The government has made a number of changes to benefits and the welfare system recently but the change that gives me the greatest cause for concern by far is the “under-occupancy charge”, more commonly known as the “bedroom tax”.
This tax came into force in April this year and according to the National Housing Federation will affect 660,000 households in social housing across the country who will have to pay, on average, an extra £728 each year if they wish to stay in their homes. The alternative is to move to smaller social housing accommodation, if any is available, or try to find rented accommodation in the private sector or take some other action, such as taking in a lodger so that the “spare” accommodation is used and money received for it.
In defence of this policy the government points out the contrast across the country which exists between people in overcrowded accommodation and those who are occupying housing with extra bedroom space. However unfortunately the areas where there is the greatest overcrowding are not the areas where there are large numbers of households with “spare” accommodation, so the national figures comparing overcrowding with underutilised accommodation are largely meaningless. Across the North families hit by the bedroom tax outnumber overcrowded families by three to one. In Hull alone 6000 people are affected with apparently only 70 or so flats available to be moved into. Furthermore the tax has to be paid even when occupiers of larger properties have declared their willingness to downsize but where, like Hull, alternative accommodation simply does not exist.
The problems with the tax are daily becoming more apparent. For example in the localities I know well – Sunderland, Newcastle, Gateshead and the rest of the Tyne and Wear conurbation – rent arrears have shot up since April because people cannot afford to pay the extra charge when they are already finding it difficult to make ends meet. As well as the sheer numbers now in rent arrears it is clear that many of those people now falling behind with their payments have never been in arrears before so it is not a question of bad payers reoffending but rather people with a previous good record as tenants simply being unable to find the money to pay up. Others are, I suppose, managing to find the money but no doubt having to cut back on other items to do so.
Local authorities are able to look at individual cases and in some instances make discretionary payments. However the amount of money available for such payments is much less than the amount that is being cut from Housing Benefit. It is clear too that because every household is different and therefore have different circumstances for the local authorities to consider, there will be a huge administrative cost incurred in dealing with all these different situations and adjudicating on them. Indeed there are concerns that the projected savings to the Exchequer through this measure will be simply wiped out by the extra administrative costs involved.
There is increasing evidence that the tax is causing not only financial but also emotional hardship and stress for individuals and families Indeed tragically at least one suicide has been linked to the imposition of the tax. Among the variety of problems that have surfaced have been those of foster parents who need extra accommodation for foster children from time to time, separated or divorced parents whose children come to stay frequently in a “spare” bedroom, or couples where one of the two may through illness or a disability need to have separate sleeping accommodation either temporarily or on a longer term basis.
Stress is caused even for those willing or able to move as there are concerns about what alternative accommodation will be offered and whether it will be in an area close enough to allow existing social networks of friends or support services to be maintained. Neither is the idea of taking in a lodger a stress-free option. For someone living on their own, perhaps after occupying the same home for a very long time, taking in a complete stranger to share that home can be a distressing prospect.
There are many more examples that I have come across and which could be quoted, affecting some of the most hard-pressed of our citizens. Sadly the government does not seem prepared to scrap this tax which is what I want to see. At the very least however it must look urgently at the evidence across the whole of the country and be prepared to introduce changes quickly to stop its severest effects.
“Sadly the government does not seem prepared to scrap this tax which is what I want to see.”
Because the previous situation was working so well – oh wait no it was a shambles. Where was the outrage that councils (mainly Labour Councils) were paying up to £1000 relocation grant and up to an additional £1000 per bedroom that people gave up by downsizing. Councils – which means their hard pressed taxpayers – were paying up to £5,000 to get tenants out of properties the council owned but could not be removed because of life tenancy save by throwing money at the problem. It wasn’t fair on the taxpayer or indeed on young families who needed spaced blocked by mainly older residents whose children had left.
Baroness Quin, hello;
what I have long been trying to get accepted, scrutinised, discussed via this Lords-of-the-Blog e-site
and ‘pinned’ to some Longest-Term-Governance/Education/Social Table or other,
is proactivity & planning for
a New Sustainworthy Civilisation,
both bio- and techno- ecolonomically.
We need to be re-rationalising all spaces, places, lifestyles, and evaluations thereof
not quasi-simply just “spare-bedrooms”;
———
{I suggest that this Contextual-Topic may be eminently and interestingly vital & continuable:
but may we see what kind of reception it gets so far, please ?}
thus I break-off here, and “give way”.
