OT Embarrassing government stuff.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/embarrassing-govt-news-might-missed-090739719.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't believe this one
A report commissioned by the government suggests over three quarters of those affected by the government's controversial bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food.
Or more strictly, I don't believe that over 3/4 of those affected by the bedroom tax have had to cut back spending on food, whatever some fool report commissioned by the govt claims.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/12/2015 19:14, Rod Speed wrote:

Perhaps take a quick look at the evidence?
http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/Projects/Start-Year/2013/Spare-Room-Subsidy-Household-Benefit-Cap/Final-Report
It's commissioned by government and overseen/undertaken by some the UK's most respected academics.
Hurt though it might, 'Speed rejects findings' is unlikely to gain much purchase here or elsewhere until you read the thing, or present a counter.
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No real evidence of that assertion in there.
And when extraordinary and very unlikely claims are made, we need extraordinary evidence to substantiate the claim made.
And there is nothing even remotely like that in there.
Its hardly surprising that quite a few of those who have been affected by the bedroom tax claim that they have had to cut back on what they spend on stuff like food in an attempt to get the govt to remove that tax. Doesn’t mean that they actually have cut back on what they spend on essential food as opposed to pissing less money against the wall on crap.
And what they have chosen to do is nothing like HAD TO anyway.
And that 'report' only covers those on benefits anyway, nothing even remotely like all those affected by the bedroom tax.

Who get to wear the fact that the govt ain't about to actually pay for accurate measurement of what even just those on benefits have actually done change in expenditure wise and so have to rely on what they SAY they have done.

You have no idea what I have read. And see above on extraordinary claims.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 19 December 2015 06:33:57 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:

classic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19/12/2015 06:33, Rod Speed wrote:

What evidence are you after? It's a half-decent sample conducted by some of the best social scientists in the world.

If you understood what the bedroom tax is and who it affects, you might start to understand that the claim is not at all extraordinary. It's simple maths - something has to give. And that something is food.

Evidence?

Sigh. The only households affected by the bedroom tax are those on benefits. I expect this to take a while. We have a generally respected housing pressure group in the UK called 'Shelter'. Have a look at their definition:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/housing_benefit_and_local_housing_allowance/changes_to_housing_benefit/bedroom_tax
Households receiving housing benefits in the UK are almost by definition a low income household. As indeed is living in council or housing association property (although less so - IIRC, 60% on means tested benefits).

Oh but they have. And in the UK policy world, even though it's the UoC (top 3 in the world?) they're going to be *very* lucky to get another commission during this parliament.

Yes, and I hope you understand that you have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you could share your sources?
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 19 December 2015 13:37:05 UTC, RJH wrote:

It's Rodney you're talking to.

It's Rodney. The idiot that knows eevrything.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What those affected actually spend on food before and after the bedroom tax and what sort of food they are actually buying, not what they SAY they are doing food wise when they are going to make it look like the bedroom tax is a problem for them.

Who only got to ask the sample what they did.
The govt was never going to pay for an accurate measurement of what they actually did spending wise.

I understand that fine thanks.

Corse it is with the claim about FOOD.

Even sillier than you usually manage.
Food is only a small part of the expenditure of even those whose entire income is benefits. And even if they do change from spending on the worst shit like crisps and expensive lolly water instead of tap water, that is hardly anything like the end of civilisation as we know it.
The obesity epidemic we are seeing in that group isn't about to stop, you watch.

Trivially easy to see what sort of food gets bought in those areas dominated by those on benefits.
Don’t need any academics to work that basic stuff out.

Heavy breathing isn't going to save your bacon.

That's a lie with those who choose to use the private rental market who are more than JUST benefits.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed there.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed there.

Pity about the other 40%

Like hell they have.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether the govt was ever going to pay to MEASURE what those on benefits did with their expenditure on food as opposed to what they SAY they did with their expenditure on food.

Easy to claim.

That one you cited at the top is all that is needed on the FACT that all they got to do was ASK those on benefits what they actually did about the bedroom tax instead of actually MEASURING what they actually did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19/12/2015 18:38, Rod Speed wrote:

Yes, that might be interesting, and could be a part of a longer-running study. That said, of all the things we consume, food is one of the easiest to relate to in terms of methods and types of consumption, so I wouldn't consider the findings to be invalid, or whatever it is you make of them.
On eof the more tangible aspects of consumption in the UK has been the increase in food banks, and the food collection points at places of work and shops. I've not seen these before, at least on this scale, helping out people in the UK.

Indeed - the terms of the commission make the findings doubly surprising.

You do not - judicious snip of your original post noted ;-)

I think this could be the source of your position. Some sort of bitter and simplistic representation of people on low incomes?

Yes, high-sugar foods is one quick and easy way through this. I have a mate who, since losing his job, lives largely on biscuits. But that case is a complex blend of things. The point though is the longer term health costs. And the bedroom tax is *bound* to have an impact on low income households.

Even if true (and I believe there's a great deal of myth and stereotype), those affected have even less money to buy that sort of stuff. 'Simple maths'.

Just exhaling :-)

That sentence doesn't make sense.

Well, it might be if you knew what you were talking about.

Ditto.

Why? And many of those 40% are on low incomes.

Well, not by your standards, agreed. But then your record in social research isn't exactly clear. But (even I) would accept that more resources and different approaches could yield a more accurate representation. What I doubt (anecdotally and professionally) is that the overall results would be much different.

