you live in the same house from 'cradle to grave' - a scenario that some in council housing seem to think they should be entitled to without ever having their needs reassessed. It is odd, one hears of tenants continually asking to be moved to larger houses when their families grow - this policy is just the 'flip side' of that. If those who press to be 'moved into larger council houses' when their families grow were to be less selfish (by thereafter asking to be moved to smaller accommodation when their children grow up - it is possible that this policy would not have been needed). I am sure that some landlords will attempt to cash in - but given that it is presently a renter's market - there being more houses available to let than are needed - the market should, ultimately, take care of this. After all, history shows us - and I refer again to the council built housing estates of the 1940s-1960s that where the rents charged by the councils were too high on the new fringe suburban estates, the tenants took it upon themselves to find cheaper accommodation in the centre of towns. Are you really suggesting that the tenants of yesteryear had more social mobility and a better understanding of how to move than those today who have, after all, benefited from the enlightened years of Brown and Blair?

tomtopper wrote:

Voice-of-reality wrote:
There are plenty of 2 bedroom terraced houses empty in the north-east to accommodate those who need to downsize. You only need to look at the housing statistics for the area as compiled by the census and other sources to note just how many of these houses there are.
As for 'there can't have been many sold before 1980' - actually not true. It was, as you may recall, an integral part of the 1949 Housing Act - the same act that also empowered councils to build more 2 bedroom houses - with, thereafter, 1953 being the best of the immediate post-war years in terms of the number of social houses built.
That people could not afford the houses they bought it quite simple - there fault. If I buy a house I cannot afford I have to sell it - why should that be any different for someone who bought their former council house at a massively knocked down price.
I am sure a lot of people are not looking forward to moving - on that I agree with you - but moving is a 'fact of life' unless you live in the same house from 'cradle to grave' - a scenario that some in council housing seem to think they should be entitled to without ever having their needs reassessed. It is odd, one hears of tenants continually asking to be moved to larger houses when their families grow - this policy is just the 'flip side' of that. If those who press to be 'moved into larger council houses' when their families grow were to be less selfish (by thereafter asking to be moved to smaller accommodation when their children grow up - it is possible that this policy would not have been needed). I am sure that some landlords will attempt to cash in - but given that it is presently a renter's market - there being more houses available to let than are needed - the market should, ultimately, take care of this. After all, history shows us - and I refer again to the council built housing estates of the 1940s-1960s that where the rents charged by the councils were too high on the new fringe suburban estates, the tenants took it upon themselves to find cheaper accommodation in the centre of towns. Are you really suggesting that the tenants of yesteryear had more social mobility and a better understanding of how to move than those today who have, after all, benefited from the enlightened years of Brown and Blair?

Brilliant piece of first class writing... And the lack of response by the opposers of this completely sensible policy proves it.. Well done VOR

argo2013 wrote:
Jude, vor waffles on saying the same things over and over again, i was accused of changing subjcts on another matter,but you two are doing the same,who wants to hear about you going to work to pay your mortgage, you've been told several times a lot of people caught up in this unfair penalty on their home are working but don't recieve decent wage,why should be penalised for that? Lots of people would like to not have to claim benefits ,but they are forced to,people like you chose to buy your home so boo-hoo hoo,get on withit thats your problem,over in Germany the've got the sense not to saddle themselves withso much debt,with the cost of maintaining your home only a fool would want to buy a house these days!!

Jonn wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

Voice-of-reality wrote:
There are plenty of 2 bedroom terraced houses empty in the north-east to accommodate those who need to downsize. You only need to look at the housing statistics for the area as compiled by the census and other sources to note just how many of these houses there are.
As for 'there can't have been many sold before 1980' - actually not true. It was, as you may recall, an integral part of the 1949 Housing Act - the same act that also empowered councils to build more 2 bedroom houses - with, thereafter, 1953 being the best of the immediate post-war years in terms of the number of social houses built.
That people could not afford the houses they bought it quite simple - there fault. If I buy a house I cannot afford I have to sell it - why should that be any different for someone who bought their former council house at a massively knocked down price.
I am sure a lot of people are not looking forward to moving - on that I agree with you - but moving is a 'fact of life' unless you live in the same house from 'cradle to grave' - a scenario that some in council housing seem to think they should be entitled to without ever having their needs reassessed. It is odd, one hears of tenants continually asking to be moved to larger houses when their families grow - this policy is just the 'flip side' of that. If those who press to be 'moved into larger council houses' when their families grow were to be less selfish (by thereafter asking to be moved to smaller accommodation when their children grow up - it is possible that this policy would not have been needed). I am sure that some landlords will attempt to cash in - but given that it is presently a renter's market - there being more houses available to let than are needed - the market should, ultimately, take care of this. After all, history shows us - and I refer again to the council built housing estates of the 1940s-1960s that where the rents charged by the councils were too high on the new fringe suburban estates, the tenants took it upon themselves to find cheaper accommodation in the centre of towns. Are you really suggesting that the tenants of yesteryear had more social mobility and a better understanding of how to move than those today who have, after all, benefited from the enlightened years of Brown and Blair?

