Logic is. As Spec says, nothing bad is going to happen to you or your mum if you don't have a third bedroom. It's a luxury, not a necessity. ORLY? Not seeing too many people on housing benefit living in £600.000,-- mansions in Harborne, Birmingham. I think it's time to stop this debate, because your arguments are starting to sound a bit weak. Obviously not everybody is eligible for housing benefit. Obviously it will not fund for you to live in a mansion if you are --you will be expected to live within your means. Obviously council housing is a scarce resource. You have a room that is a scarce resource and that you don't need. You'll be expected to make a concession towards keeping it.
Remind me again what question, I think I have answered it by now. As I have proven, when you gain council property you are allow to stay in that property until you die, you can move to another small property for instance if your children grow up and move out, if you wish or better property. My mother was given this house because they were knocking down the flat she was in which they have to do, and they gave her a choice of two properties, one had a huge hold in the roof then this one. As she is ill the council have to supply her with a place to live doesn't matter how big it is. You are not allowed to sub-let any rooms without the permission of the council. The property will be signed over to me when she passes. My original argument was if people can't find the money to pay for the extra rooms in my area, where are they going to go, be homeless? then the council have to find them something as they are homeless, and as there isn't any single people properties in my area they are stuck. I'm starting to get a little sick of this myself, I show evidence about subsidising, show evidence why we are entitled to live in the property we are in. But that isn't good enough for you lot, but I have to take what your saying has being correct, remove your blinkers and look out the window occasionally. Personally I think some of you don't have a clue what the lower end society have to contend with, the ones that can afford to live in a £1000 per month home, I have never had that in my whole time working.
Isn't that what's happening and isn't that also what you are complaining about? The problem with the masses surrendering their freedom to choose is that they automatically surrender their right to complain. Surrendering your right to choose does not suspend the laws of economics and scarcity. You can choose to negotiate your needs among your fellow citizens or you can have someone else do it. However, when everyone else surrenders their choice, the person making the choices for others must consider everyone else's desires as well as their own (getting re-elected).
Personally I think that you have no clue what hard work it took some of us to be able to afford a £1000,-- a month home. You think that sort of money just fell into our laps? I'm not wishing to imply that you don't work hard yourself (far from it), but most people who enjoy a decent income grafted for every single penny of it, and made sacrifices to get there.
Personally I think this thread has devolved in to opposing dogmas...But the questions remain - Should the poorest and most socially disadvantaged bear the brunt of cost-saving measures? Should it be the middle class, despite the effort they made to achieve inclusion in that income bracket? Or should it be the upper class, for whom heavy taxation would encourage to relocate their wealth elsewhere? We know you don't want the guv'mint taking more of your money. We know you have rational reasons for that. How about suggesting some solutions rather than just bitching at each other
I pay 455 for a room (garage conversion) in a townhouse where the small kitchen and living room is shared between 7. Granted bills are included and its in a decent location, but having my own house for that price? bargaib
£500 is a bargain. You're looking at £1500+ a month private rent near me. Our neighbours pay £380 per month to the council for their flat, our mortgage on the identical property (ex council & next door to them) is £800 a month. We also have to pay £1200 a year in service charges they don't.
My Grandmother paid her taxes for her whole life. My Dad has paid his taxes for his whole life. Yet when she was beyond caring for herself and past being able to have someone look after her a couple of hours a day it was time to put her in a home. My Dad lived 300 miles from her so chose a nursing home close to us. The council and government said no. She's paid her taxes here. She can't live there in a home. She has to live here. My Dad didn't want his dieing mother to be left where he couldn't check on her and her care. So he asked if they could pay the amount that they would pay for her care there and help him support her closer to us for her last years. Their answer was of course no. So my Dad not willing to leave her so far away had to pay somewhere in the region of £20,000 a year on keeping her close to him while she was clinging on to life. This lasted about 3 or 4 years. Yet if my dad washed his hands with here they would have paid around £17,000 a year to keep her where she was. That makes no sense to me... she spent all her life paying for that and it was taken away because of a post code and someone still loving her. Those that have help are left out in the cold. Those that don't aren't. Seems fair until you look at situations like this and the OPs. I have a friend that looks after his depressed and suicidal mother who has mental problems. This means he can't get a carer for her. All because he is there for her. He wants to live his own life. And as far as the Government is concerned, he can if he turns his back on her. There is great unfairness in the way all these systems work.