Dear Baroness,
I find myself partially agreeing with the previous poster ‘Croft’. It gets slightly worse. The first example is the abysmal state where rental properties got exploited during last years Olympics. The fact that this could just be done is a first sign of evidence that some landlords are not to be trusted. In addition, why should people be forced to move at all? This tax is more then unjust. I have seen my share of injustice due to non-regulations and over-regulation. Both could apply to the rental situation.
In answer to your quote “Stress is caused even for those willing or able to move”. This is due to moving, the cost of the bond, changing it and resolving the old bond. That and not knowing who the new land lord will be (the type of person) adds an indecent amount of stress.
If during the 80’s as things went bad a better solution was implemented, these issues would be a lot less. Yet, I feel that the (in my mind artificial) price hike of houses as the average house prices more then doubled from 1997 to 2007, people were forced to stay in a rental situation, now that the economy is down, the same people are now punished through taxation for a choice they never had. That in my view is likely the greatest injustice of all in this matter.
I would like to point out that families with young children on low income dont want to move into larger accommodation because they too cannot afford the bedroom tax so now councils are faced with empty homes. Whats more its people in their 50s mostly affected by this ridiculous tax who may have been made redundant from their jobs and cant get a other job but ha e probably paid taxes.These people have also probably spent their hard earned money making their house a home taking years to do so on the promise it would be for keeps. So Mr Croft if this was your parents found themselves to be in this situation would you
still have the same opinion? . Do remember there are families out there in need of better accommodation but everybody who lives in a h/a or council house have all had to wait in the first place.. and the fact that these families are not able to afford a home because of the bedroom tax what’s the point of making peoples lives a misery with this stupid idea. Try blaming the bankers/ tax evaders/ greedy politicians claiming massive expenses and huge incomes for the tax you are paying not the poorest people.
Why should anyone fund spare bedrooms for others?
On the question of tax. Yes, they probably have paid tax. However, its all been spent. On things like spare bedrooms. Now what?
The real reason is that welfare is a Ponzi fraud. They take the money and spend it. It’s gone. Now they can’t pay the pensions and welfare. [In fact they can’t pay either]
Now who do you choose?
Pensioners or welfare claimants?
Hmm, lets see. Lets hit the pensioners. Er, they vote.
Lets hit the rich pensioners. Er. They move their cash. Why pay if you get nothing back.
So lets hit the welfare claimants. Yep, the only choice for now. Pensioners, we’ll go after next.
It’s a Ponzi.
I’m afraid you’re quite mistaken Thinker on almost all your points.
There are large waiting lists held by most councils of people wanting to upsize.
A family moving from over-occupancy to a larger property that matches their family size won’t pay the ‘bedroom tax’ precisely because it is about un/under-used rooms.
Except in the north of England where demographics/population shift have left many traditional family homes unused (and unused long before these changes) councils (particularly southern councils) can’t get enough houses so the idea these changes will create a massive empty council property issue is bizarre.
Many private sector tenants and indeed home-owners have invested both financially and emotionally in their properties but many have been forced to sell or leave for many reasons. I’m not sure why council tenants are deserving of special treatment in this area.
The world has changed and continues to change. All sorts of rights and privileges whether in the workplace or in benefits have changed in the last 60 years. The idea that because unrealistic promises over tenancy were made in the past we must perpetuate them forever is simply not living in the real world.
Everyone in a council house didn’t have to wait in the first place. Ever heard of Succession rights? For tenancies created prior to 2012 family members can gain an automatic tenancy on the decease of the tenant.
Sighs – the bankers didn’t run a £30Bn/year average government deficit (2002-7) during the longest sustained global economic boom on record. Measures like the above are partly a consequence of the government having to live within its means and partly both population changes exceeding house building but also societal changes with more broken/single parent/ageing families changing the size and number of properties needed. Jeers at bankers is a depressingly facile approach to a complex and multi faceted problem.
And more to the point, the bankers didn’t hide their debts off the books like the Lords and MPs.
7,000 bn hidden off the accounts there. Pension debts are rising at 734 bn a year on top of the deficit. [Labour again, 2005-2010]
Any genuinely longest-term-sustainworthy and cooperatively-participatory-democratic government
would be ‘paying’ me extra
for further-sustainworthying my single bedroom :-
[e.g. by adding an accurate-to the minute alarm-clock, on the floor beside my bed
– thus gaining accuracy of punctuality at any ‘reveille’ (unobtainable through any affordable analogue alarm-clock);
– and also thus saving a living-tree by forgoing a wooden bedside table ]
I’m on Income based ESA support group and I’m stuck in the trap of having to pay this bedroom tax. My housing association does not have enough properties to move people to so that they don’t have to pay so we have no choice but to pay for empty rooms. By the time I have paid out for bedroom tax, gas, water and electric, there is little left for food or every day important things.
It’s a struggle and puts even more stress and strain on our lives which doesn’t help us get any better. I can’t believe that the government actually thought this through properly other than the dollar signs in their eyes. It’s a sham and the UK’s poorest are once again being punished for the actions of a few at the top. I can only hope that those who voted this through are out of a job soon.
No, you’re not paying anything.
Other people are paying you.
If you haven’t realised, its pounds in the UK and not dollars.
So perhaps you can enlighten me. Why should others and myself fund your spare bedroom? I can think of lots of better things to do with that money, such as spend it on my children, invest it so that jobs are generated, …
The Government’s response to these arguments is to say that disabled people can apply for discretionary housing payments (DHP’s). Local authorities are to be given extra money specifically to help disabled people whose homes have been significantly adapted – and by significantly adapted, they have said they mean specifically for wheelchair users. However, these payments are discretionary; there is no right of appeal if a payment is not awarded, and although payments may be awarded for an indefinite period, it is more common for discretionary housing payments to be awarded for limited periods, often 12 weeks. It is particularly important to note that, despite increased funding from the Government (intended to help only those in homes which have been adapted for a wheelchair user), there will be no funds to help most of the 420,000 disabled people affected by the under-occupancy rules. So this proposed ‘solution’ provides no security of accommodation for disabled people, who need that security the most.
The Government’s response to these arguments is to say that disabled people can apply for discretionary housing payments
=============
Look, if you need a second bedroom because of some need, such as being disabled, they I agree 100%, we should all chip in and help.
However, if you want a spare bedroom, then tough. You can’t have it at the expense of some other poor person. Period.
What’s the result of this is far more dire. All these past payments have come out of people’s pension contributions. Now the state owes 7 trillion, (not the BBC figure, they just report the borrowing bit, 1.2 trillion). So the consequences of not being incontrol of welfare is not only that those in genuine need will be hit, the people that have paid for it all, are going to be screwed in their old age.
Sim was speaking at a regional summit in Teesside of 14 housing associations from across the north-east. “If you hit them with the bedroom tax, and hit them with council tax, then there’s not a lot of money left to live on. These people are actually working, so all this talk about ‘strivers’ and ‘skivers’ is just not right,” Sim said.
Scenario: A couple with 2 children 1 age 10 the other age 3, on low income. Even though they really need a 3 bedroom house, because of their children’s ages, they are expected to share a room so because the parents are not getting a big enough income they cant afford the extra bedroom. So they refuse the bigger home. However it’s only a few years before they will have to get a bigger house due to the elder child legally needing their own room. By the time the younger child has grown the elder on e has moved
out, the parents still on low income have now found themselves with a house apparently too big and can t afford the extra money, but now cant get a smaller home because there are none. Not only are they trapped in this situation they are constantly told they ha e to move house every time there is a change. How is anyone supposed to put down roots and feel any kind of stability and what about the children being pushed around from school to school.
Mr Croft, you need to look at the bigger picture and anyone else who thinks this bedroom tax is a good idea try putting yourself in the situation.
Slightly trying to unpick your argument which is by not clear. Your first point appears to be nothing to do with the bedroom tax: either the parents can or can’t afford the initial subsidised council rent of a larger property with the number of rooms they desire. The same issue would arise for a council or private sector tenant.
If they up-size and later the elder child leaves there is clearly an issue but again one presented in both sectors in terms of differing property demands over your life. Are we sure they will leave – the average age children remain at home is going up and up and so we may have a second income involved or indeed benefits.
The figure varies wildly depending on area of the country/private or state sector but a typical family moves every 6-10 years at present so I’m not sure the ‘bedroom tax’ can have anything more than a peripheral effect on ‘roots’ and moving is a normal change.
Clearly as a general point we need more one bedroom properties built and to some extent these changes will alter the market incentives for builder and housing associations in terms of what they build.