Brilliant piece of first class writing... And the lack of response by the opposers of this completely sensible policy proves it.. Well done VOR

Apart from the chronic lack of houses to downsize too. The very crux of the matter.

tomtopper wrote:

Jonn wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

Voice-of-reality wrote:
There are plenty of 2 bedroom terraced houses empty in the north-east to accommodate those who need to downsize. You only need to look at the housing statistics for the area as compiled by the census and other sources to note just how many of these houses there are.
As for 'there can't have been many sold before 1980' - actually not true. It was, as you may recall, an integral part of the 1949 Housing Act - the same act that also empowered councils to build more 2 bedroom houses - with, thereafter, 1953 being the best of the immediate post-war years in terms of the number of social houses built.
That people could not afford the houses they bought it quite simple - there fault. If I buy a house I cannot afford I have to sell it - why should that be any different for someone who bought their former council house at a massively knocked down price.
I am sure a lot of people are not looking forward to moving - on that I agree with you - but moving is a 'fact of life' unless you live in the same house from 'cradle to grave' - a scenario that some in council housing seem to think they should be entitled to without ever having their needs reassessed. It is odd, one hears of tenants continually asking to be moved to larger houses when their families grow - this policy is just the 'flip side' of that. If those who press to be 'moved into larger council houses' when their families grow were to be less selfish (by thereafter asking to be moved to smaller accommodation when their children grow up - it is possible that this policy would not have been needed). I am sure that some landlords will attempt to cash in - but given that it is presently a renter's market - there being more houses available to let than are needed - the market should, ultimately, take care of this. After all, history shows us - and I refer again to the council built housing estates of the 1940s-1960s that where the rents charged by the councils were too high on the new fringe suburban estates, the tenants took it upon themselves to find cheaper accommodation in the centre of towns. Are you really suggesting that the tenants of yesteryear had more social mobility and a better understanding of how to move than those today who have, after all, benefited from the enlightened years of Brown and Blair?

Brilliant piece of first class writing... And the lack of response by the opposers of this completely sensible policy proves it.. Well done VOR

Apart from the chronic lack of houses to downsize too. The very crux of the matter.

And in Labour's 13 yrs, they did what, exactly, to rectify this perceived problem?

The problem is, this current culture of 'total entitlement' . Some people need to be forced into bettering themselves, it's a harsh fact of life which some people can't quite understand.. Give a person everything he needs, then where is the incentive to achieve anything oneself?

The fact is that a lot of people whom have never , nor ever intend to work, live in very well maintained houses fitted with the latest heating systems, in some cases fitted with solar panels and power showers, double glazing, modern electrics etc etc all free of charge, doesn't sit well with the working, mortgage paying and everything else paying folk who fund this..
Housing assessment should be reviewed every five years, to ensure correct allocation of correct social housing, just as if they'd applied for it in the first instance... The fact they prepared to let people remain in these properties for a nominal charge, is actually doing these people a favour..

It's not before time to end the spare room subsidy!

argo2013 wrote:
TT, Checks should be made every 5yrs,and you object to the low paid and unemployed living in decent propertes,prehaps you would be happy for poor people living in slums,something people have campaigned for decades to erradicate.Unfortuan

tly for people like you,poor people no lomger accept, scraps the "ruling elite" bother to throw them,do poor people not have the right to better themselves.

tomtopper wrote:

argo2013 wrote:
TT, Checks should be made every 5yrs,and you object to the low paid and unemployed living in decent propertes,prehaps you would be happy for poor people living in slums,something people have campaigned for decades to erradicate.Unfortuan


tly for people like you,poor people no lomger accept, scraps the "ruling elite" bother to throw them,do poor people not have the right to better themselves.

I can never understand why people like yourself try their best to prevent people from bettering themselves...

Keeping a person down by making him dependent on the state by providing a level of comfort and services to the degree which would make said person feel wholly unable to achieve any degree of personal success or independence..

Ultimately, self sufficiency is the goal, and this isn't achieved by state provision of everything a person needs..

Once life becomes manageable with only state/welfare provision, or even low pay, the recipient understandably forms his comfort zone around this, and it requires a greater effort to break free from this state dependent culture..

