Govt loses bedroom tax case

[JOHNNYAITCH]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35418488

 

Excellent news for whilst I agree with the overall aim of the policy I can't agree that this is a good and fair means to achieve it

[bycars rob]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35418488

 

Excellent news for whilst I agree with the overall aim of the policy I can't agree that this is a good and fair means to achieve it

 

What is the aim exactly? Because of the sell off of public housing it isn`t easy to move to another smaller property in the public sector, therefore to downsize people would have to move into the unregulated and insecure private rented sector(often Tory owned), where they would be at the mercy of often unscrupulous landlords.

This policy of punishing poor people saves little money but is causing massive stress to many and says an awful lot of what this government is about.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

What is the aim exactly? Because of the sell off of public housing it isn`t easy to move to another smaller property in the public sector, therefore to downsize people would have to move into the unregulated and insecure private rented sector(often Tory owned), where they would be at the mercy of often unscrupulous landlords.

This policy of punishing poor people saves little money but is causing massive stress to many and says an awful lot of what this government is about.

 

The policy is to "free up" rented housing currently part or wholly paid for by the tax payer where under occupied so that those in over occupied/too small rented housing can make use of it and have those that don't need the spare capacity move into smaller housing. This is I believe a fair enough aim but as i said, this is not the way to achieve it.

 

"Punishing poor people" is not the policy but the means chosen to implement the policy (the bedroom tax) does indeed punish many poor people and is wrong.

[geosname]

The policy is to "free up" rented housing currently part or wholly paid for by the tax payer where under occupied so that those in over occupied/too small rented housing can make use of it and have those that don't need the spare capacity move into smaller housing. This is I believe a fair enough aim but as i said, this is not the way to achieve it.

 

"Punishing poor people" is not the policy but the means chosen to implement the policy (the bedroom tax) does indeed punish many poor people and is wrong.

 

The only way to "free up" the larger properties is to build smaller properties and condition the contract on use/occupancy.

The intent of the policy is, as you say, fine... but with a shortage of smaller properties its a penalty/fine when you cant move when your circumstances change.

[Fosse69]

The only way to "free up" the larger properties is to build smaller properties and condition the contract on use/occupancy.

The intent of the policy is, as you say, fine... but with a shortage of smaller properties its a penalty/fine when you cant move when your circumstances change.

Also without moving away from relatives/friends especially if dependent and becoming isolated upon moving. Private housing is no different really, there are lots of underused bedrooms where children have left home etc. and a shortage of housing to rent and buy. But the cost of moving etc limits the opportunities, apart from having the right to stay where you are.

[Warren]

The cases lost will be appealed. Because a range of measures / benefits have been introduced aside of this benefit (not tax) being withdrawn there is a basis for appeal. It seems to me the judgement is likely to be in breach of at least one component, maybe two, of the Wednesbury rules that legally defining reasonableness.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The only way to "free up" the larger properties is to build smaller properties and condition the contract on use/occupancy.

The intent of the policy is, as you say, fine... but with a shortage of smaller properties its a penalty/fine when you cant move when your circumstances change.

 

Totally agree

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Also without moving away from relatives/friends especially if dependent and becoming isolated upon moving. Private housing is no different really, there are lots of underused bedrooms where children have left home etc. and a shortage of housing to rent and buy. But the cost of moving etc limits the opportunities, apart from having the right to stay where you are.

 

I broadly agree. My mum was left in the situation when all of us kids had moved out and dad had passed away of living in a 3 bed council semi on her own for 20+ years. Now whilst she had sentimental reasons for wanting to stay put and we'd have hated to see her move, there were young families on the same estate struggling in cramped 2 bed flats..so a policy for her to move to somewhere smaller so that the house was available to a family is absolutely sound..but trying to effectively force people out when there may not be alternatives or when they are dependent on nearby relatives/neighbours is just wrong.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The cases lost will be appealed. Because a range of measures / benefits have been introduced aside of this benefit (not tax) being withdrawn there is a basis for appeal. It seems to me the judgement is likely to be in breach of at least one component, maybe two, of the Wednesbury rules that legally defining reasonableness.

 

Indeed the appeal may be won but even then it will go on and I suspect that there will be more cases of a similar but sufficiently different nature that will require new judgements. Eventually I hope that either the whole approach is declared unlawful or so many exceptions are found that people are protected anyway even if the law remains in place

[For Us All]

Another poorly thought-out plan by the Tories,similar to the tax-credit fiasco.Also,get a grip Cameron on the likes of Google and Co.by changing the system so they can't escape from paying their taxes like the rest of us.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Another poorly thought-out plan by the Tories,similar to the tax-credit fiasco.Also,get a grip Cameron on the likes of Google and Co.by changing the system so they can't escape from paying their taxes like the rest of us.

 

They do pay all their tax..they just don't pay it here. Being US based they mainly pay their taxes (including taxes on their UK business/sales) in the US

 

What's needed is an international effort to change the rules so companies pay more tax where they earn their money and to harmonise tax rates..but is the US likely to agree to a system that means they get less tax from Google, Facebook, Starbucks etc? Would we want to change to a system that means UK based companies pay less tax to the UK treasury than they do now and pay more overseas instead? We might if it means the net effect is more but the US, China etc would almost certainly lose out so are unlikely to agree

[For Us All]

They do pay all their tax..they just don't pay it here. Being US based they mainly pay their taxes (including taxes on their UK business/sales) in the US

 

What's needed is an international effort to change the rules so companies pay more tax where they earn their money and to harmonise tax rates..but is the US likely to agree to a system that means they get less tax from Google, Facebook, Starbucks etc? Would we want to change to a system that means UK based companies pay less tax to the UK treasury than they do now and pay more overseas instead? We might if it means the net effect is more but the US, China etc would almost certainly lose out so are unlikely to agree

 

Over the last ten years Google has made £6billion profit in the UK,that means they should have paid about £1billion in tax and not £130million.We all wish we could just pay 3% tax?The current rules are obviously not fit for purpose if the big boys can get away with this and need some urgent attention.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Over the last ten years Google has made £6billion profit in the UK,that means they should have paid about £1billion in tax and not £130million.

 

No it doesn't as that simple calculation does not take into account them being a US company and domiciled in Ireland for European tax purposes. Mind you I'm no tax accountant so that might be garbage

 

We all wish we could just pay 3% tax?The current rules are obviously not fit for purpose if the big boys can get away with this and need some urgent attention.

 

I doubt they paid only 3% tax globally..they almost certainly paid the tax due on their UK earnings somewhere (probably the US and/or Ireland and/or I think Bermuda) at a far higher rate than 3%..but they were not liable to pay them in the UK. This is what needs to be looked at but needs to be looked at globally if it's to make a real difference

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes

[Fosse69]

It will not happen very soon, if ever, but what is required is a common corporate tax system for the world, and the elimination of tax havens.

[whotobeakiller]

 

 

"Punishing poor people" is not the policy but the means chosen to implement the policy (the bedroom tax) does indeed punish many poor people and is wrong.

 

Change "Punishing Poor people" to "Dominating Poor people". And they do this by ensuring wages stay low, Social housing is eradicated and the Markets are kept at a level where people can just about afford to rent out private accommodation. Therefore the many rich percent of landlords continue to take the cream of the countries property finances whilst those at the bottom stay in rented property and watch what very lttle monies that they do have Dissapear into a huge corporate black hole