Bedroom tax

[Rroff]

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.

Is it just social housing, I didn't look into it in detail but it seemed to stretch beyond that.

If its just social housing then this really is the wrong way to go about it, there should have been a system in place long ago to move people around as and when appropriate depending on their situation - and so people don't get used to it as a permanent residence from the start. (I actually know very little about social housing tho).

 

[wildman]

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

so maybe the local councils should simply house people in suitably sized accommodation. If tenants are moved into social housing it should be done in a way to maximise capacity.

Cutting someones benefits because they were moved into a house by the government / councils that were bigger than they needed makes no sense. People still need money to live, they aren't exactly going to be bale to start eating the floor boards in the spare room to keep them alive..........................

this only stands if its about social housing, if its owned housing then that's more complicated I would think

 

[dowie]

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.

^^^this about sums it up

Currently it seems people get council accommodation for life - I don't think they can simply move people to smaller accommodation as their kids grow up and move out/partner leaves them etc... instead we've now got this measure which creates negative incentives for staying in accommodation where you've got more rooms than you need. We should also start introducing means testing... its still possible to live in social housing whilst collecting a six figure salary.

 

[dowie]

so maybe the local councils should simply house people in suitably sized accommodation. If tenants are moved into social housing it should be done in a way to maximise capacity.

Cutting someones benefits because they were moved into a house by the government / councils that were bigger than they needed makes no sense. People still need money to live, they aren't exactly going to be bale to start eating the floor boards in the spare room to keep them alive..........................

The point is they can't simply move people... they can ask them to move, they can introduce this negative incentive that makes it more difficult to stay... they can't necessarily force them to move.

 

[robgmun]

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.

Bedroom Tax - Is a Labour spin word to get people thinking it's a tax, say it enough times and people start to believe it. Labour loves to peddle these little lies

 

[ShakenNstirred]

There isn't enough small housing to go around, you could end up with people having to leave a 2 bedroom house and renting a room for more money, so could end up costing us tax payers more


Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android

 

[Freakbro]

Bedroom Tax - Is a Labour spin word to get people thinking it's a tax, say it enough times and people start to believe it. Labour loves to peddle these little lies

Haha your prejudices shine clearly with that statement...a more accurate version is

Bedroom Tax - Is a political spin word to get people thinking it's a tax, say it enough times and people start to believe it. Politicians love to peddle these little lies

 

[ZG002]

I could do with them building many more housing solutions. Being a electrician we used to rely on the council always building and modding current stock. Pretty dire up here atm.

 

[MrMoonX]

Haha your prejudices shine clearly with that statement...a more accurate version is

lol robgmun is a tory lovechild anyway, its best to ignore his love for the right. He spends his weekends goose-stepping down the mall with IDS and Camoron.

The right to buy was the worst thing to happen to social housing, as they didnt build to replace the ones sold

 

[Mr Jack]

It's a grotesque assault on the disabled and the poorest in society wrapped up in some reasonable sounding rhetoric. If the government would guarantee to find everyone who was in supposedly overlarge accommodation different accommodation where they would not have their benefits cut this would merely be contemptible as, in fact, there is in most areas not enough housing that is not eligible for this cut it's beyond vile.

This government, like successive governments before them, have failed to do enough to either build houses or ensure houses are built, as a result rental prices have spiralled and the cost of housing benefit gone up accordingly. The coalition are now punishing the poorest and most vulnerable for that failure. People with literally no where else to go will get their benefits cut to below poverty levels.

It's disgusting.

 

[atpbx]

lol robgmun is a tory lovechild anyway, its best to ignore his love for the right. He spends his weekends goose-stepping down the mall with IDS and Camoron.

The right to buy was the worst thing to happen to social housing, as they didnt build to replace the ones sold

If that's comparing Tories to Nazis, then you are incorrect, Nazis were authoritarian socialists.

 

[Slam62]

If that's comparing Tories to Nazis, then you are incorrect, Nazis were authoritarian socialists.

I thought socialists were too nice to the disabled, doesn't sound like Hitler to me, he wanted to kill them all.

 

[Efour]

I don't know so much about it but from what i have read and seen when it was first in the news a month or so ago, there was very little but grief caused for most of the cases they raised.

I appreciate that those without a genuine need for the extra space, should be able to be moved into small accommodation but there will most probably be a shortage of that. Double up on occupants 2 or 3 families to a house... THats a vote killer right there.

By the time you spend all the money on case by case investigations you might as well not have bothered, i think the ConDems should find another way to keep the failed austerity programmer chugging along, not start picking on cripples and the infirm.

 

[atpbx]

I thought socialists were too nice to the disabled, doesn't sound like Hitler to me, he wanted to kill them all.