However alluding back to my previous post there are some fundamental economic realities of the government and local councils ability to spend money they don’t have. The housing benefit bill has doubled in the last decade and looks on course to represent the equivalent of 20% of the government deficit this year. The problem with all hard cases is they become an argument to inertia in which problems aren’t dealt with. What else within the benefit budget that is cost saving is an alternative.
Remember, that all the funding for spare bedrooms has come out of people’s pension contributions.
So when those pensions are due, they won’t pay what’s due.
e.g.
Lets not pay RPI, lets pay CPI. That’s 15% off what we were due to pay.
Lets raise the retirement age by 2 years. We get two years extra NI, and pay out two years less. That’s 21,000 quid ripped off people who’ve being paying in.
…
That’s a huge cost to give people a spare bedroom.
It has now been proven that the bedroom tax is costing the country more money than it was supposed to save. There are now larger houses lying empty or people in larger houses trapped in them because no one wants the bigger house for fear of not being able to afford it and of course no smaller properties available, not to mention the rent arrears accruing because people can’t afford to pay. About time this excuse for a government abolished this ridiculous idea and stopped being so arrogant. LISTEN to what the experts in housing organisations are telling you
And you need to look at the rules. The rules specify 2 bedrooms. You are confusing need with want.
You are also ignoring the impact of their want, and extra bedroom, paid for by other people, who are then made poor as a result.
Why have you ignored the impact on other people to justify a spare bedroom?
If we were all to think in the the way you have no one would help anybody. I don’t sit and say to you why should I contribute towards someone s spare bedroom as I am not so petty nor do I begrudge contributing through my tax child benefit even though there are people who really do not need it but they still get it and I don’t even have children. So please do not dictate about why should you pay towards a spare bedroom. Getting back to the bedroom tax, if all those tenants moved out to private rented accommodation the taxpayer would be paying a lot more . Therefore some common sense would be welcome.
The bedroom tax is a way the Tories found to reduce the poor to further debt and impoverishment. And, why did they want to do this? Because impoverished people work for nothing and their self esteem drops to a depth level where, once again, they will be doffing their caps to the likes of hurry come up, heiress marrying layabouts so that ‘he’ can feel elated by his new found position as he struts, fat faced, around his estate. If he can’t do that what was the point of marrying up?
Councils intend to make welfare recipients and low paid homeless through the bedroom tax.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/27/bedroom-tax-poor-homeless
The bedroom tax has another motive. Over the last 12 years in particular the influx of immigrants from outside the EU has been sensational. More than the once floated 4 million crowed about. And this influx was intended to stomp on the poor and low paid in order to bring them to their knees which will reduce the living wage to less than any amount needed to survive without going into horrendous dept. Debt keeps the fat cats in income. Wonga. This again raises the necessity to work 80 hours a week on minimum wage in order to be able to meet weekly bills. Which fill part time jobs that offer no security or regulation on those employing them. Meaning, they have little, if anything at all to claim in law against those who exploit them.
And removing the ability to seek redress in the courts, by removing legal aid, they loosen the noose they feel is around employers to meet EU regulation on the limited fair work practices required in the ‘human rights’ act. This being one of the major reasons for getting rid of said ‘human rights’ act. Which the US didn’t sign up to and therefore keeps their working poor as an underclass so destitute it can be seen as horrendous as the third world they tell us they send billions to aid. Those billions go into the pockets of the administrators.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20104177
Back to the bedroom tax. We now read that the business sector has advised the Tories that to keep Britain going we need to import more immigrants by the millions to take up jobs here in the UK that cannot be filled by our own people or our EU partners. So, where will they put all these hard workers from outside the EU when they arrive? Well we throw the needy living in social housing out of their secure home and move the new comers into those places. And as most immigrants from outside the EU have very large families, you grab all the extra rooms you can get to hand to those who will arrive. Government of any colour does not want and will not build new social housing as the rent they get on their private property portfolio suffers when they have a counter to their robbery. So much for the Tories bringing down immigration.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/migrants-needed-to-pay-for-nhs-spending-or-britain-will-go-broke-says-obr-8714224.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Lord-Mandelson-Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-hard-Britons-work.html
And why I keep repeating immigrants from outside the EU, or to be up front, from the Commonwealth is because, those people are not part of EU regulation and expectation of fair working practice is not on their menu. They have lower expectations of pay and work hours so they are easier to bully, threaten and abuse.
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa014.pdf
Repeat. It’s not a tax.
So why don’t you tell it like it is?
I demand a spare bedroom and you have to pay for it?
