There’s an oft-quoted line to the effect that a democracy is doomed when the majority of its citizens vote themselves more money from the community chest than they put in. PJ O’Rourke has mentioned it once or twice. Sound familiar? It’s by a Scottish economist, apparently.
Mods: I put this in GQ because the economist in question is not a literary or show business figure, but feel free to move this to Cafe Society if you deem it more appropriate.
It is attributed to the Scottish historian Alexander Fraser Tytler, but it’s doubtful that he actually said it. There’s more in the link.
Take more money out than put in,jeez I’ve just spotted a pig flying over my house.
Our bloody Tory government are ripping us to shreds with the most hated tax ever,namely The Bedroom Tax,where you are now taxed for having too many bedrooms.
These stupid bastards in our government are telling people if they own a spare bedroom/s and you live on your own then you need to pay extra tax on each room otherwise you need to find another small house,therefor if you have lived in a house where you’ve lived all your days then get to f*** out of it and move elsewhere.
Is that actually a tax or a reduction in benefits? It seems like it only applies to people who are getting subsidized housing – is that true?
It’s a reduction in benefits to those who are in social sector housing (that is, housing owned by the local governments or operated on their behalf by a Housing Association) and who are having their rent paid by government benefits. That’s all I can say in GQ, really.
It’s a tax on the poor and the needy mate.
These two links give a better description than I honestly could.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/05/british-government-bedroom-tax-causing-deaths-and-evictions/
It’s all over the U.K. not just Scotland.
This is a total misrepresentation of the truth.
What is **actually **happening is that people whose housing costs are paid for by taxpayers, and who live in homes with more bedrooms than they need, are going to have their housing benefit reduced. The idea is that this will free up the three bed houses with one occupant for the benefit of homeless families. These people do not **own ** their spare rooms, they are paid for out of taxation.
Yeah, what Bob said. Seems sensible to me. There’s plenty to bitch about with this government (or any government) but this ain’t it. Nor are the increases in student fees but judging by the column inches *that *provoked you’d never guess that they are actually going to be better off.
Well, I’m not sure I’d go so far as to call it “sensible” as such. Maybe as a concept but, oh boy, the implementation.
Anyway, I’d happily start a GD thread if anyone cares enough.
Utter rubbish !!!
Say you had a really bad disability and required an overnight carer like many disabled folk do,you would require a spare bedroom,right,and depending on circumstances you may also need a room for equipment,how would you feel if the council told you like they did to a disabled woman in East Kilbride last week who was £148.00 in rent arrears,eh,awfy sorry dear but ye’ll need tae go homeless,thankfully common sense prevailed.
from Alexis de Tocqueville - Wikiquote
*The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money. *
This is a variant expression of a sentiment which is often attributed to Tocqueville or Alexander Fraser Tytler, but the earliest known occurrence is as an unsourced attribution to Tytler in “This is the Hard Core of Freedom” by Elmer T. Peterson in The Daily Oklahoman (9 December 1951): “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”
Variant: The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.
My thanks to Baron Greenback and md2000 for answering the question.
OR you could have kids who’ve just moved out, to university or whatever, and can’t get rehoused because they council houses are always oversubscribed. Or you could be living on your own and under 25 years old, in which case housing benefit has been cut on the basis that you don’t need to live somewhere until you’re 35.
Presumably, then, they have a similar large family in small apartment/flat you can switch with. After all, this is what happens when “your” home actually belongs to the government. They might have a more deserving recipient. Badly disabled people in single and studio apartments presumably also need overnight care. Unfortunately, there are not enough British McMansions to go around.
The real solution is to rely on the open market - but the best quote I read about that is: “you want cheap, plentiful, well maintained rental housing? By the laws of economics, you can only get two of the three. Pick two.”
Krokodil:
Yes, the quote from the 1951 article is what I remembered commonly from long ago, since it has the look and feel of flowery 18th century sounding verbiage; i.e. “largesse”, and blaming the majority rather than congress. I went looking for the de Tocqueville quote only to find that it was fabricated, sadly.
*“Don’t trust everything you read on the internet” * -Abraham Lincoln.
Or, and it is a strange concept to some, you could get a job. Find a room somewhere or share a flat. That’s what I did and what my daughter did.
This is a complete diversion from the OP and maybe should be moved.
Moderator Note
Jimi, political rants like this are out of place in General Questions. No warning issued, but let’s tone it down.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Since the question in the OP was answered well in the posts by Baron Greenback and md2000, I’m going to close this. Anyone wishing to debate housing benefits in the UK is invited to start a new thread in Great Debates.