Bedroom tax

Dolph said:
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...
Click to expand...

Not quite, the rates are based on how many bedrooms you use or the property has, that is true, however it also accounts for property prices and local housing markets, therefore in more expensive area you will get more, in cheaper ones less....it is also based upon your income. Social Housing however is often a set rate, and the regulations are also at a set rate (14% for a single room, 25% for two rooms) therefore they are not the same.

I disagree with social housing being used by those who can afford to buy or rent in the private sector however....I think I mentioned in a similar discussion a friend of mine who earns in excess of £75k and lives in a 3 bed council house that he 'inherited' from his parents...that is wrong.

There should be a better system if possible, but what that is I do not know.
 
Castiel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually I was basing my opinion on Shelter's website, which on further reading appears to be a load of crap...

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/housing_benefit_and_local_housing_allowance
 
Give them an option, keep the extra bedroom and lose the right to ever buy (for them any any future tenants of that house) or take the cut but keep the right to buy and the bedroom.

I have a feeling many would rather keep the room, meaning we slowly get to abolish a daft idea entirely. We need council housing stock for the longer term.
 
Castiel said:
Not quite, the rates are based on how many bedrooms you use or the property has, that is true, however it also accounts for property prices and local housing markets, therefore in more expensive area you will get more, in cheaper ones less....it is also based upon your income. Social Housing however is often a set rate, and the regulations are also at a set rate (14% for a single room, 25% for two rooms) therefore they are not the same.

There should be a better system if possible, but what that is I do not know.
Click to expand...

The amount you are entitled to claim (as opposed to the rates payable for a given house size) uses the bedroom formula now being applied to other claims. There is no % reduction because the additional room would never be covered in the first place.

% reduction is being applied to social housing because the rental rates aren't set in a sensible way, so it would seem a reasonable compromise.
 
OldCoals said:
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?
Click to expand...

Its a good idea, but why are they not tatgetting pensioners who are in 3 bed houses by themselves?
 
Dolph said:
The amount you are entitled to claim (as opposed to the rates payable for a given house size) uses the bedroom formula now being applied to other claims. There is no % reduction because the additional room would never be covered in the first place.
Click to expand...

This is true, but there are other factors in assessing the limits of housing benefit for private housing that do not apply to social housing (BRMA).

Dolph said:
% reduction is being applied to social housing because the rental rates aren't set in a sensible way, so it would seem a reasonable compromise.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems it can affect people unfairly depending upon their personal circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
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.
Click to expand...

Council shift people about, housing association residents can normally stay as long as it is appropriate for them and there is no adverse behavior or incidents.

So I'm not sure why they'd be an outcry, because there is mandatory and consensual movement within public housing.
 
We wouldn't have this problem if the councils hadn't sold off nearly all their housing stock.

The answer isn't to kick or encourage people out of their homes - the answer is to build more social housing that doesn't fall into the hands of private slumlords.
 
The issue is the PM lied by stating disabled will be exempt etc, I have at least 10 families with disabled children and short term foster carer's who are being hit with the bedroom tax, the council state there are no exemptions and you may be able to apply once the relief scheme is organised but only for 4 months. So clearly the MPs in their ivory towers have no idea what's going on at ground level.

It's just a shambles and will likely end up in uturn no. 377. It just sums up this shambolic government, whilst hitting the most vulnerable in society from 1st April they hand a massive tax cut to millionaires :rolleyes: and to top it all off in the news the tories say they want to come out of the ECHR are you joking? We helped create the UN Declaration on human rights FFS, talk about typical Tory backwards steps.
 
Dolph said:
We could also look to end right to buy and build more social housing (which I'd support incidentally)
Click to expand...

You would, you like the idea of ring fencing the poor people up in areas which aren't close to you, don't you? :P

I'm joking of course but thats my main dislike of social housing. Council estates aren't exactly a great place to grow up in, I think we should do social housing as a couple of houses in each estate that's built so that the poor are surrounding by those who are more successful, hopefully buddy up and learn from ones neighbors to an extent.

Thats probably a really poor way of saying what I feel, but in general I think living in an estate where near everyone is living off the state helps cement the mindset that theres no way out.
 
I think its disgusting we find it acceptable as a society to force people out of their houses after 20-30 years of living there, tho on a case by case basis I suspect there are some people who wouldn't be in that position if they'd put in some effort but still.
 
Problem is they are tackling the problem from the wrong end. The reason housing benefit costs the country so much is because housing in this country is so expensive. The more expensive it is, the more it becomes out of reach of to the people, thus housing benefit becomes more prevalent which in turn means landlords can charge more for rent knowing the market is there and the government are obliged to cover their costs. This makes property more attractive to the half of the country more attractive pushing the price up more. It's a cyclical problem.

We need to make housing more affordable in the first place so less people need housing benefit.
 
amigafan2003 said:
We wouldn't have this problem if the councils hadn't sold off nearly all their housing stock.

The answer isn't to kick or encourage people out of their homes - the answer is to build more social housing that doesn't fall into the hands of private slumlords.
Click to expand...

Yes.

As a aside Labour only built 6 councils houses in Scotland between 2003-2007.

This whole time they saddled councils instead with PFI burdens for decades.

This might have something to do with it.

Our housing stock has been neglected for a long time and failed to mirror requirements of changing trends.
 
Rroff said:
I think its disgusting we find it acceptable as a society to force people out of their houses after 20-30 years of living there, tho on a case by case basis I suspect there are some people who wouldn't be in that position if they'd put in some effort but still.
Click to expand...

Its not their houses we're forcing them out of, it's societies houses which have been appropriated to them, which they should legitimately grow out of within a period of 20-30 years. Of course in reality we don't generally force people out because theres little to no desirable effect of doing so. But make no mistake, people like me could never get social housing because people like my mum were still hogging theirs. :p
 
It is disgusting i agree, punishing people that are disabled or have decided not to constantly breed isnt right.
There simply isnt enough one bedroom houses to go around let alone two bedroom houses that are required for a couple with two kids.
Theses politicians that have two houses they are paid by the tax payer why are they allowed to have so many rooms?
 
troops said:
It is disgusting i agree, punishing people that are disabled or have decided not to constantly breed isnt right.
There simply isnt enough one bedroom houses to go around let alone two bedroom houses that are required for a couple with two kids.
Theses politicians that have two houses they are paid by the tax payer why are they allowed to have so many rooms?
Click to expand...

Plus MPs can claim £200 a week in food, paid for by all of us, it's just fat pigs and troughs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom