Bedroom tax

[Danthus]

What are peoples thoughts on the proposed "bedroom tax?"

My undertaking is that benefit claimants will lose some of their Housing Benefit if they have unoccupied bedrooms in their house.

With the lack of social housing I think it is correct that the government address the issue of wasted capacity but I am not sure this is the correct way to go about it.

Would it not be better to look at moving people into the more suitable sized accommodation rather than just cutting their benefit?

 

[Castiel]

Social housing should be based on need, so of you don't need it you shouldn't be able to claim for it.

 

[Danthus]

Social housing should be based on need, so of you don't need it you shouldn't be able to claim for it.

I sort of agree but that doesn't make use of the spare bedroom.

 

[Smigly]

I get it.

If you buy your house, you expect to pay more for having more space/more bedrooms. So if you're getting paid housing benefits to live in a council house, why shouldn't they effectively charge you more for the priviledge?? (by giving less, rather than actually taking from).

It's just a shame the social housing market seems to be a bit of a sham, with all the category stuff, and the fact that you have to "bid" against hundreds of other people for houses.

But that's just my take on it anyhoo.

 

[UncleRuckus]

I think they should have the choice of of paying the tax or moving into a fairer sized house; though perhaps in the event of an elderly couple and one dies it should not be forced.

 

[doofer]

I think it will be unfair on separated/divorced Fathers who might need spare rooms for when their kids visit/stay.

 

[Lethagized]

it's just another way for the gov to make money with the idea being that an under occupied tenant being forced out his house into a small 1 bed flat but there isn't any flats because they're all full.

 

[Mr-White]

What's stopping them changing the use of the bedroom ? i.e knocking 2 rooms into 1 or making it a bathroom or an office

MW

 

[Nightglow]

What annoys me is apparently Bedroom Tax don't apply to the elderly which is wrong.

Close to me are at least six council houses three & four bedroom occupied by elderly couples using only one bedroom.
One house, the couple there are in there 80's, council has had thousands spent on it, installing stair lift, shower room, ramps, & other adaptions.
They need to have a purge & moved elderly into more suitable accommodation like bungalows.

 

[Transam]

Because it's not their house...

 

[Nexus]

What's stopping them changing the use of the bedroom ? i.e knocking 2 rooms into 1 or making it a bathroom or an office

MW

Because of the fact its a Council owned and run property so they have no right to do such a thing.

 

[Castiel]

I sort of agree but that doesn't make use of the spare bedroom.

Indeed...we should go back to the old circular housing system where you were housed according to need and as your family got larger you moved to larger accommodation, and then as it got smaller you moved to smaller accommodation. The problem with this is of course housing stock and the craziness that was right to buy.

 

[Castiel]

I think it will be unfair on separated/divorced Fathers who might need spare rooms for when their kids visit/stay.

If they have need, such as this then they should be exempt....I am not sure but they actually might be anyway.

Edit: I have just been reading up on this and it seems pretty draconian, if you have two kids under 10 they are expected to share, if they are the same sex then they are expected to share up to age 16. Any Spare room is then counted against you and you les 14% of your housing benefit. So essentially a family of four is expected to live in a two bed property, unless the children are over 10 and different genders....

There is a bunch of other rules that seem a bit off as well.

 

[Mr-White]

Because of the fact its a Council owned and run property so they have no right to do such a thing.

That doesn't stop people taking liberties though.

MW

 

[Slam62]

This is just an example of at least some cuts being made, in times like these there are always going to be winners and losers, no easy answers.
In theory we get a say by majority vote in elections.

 

[aln]

What are peoples thoughts on the proposed "bedroom tax?"

My undertaking is that benefit claimants will lose some of their Housing Benefit if they have unoccupied bedrooms in their house.

With the lack of social housing I think it is correct that the government address the issue of wasted capacity but I am not sure this is the correct way to go about it.

Would it not be better to look at moving people into the more suitable sized accommodation rather than just cutting their benefit?

It's not politically correct to force someone to move so the Government basically wants to do this in an underhanded way by messing with your money so you have an incentive to request the move yourself.

The same logic applies that we need to support families in really expensive areas of London instead of telling them to go somewhere cheaper. I'd prefer the .gov just manned up, but it'll never happen in the UK in my opinion.

 

[Maccapacca]

I agree on the 'tax' but you should be able to be assessed as having an extra room and sign up for a new place with the appropriate amount of rooms but not be charged even if it's a waiting list.

Seems a bit unfair retrospectively charging people for the rooms they have been given.

 

[atpbx]

I don't care about the tax, I don't claim benefits so its not my problem.

I am I the opinion though that if someone is paying for you to live, then you are somewhat obliged to go with what they are willing to provide you with.

 

[bam0]

Are there actually enough "correct" sized houses for everyone to move into? What are the knock on costs of moving people, adapting new accommodation for those who need it?
Assuming 0 above costs and maximal returns the amount "saved" in the scheme of national spending will be trivial which makes it look more like an ideological action rather than a legitimate effort to reform social housing.
The irony of those with the least losing out on the day the top rate of income tax comes down by 5% would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

 

[Dolph]

Can we at least get the name right first? It can never be considered a 'tax' to reduce someone's benefit. To call it a tax is either illiterate or just plain dishonest.

Given that these restrictions have been in place on housing benefit paid to tennants in private housing, why is it unfair to apply the same rules to those on housing benefit in local authority or housing association properties?

Having said that, I'd consider the issue of people who have no need of social housing (like certain trade union leaders for example) being entitled to remain in it paying the same rent as someone with nothing a far bigger issue.