No, you're challenging the research on its own terms. Not everything is quantifiable. That's a key point the authors try to make. And while, as I suggest elsewhere, a more detailed breakdown of income/expenditure might be interesting and even valuable, it's not a good reason to dismiss a key finding - 77% spend less on food now than they did before the bedroom tax.

Well, you're just going to have to enlighten me.

Babies and bathwater. I'm trying to work with the information to hand, which isn't *that* shoddy. You seem to be drawing conclusions from an absence of evidence that meets your standards and a far from clear understanding of context.
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No might be about it, it’s the only evidence that matters.

Not a chance, essentially because no govt that has introduced something like that is going to pay the very high cost of something like that.

Yes, but even those whose entire income is benefits, don’t actually spend the bulk of what they receive on food, so it would be very surprising indeed if 3/4 of them actually did reduce what they spend on food, except with maybe not buying as much of the more expensive food when they have to pay more tax etc.
But a much smaller percentage claimed that they had reduced the amount the spend on eating out and its well known that that section of the population is into fast food a lot more than the average and I just don’t believe that they are preparing more food at home instead of eating fast food and microwave meals etc.

I would when they have produced such an extraordinary claim, particularly when its obviously in the interest of those who are affected by the bedroom tax to try to get it removed etc.

But that is much more likely to be as a result of the shit hitting the fan economically relatively recently, at a level we only see once every 80 years or so now.

Sure, but you haven't seen the economy implode so spectacularly before, since you weren't around during the Great Depression.

Not when its in the interest of those affected by the bedroom tax to overstate what they have done as a result of it, knowing that people are much more likely to see a reduction in the amount they spend on food as being much more important than say a reduction in the amount they spend on booze or drugs or gambling with the recipients of benefits.

I snipped nothing.

More fool you, I don’t have a position.

Nothing bitter about it and nothing simplistic about it either. Its well known what those on benefits spend their benefits on, because it’s a very fundamental part of deciding what is an appropriate level of benefits to pay.

There is no 'way thru this'. The obesity epidemic is nothing new and its no news that those on benefits buy a hell of a lot more crap like lolly water and the worst fast food than most do and that the obesity epidemic is rather worse with them.

More fool him. There is much better value food if you are short of money to buy food with.

Pigs arse it is.

You haven't established that there are long term health costs with the bedroom tax.
In fact during WW2 when rationing dramatically affected what people could eat, they ended up with a MUCH more healthy diet essentially because they ate more vegetables.

Not necessarily if they let the kids live there again etc so they are no longer seen to have too many bedrooms etc.

Corse its true.

More fool you. That question has been extensively researched and is trivially easy to do by looking at what gets sold in the shops in those areas food wise.

Only if they don’t do something to avoid the bedroom tax and if they have less to spend on lolly water and fast food and eat better food at home instead, its hardly the end of civilisation as we know it any time soon.

Mindlessly superficial arithmetic in fact.

Heavy exhaling ain't gunna save your bacon.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Ditto.

But aren't affected by the bedroom tax being discussed.

Don’t need one on that question of what is reliable evidence, its obvious that what those who are affected by the bedroom tax SAY is nothing like as reliable as what they have actually spent on the various alternatives before and after the bedroom tax.

Even sillier than you usually manage on the COULD.

More fool you.

You are just plain wrong on that.

What those affected spend on food certainly is.

It’s another completely silly claim with what is being discussed, what those affected have done about what they spend on food. And the authors never said that anyway.

Corse its valuable when its MEASURED instead of just going on what those affected SAY they have done in that regard.

I didn’t dismiss that, I JUST said that I don’t BELIEVE it.
Particularly when a MUCH smaller percentage said that about eating out.

No point, you have clearly made you mind up already based on absolutely nothing at all except your prejudices.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

It is with that extraordinary claim.

Because, like I said, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

Easy to claim. My understanding of the context is as good as yours thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 05:23:22 +0000, RJH wrote:

Of course, the increased existence of foodbanks doesn't necessarily mean that the demand they meet is new - it may well just have gone unmet before.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Offensive as Rod's posting style may be, he is quite right. The survey being cited relies entirely on what the interviewees told the interviewers, and so is worth very little. Obviously the victim of a benefits cutback is more likely to say he has had to cut back on food than on cigarettes, beer and Sky.

He hasn't drawn any conclusions at all, simply pointed out that the cited research is not convincing.
Moreover (as I believe Rod also points out in his various rants), it is not necessarily a bad thing that people cut back on some of their food expenditure. We would have to know exactly what it was they were cutting. If it's takeaway pizzas and doner kebabs, it's probably a good thing.
--
Les

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Congratulations. You've managed about every Mail key word used when talking about benefits.
--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What he said is true anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

.. you wouldn't call it a tax.
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:

You might if you can't tell the difference between a loss of benefit and a tax.
One should call it an age-bedroom tax since it only affects those under a certain age, leaving the age group most likely with spare bedrooms they can swim around in without any incentive to downsize.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:

Well, it is a tax on people's homes. But if you consider that people can't consider their home a home then yes, it's a subsidy.
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.

--
Please note new email address:
snipped-for-privacy@CandEhope.me.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:

. . . based on the size of their home.

--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

--
*Most people have more than the average number of legs*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.