Don't confuse socialism with "wanting to be nice to everyone" you'd start to have real problems explaining the actions of the Chinese, Russians, and North Koreans over the past 50 years.

 

[Orionaut]

Re "Social Need"

There was a series of interesting programs on the Beeb a while back on the history of the council (Public) housing. They were a bit of an eye opener.

at its peak about a third of all housing was "Council Housing". They were Nice properties too! In the 50's often the best quality housing in any given area.

But they weren't "Subsidised" by any modern standard. tenants were expected to be in work and were expected to pay a proper rent. They were also expected to look after their properties, Keep the gardens tidy and so on.

Staying on in the housing and even having children "Inherit" their parents homes was actively encouraged. They were not just trying to provide housing, they were attempting to build stable long term, communities.

Social need was way down on the list. However all that changed in the 70's. Social need became the priority and council estates. Once considered such attractive places to live that even the middle classes aspired to become council tenants, began the long slide into becoming dross inhabited slums.

Right to buy was the final straw, but one needs to remember why the council housing (and other public assets such as the utilities) were sold off in the first place. There was a political angle sure, but the bottom line was that the outgoing Labour administration had left the country with huge debts (Including an IMF loan for heavens sake) Thatcher had made an election commitment to pay off these debts quickly without raising taxation and the only way that they could do this was by a fiscal slight of hand. Getting us all to buy stuff that we basically already owned!

Looking back I wish none of this had happened. I actually miss the nationalised industries. they were not perfect any any means (Particularly in the way that the Big Unions exercised far too much influence over them) but by and large they did actually provide a good service and operated in the interests of this country. (I could expand on this but wont at this point)

 

[DampDog]

It's a grotesque assault on the disabled and the poorest in society wrapped up in some reasonable sounding rhetoric. If the government would guarantee to find everyone who was in supposedly overlarge accommodation different accommodation where they would not have their benefits cut this would merely be contemptible as, in fact, there is in most areas not enough housing that is not eligible for this cut it's beyond vile.

This government, like successive governments before them, have failed to do enough to either build houses or ensure houses are built, as a result rental prices have spiralled and the cost of housing benefit gone up accordingly. The coalition are now punishing the poorest and most vulnerable for that failure. People with literally no where else to go will get their benefits cut to below poverty levels.

It's disgusting.

+1..

It is disgusting. The notion that IF you happen to have an empty room you should pay extra because you are somehow depriving someone else of that room is just false.The problem is there are not enough 1&2 bedroom properties at that end of the market. They have all been sold off and nothing has been built to replace them. In reality people should call their bluff and say I'm not paying the extra, find me a smaller house or flat and then see what happens because there aren't any. Also if someone has lived in a house for 20 years and there sons leave and join the forces for example what a wrench to either find the extra money of be moved away from where you have lived for a huge chunk of your lives. Mean while MP's are allowed 2 homes and we help them pay for them. And by definition at least one must be empty some of the time. This country has lost a grip because we have a cabinet made up of business millionaires who've never spent more than 20 mins at a time on an ordinary housing estate, let alone a run down inner city estate. They spend all their time and effort kissing the backsides of the banking industry and financial sector.

 

[Mr Jack]

If that's comparing Tories to Nazis, then you are incorrect, Nazis were authoritarian socialists.

The Nazis were not socialists; they were facists. Don't get confused by the name of their party; that's like thinking that countries called 'The democratic republic of ...' are shinning examples of democracy.

 

[Bear]

I think the idea in principle is ok, but as with most of the things the government does concerning the poor at the moment there isn't the back up, infrastructure or capacity.

Fine forcing the jobless into work but there are hardly any jobs, fine getting people in houses with un-utilised rooms into smaller properties so larger families in need get the space they need but there aren't the smaller homes to move into.

Punishing people when there aren't alternatives is disgusting, if and when there are alternatives then fine.

 

[Orionaut]

The Nazis were not socialists; they were facists. Don't get confused by the name of their party; that's like thinking that countries called 'The democratic republic of ...' are shinning examples of democracy.

The Nazis were Nazis. It was (at the time) a unique political/economic experiment. Nazi-isim cannot really be put into any of the generally accepted ideological pidgin holes.

As a Political/Economic system it actually worked surprisingly well. The nearest equivalent today is China which while describing itself as Communist is essentially following the Nazi Political/Economic model.

And they are not doing too badly just at the moment...!

 

[atpbx]

The Nazis were not socialists; they were facists. Don't get confused by the name of their party; that's like thinking that countries called 'The democratic republic of ...' are shinning examples of democracy.

Fascism is authoritarianism.

That's the authoritarian part of "authoritarian socialists".

You can't have a "true" socialist society without (to a degree) some form of authoritarian regime to enforce it.