Meanwhile, the core problems remain.
8 trillion, on and off the books debts included. Rising at 850 bn a year.
It’s going to get worse. Not that the Lords care. Too busy even to register their interest. See Mandleson today.
@LB:
Explain in a fully comprehensive way why you feel this is not a tax?
Of course it it a tax. As was removing child benefit from working families. Child benefit was given in order to cushion the removal of tax relief from those who had children and dependents. It was said to compensate in part for the removal of that ‘benefit’ in the ‘tax’ system. So, by then removing the child benefit, you removed the compensation given for the removal of the tax break. Another tax on top of tax.
It’s all done with mirrors Blagger, this bedroom tax is just another one of those illusionist games we are so good at playing against the poor in this country.
And this government has the gall to do it whilst handing billions in tax relief to the very wealthy. Remember the increase they gave the royal household this year, whilst our people line up in their millions for food held in storage units. And that, The Prince of Wales, pays less tax than his footman from his millions in private income. Then on top of all that the lowering of corporation tax and the 50 pence to 45 pence.
Oh, no, the bedroom tax is not a tax. It is simply a way to punish those poor they feel got above their station with decent modern civilised living conditions. Return them to the hovels for that is all they are fit for.
And the idiocy of you is, you fail to see it is the rich who have more than quadrupled their wealth as the bottom rung have become the starving impoverished. This kind of government ends up creating revolution, in case you forgot your history lessons.
A little reminder.
http://staff.gps.edu/mines/French%20Revolution%20-%20Social%20Causes.htm
This one is junior level on revolution and its causes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/standard/history/russia_1914_1941/february_revolution_causes/revision/1/
Soak it up
Giving people less money is not a tax.
Taking money from people is a tax.
Giving people money that has been taken from other people so they can have a spare bedroom is morally repugnant.
The poor have been screwed by the welfare state. In particular those who have been working.
If we take a median wage worker who has just retired. If their NI had been invested, they would have had 627,000 pounds. Instead they get a state pension costing 152,000 pounds.
That’s a loss of 475,000 pounds. Now some of that covers the insurance element of NI. Bereavement benefit, maternity pay, JSA and Incapacity benefit.
So the next question how much of that 475,000 pound loss is due to the insurance element?
We we can look at the NI accounts. 5% per year goes on charges. The cost of the DWP. 5%!!!! No private insurer can get away with that. Next is the cost of the payouts for the insurance part. It’s 10% of the payouts.
So of the 475,000, 63,000 is due to payouts for the insurance elements, and even there, the big one, Incapacity we know has been used to dump the unemployed to hide them.
People have been inpoverished.
Now if you are so worried about this, go out, become rich, and start funding spare bedrooms for people who don’t want to work.
At 2,700 a day, you might also want to look at the costs of Peers. That’s the daily cost per Peer to the tax payer.
10 times more tax than some workers at Starbucks pay in an entire year. However, we’ve been forced to keep them in booze and subsidised food.
After all, with debts of 8,000 bn, someone has to pay.
@Blagger:
So, you feel the spare bedroom is costing us all too much money?
Well now lets take a look. The average cost of rent in social housing is based on the tenant being impoverished and earning so little they can barely afford to feed their faces. You slam on the ‘bedroom tax’ and tell them unless they move they will face a large percentage of their disposable income being removed. Taking money, you tell us, is indeed a tax so they are paying a bedroom tax as removing a large percent of their disposable income for that dreaded bedroom is a tax.
They cannot be housed by their present landlord, the social housing group, as they don’t have any the right size to offer them. They must move from a three to a two to save the tax.
So, what happens then? They have to look in the private sector, where the rents are ludicrous. The cause is the fat cats with property portfolios are cleaning up and at the same time are very greedy. Need to bring back rent control.
These people with the spare bedroom are forced to move into the private high rent two bedroom, in order to vacate the two bedroom and cupboard, called a third bedroom, they presently live in. They cannot afford the rent which is more tan double that of the social housing property. In steps housing benefit. It then has to fork out double what it was paying in the 2+ cupboard. No saving there then, simply higher costs all round.
The other scenario is, turf them out and make them homeless. What is the cost of that. Care to take a look?
No, what this is all about is the likes of IDS getting an increase in the rents for his portfolio, funded by the tax payer. Fat cats love the benefits they receive from the tax payer, especially as they pay so little into the tax kitty themselves.