People have achieved great things under a little pressure, and the UK offers many paths out of state dependence in comparison to other countries..

People need to put themselves under pressure (a rule which applies throughout nature) But this becomes so much harder when dependency is offered as a lifestyle choice and any driving force is removed..

Let me enlighten you Argo2013...There is no 'us & them' You get out of this life what you put into it..Simple as that really..

Voice-of-reality wrote:
It has nothing to do with the Olympics - jobs in schools are LEA based (if the maintained sector). In addition, the peak season for jobs for NQTs is the first half term of the summer term. Of course, he could do a PGCE so that he could offer Geography in addition to PE.

argo2013 wrote:
When the tories first brought in right to buy,after a few years you could tell which had been bought because the tenants who had been conned into buying their homes (which was a con in more ways than one because they already owned them), because they couldn't afford to maintain them were in a poor condition,that is why many of them are in the hands of private landlords. The same landlords are looking forward to making a killing,when council tenants have to leave their homes,and it will cost the hard working tax payers,as Cameron always refers to them will be paying more to pay extra housing benefit out ,when it is supposed to save money.

Duke of Aycliffe wrote:

argo2013 wrote: When the tories first brought in right to buy,after a few years you could tell which had been bought because the tenants who had been conned into buying their homes (which was a con in more ways than one because they already owned them), because they couldn't afford to maintain them were in a poor condition,that is why many of them are in the hands of private landlords. The same landlords are looking forward to making a killing,when council tenants have to leave their homes,and it will cost the hard working tax payers,as Cameron always refers to them will be paying more to pay extra housing benefit out ,when it is supposed to save money.

I strongly disagree with the above opinion, I bought my house on the council right to buy. The reason? I wanted to better myself & my family. However, to say that you could tell which homes were privately owned because they are in poor condition is absoloute rubbish. It is in fact, the opposite many of the council properties look very scruffy with unkept gardens. The reason why many council estates became slums is because in the past, useless Labour councils let out council homes to a large minority of feckless, ungrateful tenants, who never had any ambition to work & pay their way in life. Now the boot is on the other foot & the current govt is determined to crack down on the huge defecit, something the previous Labour govt failed to do. I think the North East is a great place, but unfortunately it is held back by small mindedness & by this silly entitlement mindset.

Pete Winstanley wrote:
This is latest nasty idea from this thoroughly nasty government. Many of those unable to pay the tax will be forced to move a considerable distance, leaving behind friends, family and neighbours. Children may have to be moved to a new school, disrupting their education and breaking up established friendships. In many areas, there are nowhere near enough smaller properties available in social housing – eg in Hull, 4,700 homes are deemed to be too big for their occupants, with just 73 one-bedroom flats available. So families will have to rent in the private sector where rents are much higher. Many will pay more for a one-bedroom flat than they were previously paying for a two-bedroom house, so they will claim more in benefit and cost the taxpayer more. While most housing benefit claimants are either pensioners or unemployed, around 20 percent are in work, but on low wages. Because, in the current depression, more and more people can only find low-paid or part-time work, over 90 percent of new applications for housing benefit are from employed people. What if they can’t find accommodation within commuting distance, or end up paying higher fares to get to work? Are we governed by beings from another planet, or are they just completely heartless?

johnny_p wrote:
"Can't pay- won't pay"? It's not a tax so how does that work? If you want to be greedy and live in a council house that's too big for what you need tough- lose benefits.

Jonn wrote:

johnny_p wrote: "Can't pay- won't pay"? It's not a tax so how does that work? If you want to be greedy and live in a council house that's too big for what you need tough- lose benefits.

Defintion of a Tax: A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer, an individual or legal entity by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law. The Government are imposing a charge on an individual, payable if you have a spare room, punishable if you don't pay, therefore, it's a tax.

spragger wrote:
One would have thought these stupid people would have been more concerned about the Spare Room Subsidy - We need a taxpayers protest about how such people waste our money

argo2013 wrote:
Jude, vor waffles on saying the same things over and over again, i was accused of changing subjcts on another matter,but you two are doing the same,who wants to hear about you going to work to pay your mortgage, you've been told several times a lot of people caught up in this unfair penalty on their home are working but don't recieve decent wage,why should be penalised for that? Lots of people would like to not have to claim benefits ,but they are forced to,people like you chose to buy your home so boo-hoo hoo,get on withit thats your problem,over in Germany the've got the sense not to saddle themselves withso much debt,with the cost of maintaining your home only a fool would want to buy a house these days!!

