Bedroom tax
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Why should the taxpayer pay for single occupancy housing when many taxpayers couldn't afford it themselves? Some sort of sharing arrangement would be far more efficient for everyone involved.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,267
- Location
- RG8 9
I think that the problem is that most people don't want to move to a smaller property. I would image forcing them to do would cost quite a lot of money if they refuse. By cutting their benefit, it may well make more of them more agreeable to doing so.
Housing benefit is available to taxpayers as well. It is based on income, not on whether you are unemployed. This includes 'single occupancy'
I get the need for something to be done, especially when you hear reports of families, 2 adults and 2 kids stuck in 1-bed flats whilst you have other single occupancy council tenants in a 3-bed house.
But as you say this probably isn't the right way but how do you encourage people to move. Nothing in currently council house leasing states that once you no longer require the space that you apply to downsize and I doubt there's anyway of legally forcing them to move (as of yet). Even if there were it'd probably be contested in court which would be lengthy and costly.
So I'd say this, I agree with what it's trying to achieve. Is it the right way to do it, probably not but I don't see any currently viable alternatives.
I cant see how this is going to work at all, say someones unemployed and gets housing benefit for their 2 bed flat they don't pay a penny.
So if they cut the housing benefit how are they going to pay the difference if they are on £70 a week job seekers allowance for everything ?
I just think everyone that doesn't wish to work should be in bedsits etc and people who do want to work especially lower waged jobs should get subsidized housing.
They need to make it worth working which it currently isn't in london unless you earn over 20k a year.
So if they cut the housing benefit how are they going to pay the difference if they are on £70 a week job seekers allowance for everything ?
I just think everyone that doesn't wish to work should be in bedsits etc and people who do want to work especially lower waged jobs should get subsidized housing.
They need to make it worth working which it currently isn't in london unless you earn over 20k a year.
Last edited:
I think this was ill-timed, had this been announced a year after the large scale social housing had begun, or even rolled out based on each local authority's stock then I think this would be better received.
As it is, people will struggle to move to smaller social houses, or even worse they'll move to privately rented accommodation, costing the government more.
As it is, people will struggle to move to smaller social houses, or even worse they'll move to privately rented accommodation, costing the government more.
If you're getting housing benefit, you are almost certainly not a net contributor, and you are getting income that net contributors do not.
I don't consider trapping people in benefit dependency to ever be a good thing, and housing benefit is a massive issue in that given that it gives people a lifestyle they couldn't afford normally with a very sharp cut off point which has no relation to ability to pay, especially in higher cost housing areas such as London.
Last edited:
you can get housing benefit for private houses as well
Not the same benefit. For private houses, these restrictions have been in place for years, you get local housing allowance, not housing benefit.
Most people are not net contributors at one time or another, and in any case you cannot simply segregate one taxpayer from another without knowing their individual financial history and their future history to determine whether they are, will be or have been net contributors to the treasury.
The idea of housing benefit is to help support those who cannot afford rent and to ensure a state support structure for a basic necessity. This is available to everyone based on their need, including Taxpayers, so your claim was inaccurate and if a taxpayer cannot afford their rent, then they can (and do) seek state help.
Not true...you still recieve Housing Benefit, however as the council do not own the property or have direct input of rental control as they do with Housing Associations they rely upon the Local Housing Allowance Limits which determine how much Housing Benefit you would receive. These costs are based on what are called Broad Rental Market Areas.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
Scroungers whining. This ain't a tax.
Making me pay for a place for scroungers to live at all, IS a tax.
Making me pay for a place for scroungers to live at all, IS a tax.
So do you agree with a system that punishes those who work full time above minimum wage, while rewarding and trapping those who do not?
Housing benefit is a terrible system that manages to be unfair to pretty much everyone.
There are plenty enough who can afford it, there is more capacity for smaller single houses in the private markets than in local government and housing association hands.
There are concerns that it will hit those in temporary and sheltered housing disproportionately again because of mismatches.
The policy is misguided, it will effectively punish people for poorly manged housing stock. It will effect hundreds of thousands, pushing many into arrears. I believe a recent survey in Scotland showed over 90% of housing associations expected rent arrears to rise significantly as a result of the looming changes. I imagine that's going to be familiar elsewhere. It could certainly create homelessness in some extreme cases.
Shared housing is something that should certainly be explored, but I can see it being controversial and would need to be done humanely. Which I would have reservations about in the current atmosphere. It is right that we should encourage economical use of publicly owned properties, but I don't think a fiscal disincentive is the most potent way to achieve it.
Last edited:
But is it true that the regulations being put onto housing benefit for council tennants have already been in place for a number of years for those renting from private landlords in terms of benefit amounts...
I agree with a system that supports those in need while rewarding those who excel. Whether we have such a system is another debate however.
Whether Housing Benefit is a good system or not is not what I was quoting you for, it is the lack of accuracy in your posts...which is surprising because usually you have based you opinion on facts rather than guesswork.
The only real alternative to solving the problems are to end permanent tenancies, and if the recipients of the state's largess are objecting to benefits being adjusted based on need, can you imagine the outcry if they were told they had to move to somewhere more suitable?
We could also look to end right to buy and build more social housing (which I'd support incidentally), but we do need to look much more carefully at how we allocate and charge for these properties. I'm still all in favour of an income % set in such a way that at average wage you would be paying over the odds, but it would be quite tricky to implement.
i agree with it but people will always complain its not right even though they're given everything on a plate..
a lot of the people complaining haven't done a days work in their life yet complain their benefit will be cut.. if they don't like it, maybe they should have tried harder to get a job..
obviously today the jobs arent there, but they were 10 year ago and you still didnt try and find a job..
if anyone has a say whether it right or wrong, its not someone who had been out of work for 10+ years..
every case needs an independent review though.. i think its a good idea but its not for everyone.
a lot of the people complaining haven't done a days work in their life yet complain their benefit will be cut.. if they don't like it, maybe they should have tried harder to get a job..
obviously today the jobs arent there, but they were 10 year ago and you still didnt try and find a job..
if anyone has a say whether it right or wrong, its not someone who had been out of work for 10+ years..
every case needs an independent review though.. i think its a good idea but its not for everyone.