Bedroom tax comes in tomorrow

Tomorrow the new Tory bedroom tax comes in. Those who are paid housing benefit lose a proportion of it for every spare bedroom in their property, 14% for one, or 25% for two. The problem is that there aren’t enough council properties of the correct, smaller size to rehouse all these people.

IBS himself, who brought in the tax, lives rent free in a huge mansion owned by the local aristocrats whose family he married into.

When i was young a council house was ‘your’ house ~ the family home. Now they call it social housing and think that a different rate of rent means you can treat people differently i.e. to private rentals. Essentially their policy of privatisation has just made everything cost more, and now they have to pay the bill they don’t like it.
This is nothing more than the same old prejudice against socialism, when the fact is that socialism mixed with capitalism made these cost far less.

  1. Council house; is bought and paid for at cost price and demands only a low rent.
  2. Private housing; is resold endlessly and commands market rates [namely of employed people] of rent somewhat comparable to a mortgage.

It doesn’t take much to realise what costs more.

If all this doesn’t result in x,y,z, occurring, such to bring the govt down, then we should be ashamed of ourselves. My guess is that it won’t.

Oh one other snipe at the capitalists while i am at it; the basis of gaining interest for a loan is risk, the deficit is the amount of interest we apparently owe on the national debt. However, it is the taxpayer who bailed the banks and took on the risk, right, thus the interest charged on the banks should be at least equivalent to the deficit [it should actually be far more]. In short the deficit the conservatives are making the poor pay for, should not exist ~ that is, in accordance with capitalist philosophy!

Eat that Cameron you insane psychopathic fucking nazi.

It’s not possible to bring the government down anyway now. One of the first things the coalition did was introduce fixed 5-year terms for parliament. Only another act of parliament could change this, and they’re not going to vote themselves out of power.

It wasn’t the policy of privatisation so much as the selling off of council houses en masse under Thatcher. Socialism built the houses, liberalism sold them off, and the net effect was to subsidise and inflate the housing market. It meant there were a lot more comparatively cheaper, slightly small but nonetheless well built houses on the market. Now, in a free market system that would reduce prices due to competition, but of course we don’t live in a free market system, we live in a state capitalist/corporate socialist system, and so the policy had the opposite effect: it enabled already well off people to enter the buy-to-let market on a huge scale. By reducing the availability of council houses, and placing ownership of many of the cheaper houses in the hands of people who were solely looking to enrich their pockets, the overall result was to subsidise the housing market.

Indeed, one could argue that council houses, social housing in general is a subsidy, though whether it is a subsidy that inherently skews the market and makes housing more expensive is a matter of some debate. Nonetheless, if the government uses taxes to pay to build something and then sells that thing for less that it’s worth to a bunch of rich people, it certainly does make things more expensive.

A lot of it comes down to the fact that the government pays lower interest rates on the socialised, corporatised ‘public debt’ than private persons do on their mortgages. Put simply, it costs more for me to borrow money to buy/build a house than it does for the government to do so, hence I have to charge my tenants more to cover that.

Most people are too busy watching The Only Way is Essex to even notice that they are being fucked, let alone understand how or why.

They don’t care if they are hated, because they are doing the work of their masters which means they’ll get their payoff after they get voted out in favour of Labour at the next election. But what are Labour going to do, end quantitative easing and funnel that money into tax cuts? Are they balls…

There are ways, votes of no confidence etc. The roll tax riots got rid of thatcher, right. Not only that a full scale revolution would do the trick ~ long overdue! Just saying there are ways and means, especially in a democracy. The current politic condemns attacks by governments upon its own people ~ as we heard said in the arab spring revolutions. They can but back down if enough pressure is put upon them.

SIATD v2

I agree. The idea i suppose was to create as many homeowners as possible ~ as they are paying the banks their money. In a way i suppose it all goes around in circles, the govt pays landlords and their money goes in the bank which the banks then spend. I don’t really see the problem, we all know the global banking system is above nations and individuals. Perhaps they are still just being greedy and making the poor pay for it, but fundamentally if their system doesn’t work they should go back to socialist housing. …they wont of course, they will just keep telling us we have to pay the deficit we don’t actually owe ~ indeed we own their ass, all the financial institutions would have gone down if not bailed out.

I could put up with all of that if not for the duplicity, if their system works then what’s the problem? Spain has 50% unemployment, what would happen to Britain if it were the same? It just wouldn’t work, the govt by that model would then be paying rents and mortgages well above what they can ‘afford’. As it is all a money circle, all i am left with is that it’s just an agenda, the problems are largely unreal.

Exactly! That is why socialist housing helps the poor. When we had both, then rents simply went from one govt dept to another = no actual cost for the unemployed disabled and pensioners rents. It seems that charity is what is required here, and i don’t see why that should affect the prices landlords ask for ~ i am not against that, and it was always a different market.
Either way, all i am saying is that; ok more mortgage payers means more potential landlords, and more wealth for the banks to invest with [ = greater prosperity for all] ~ which is a good thing. I am just saying that a proper balance is required such that they don’t have to do crappy immoral things like this! Get the mechanism right and the machine will run beautifully.

Indeed, and they are too afraid to lose their jobs etc, and that is why it is easy for malicious governments to pick on minorities! It all just means that the govt politics are prejudice and often racist bollocks. People need protection from these attacks or democracy means nothing.

Again i agree, no matter who is in power they all suck to the man. I don’t like labour much more than the conservatives, they after all brought in things like the work program [which is insanely prejudice], and basically carried on with the capitalist program. The only thing is that they don’t want to look bad so they don’t do quite as shitty things as tax the poor immorally. Not sure if there is any difference between all of them bar pure talk.

…but somehow, the people [individuals and businesses] need protection against the state and the banks. That’s not a very socialist message i know, but it is one for an improved ‘society’ [preferably without the state et al].

Perhaps it’s time to open up a new colony? I hear Canada is pretty much a bunch of push overs, and the one country it borders is England’s closest ally- you could probably take them. You can have the East Coast, we’ll take the West, and free Quebec in the middle.

As I understand it, we’ve already got Canada. They continue to acknowledge our monarch as their own, anyway.

I’m surprised that full blown riots haven’t broken out (yet) across the country, but I hear that tenants are queuing to downsize/house swap, so the new tax has had the desired effect.