The other scenario you are asking us to accept, is, massive homelessness of families with children living in the streets like rats. The way they do in the USA. Tiny children pulling their toys along behind their mother who has their possessions loaded on a grocery cart. These people sleep in underground sewers as that is the only way they can stay warm and dry.
I don’t believe this is what you really want to see here in the UK Blagger. For, it could one day be you and your kids. Fate has a strange way of turning the tables very quickly on all of us. What you have today can be so easily removed tomorrow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SutshaFS3lk&feature=endscreen
And this is really and eye opener: The majority of the homeless are working in full time jobs fifty two weeks a year. So, not skivers and divers then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKK3E6dWiug
It’s not a tax. It’s a benefit. It is welfare.
You should only get welfare for your needs, not your wants.
Wake up Maude, you’ve lost the argument. There is a huge majority in this country who’ve decided that
1. No spare bedrooms on welfare.
2. A benefit cap.
You will find that the majority want this pushed even farther. The idea that you have to earn nearly 40K a year to overtake a welfare claimant makes people angry when they are poorer and are taxed to give money to someone who is richer than them.
The other scenario you are asking us to accept, is, massive homelessness of families with children living in the streets like rats.
It’s going to happen. Now don’t confuse a statement that because I state its going to happen I think that’s a good thing.
It comes back to your welfare state. That welfare state has come at the expense of people’s pensions. All the pension contributions to the state have been spent, on spare bedrooms, houses in Knightsbridge for claimants at 104,000 a year, ….
That leaves a debt. It is 6,500 bn pounds rising at 734 bn a year. Tax is 600 bn. So it bust.
So what’s going to happen? The won’t pay pensions because they can’t.
Hence the idea mooted by MPs of a cap on welfare spending. Never mentioned at the same time that pensions are welfare in the government’s eyes.
ie. Set the pensioners against your spare bedroom brigade. Labour’s going to sign up to a welfare is a human right, so the welfare claimant will get the money, but the pensioners won’t because that will then be defined as a pension, not welfare.
ie. Wake up. The state is bust and people have had enough. They are not prepared to be made more so someone can have a spare bedroom.
You really do not get it. When all those poor people are made homeless do you really think money will be saved, lets think, oh no we will all have to pay for temporary accommodation a whole lot more than for a “spare bedroom”. Wake up you obviously don’t mind your taxes funding all those bankers enjoying their big fat bonuses or the tax dodgers tho. Thats where your pension is going, into the already filthy rich. I do wish people would stop moaning about the unemployed/ disabled/ low income families. It is not them thats running this country into the ground.
You’re sadly deluded.
First you have to work out are the bankers involved in the civil service pension scheme, or the state pensions? Nope. It’s all government. Not a banker in sight.
Then you have to ask, how much does the state owe, and what assets has state put aside to cover the pensions.
The asset side is easy. They are all unfunded pensions. That means there are no assets. Zero. The easy bit.
Then come the liabilities. Now no doubt you’ve heard about the national debt. That’s the borrowing. Are the pensions included? Nope. Deliberately hidden. Off the books. Hmmm
So how much do they owe? Based off ONS figures, the current amount is 6,500 bn, rising at 734 bn a year. Nothing like a reference to convince you. So here are the numbers
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_263808.pdf
So think it through, the rich are going to lose their pension. The poor are going to lose their pension. There won’t be welfare, let alone a spare bedroom for the lucky.
So wake up. If you’re worried about spare bedrooms, far worse is coming. All because the state, no some banker, has committed fraud. Section 1-5 2006 fraud act.
So in part, you’re absolutely right.The real disabled aren’t responsible. Even the pseudo disabled (hidden unemployed) aren’t. They are just another set of victims of the state.
However, there is no money. It’s even worse than no money, there is just debt.
That’s the consequences of letting fraudsters have your money.
So let me guess, you work for the state? Your pension? Unfunded. You’re going to end up losing most.
Bad news for all people. There are no winners, just losers.
Well apart from the 2,700 a day peers (cost to us), MPs cost us even more. Ever wondered why they have a fully funded generous pension scheme and not a civil service one?
All we ever hear is their a shortage of housing…
Plain facr their are too many people in the country!!!
Yes, but the establishment allowed the population to rocket with their social engineering.
So now they can’t mention migration as being the biggest cause of the shortage of housing, because that means admitting their fault as the cause.
For other examples, start asking why the pension debts aren’t published in the accounts.
Pure Bernie Maddoff fraud.