****-Biker wrote:

Jonn wrote:

johnny_p wrote: "Can't pay- won't pay"? It's not a tax so how does that work? If you want to be greedy and live in a council house that's too big for what you need tough- lose benefits.

Defintion of a Tax: A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer, an individual or legal entity by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law. The Government are imposing a charge on an individual, payable if you have a spare room, punishable if you don't pay, therefore, it's a tax.

Hey let’s not call it a tax, those people who live their lives claiming benefits might get worried, and say “that’s what those people who go and work have to pay to keep me in drugs , fags and booze”

Jonn wrote:

****-Biker wrote:

Jonn wrote:

johnny_p wrote: "Can't pay- won't pay"? It's not a tax so how does that work? If you want to be greedy and live in a council house that's too big for what you need tough- lose benefits.

Defintion of a Tax: A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer, an individual or legal entity by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law. The Government are imposing a charge on an individual, payable if you have a spare room, punishable if you don't pay, therefore, it's a tax.

Hey let’s not call it a tax, those people who live their lives claiming benefits might get worried, and say “that’s what those people who go and work have to pay to keep me in drugs , fags and booze”

Yeah, you keep on believeing that all benefit claimants drink, smoke and do drugs. It's easier for people of low intelligence to get angry at easy targets, force fed propaganda by the Government to deflect the blame from themselves. Maybe you should try looking where the real problems lie.

argo2013 wrote:
**** biker, Do nothing attitude,i was talking about not getting the chance to get work,whether you are keen to work or not,the governments plans are more and more cuts,and they say there is no alternative, so how is someone going to make something of their life.The last time(in the thirties)the tories kept going with the same idea,the only thing that brought it to an end was ww2.

argo2013 wrote:
****, S the depression ended in 1933,so what happened did the government forget to tell the people who were out of work,you 're a laugh you are.There is plenty of jobs,i tell you what,pack your job in and have fun looking for work,hope you get a taste of the dole soon.

argo2013 wrote:
DOA, If you wanted to better yourself why did you not buy a private house and help get someone of the council waiting list,i'll tell you why ,you took the tories bait ,by buying your house on the cheap because you haven't bettered yourself,because you did not have the cash to buy private.The tories sold the houses cheap not to help you but because their policies were failing and they needed some quick cash.

argo2013 wrote:
****, S the depression ended in 1933,so what happened did the government forget to tell the people who were out of work,you 're a laugh you are.There is plenty of jobs,i tell you what,pack your job in and have fun looking for work,hope you get a taste of the dole soon.

jude666 wrote:
Argo, Synonyms for the word idiot blockhead, bonehead, cretin, dimwit, dork, dumbbell, dunce, fool, ignoramus, imbecile, jerk, kook, moron, muttonhead, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, out to lunch, pinhead, simpleton, stupid, tomfool, twit Having read all of your posts there is not one of the above synonyms that doesnt best describe you.

argo2013 wrote:
I do know my history,the great depression was caused by the same people as today the banks.The difference being this time the labour government stopped them going into bankruptcy ,else we would be in more serious trouble than we are now.Yes you could buy your council house before the eighties, but not that many did so it did not affect the waiting lists, so you are not quite accurate your self.

****-Biker wrote:

Jonn wrote:

****-Biker wrote:

Jonn wrote:

johnny_p wrote: "Can't pay- won't pay"? It's not a tax so how does that work? If you want to be greedy and live in a council house that's too big for what you need tough- lose benefits.

Defintion of a Tax: A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer, an individual or legal entity by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law. The Government are imposing a charge on an individual, payable if you have a spare room, punishable if you don't pay, therefore, it's a tax.

Hey let’s not call it a tax, those people who live their lives claiming benefits might get worried, and say “that’s what those people who go and work have to pay to keep me in drugs , fags and booze”

Yeah, you keep on believeing that all benefit claimants drink, smoke and do drugs. It's easier for people of low intelligence to get angry at easy targets, force fed propaganda by the Government to deflect the blame from themselves. Maybe you should try looking where the real problems lie.

no not all people on benefits smoke drink and do drugs, but there are sizeable chunk whom that lifestyle is all they care for

argo2013 wrote:
DOA, Mr Lacey said a while ago that deliberately baits left wingers ,and anyone who disagrees with him,so no one takes much notice anymore. As for experience,he has a self centred,i'm better than you narrow view of life, no need to care what he says. I see you have no answer for me stating that people who bought council houses are part of the present problem,as for stupid statements, council houses were built for people to get a start in life,and then maybe move on to buying their own homes,but people like you took that rung away,and you have the nerve to scold council tenants for not getting on in life,when people like you are part of their problems.