You can claim that we are ignorant but it is essentially a tax on having an extra bedroom. You do not have a choice on if you have to pay it or not without leaving your house. Plus its hitting the poorest people when they can barely afford to live. So to YOU it might not be something to worry about but for millions of people it is. So this 100x worse than it sounds is nonsense if it doesn't affect you/.
Bedroom tax
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
You can claim that we are ignorant but it is essentially a tax on having an extra bedroom. You do not have a choice on if you have to pay it or not without leaving your house. Plus its hitting the poorest people when they can barely afford to live. So to YOU it might not be something to worry about but for millions of people it is. So this 100x worse than it sounds is nonsense if it doesn't affect you/.
Generally I think this is probably a right move, people on benefits should not be in better conditions that people working for a living how is that fair when the workers are essentially paying for it, and it doesn't exactly encourage either the people living on benefits or the lower paid workers to work does it.
However, there needs to be some balance, everyone should be taken care of to some degree and there needs be exceptions. Hard to identify and measure but people that try and need the support (for indisputable reasons) should get a higher level of support than those that are happy to 'scrounge'. People with disabilities also need to be considered and possible exceptions made as they may need more room / support and are more likely to be genuinely disadvanataged and a moral society would support those people.
That said, it does seem that this Tory government is not doing enough about redistributing wealth from the wealthier people (and Labour in the past seem to eager to hand out money to undeserving people). We need sensible actions that are considerate and best for all people instead of constantly pandering too much to one group or the other.
However, there needs to be some balance, everyone should be taken care of to some degree and there needs be exceptions. Hard to identify and measure but people that try and need the support (for indisputable reasons) should get a higher level of support than those that are happy to 'scrounge'. People with disabilities also need to be considered and possible exceptions made as they may need more room / support and are more likely to be genuinely disadvanataged and a moral society would support those people.
That said, it does seem that this Tory government is not doing enough about redistributing wealth from the wealthier people (and Labour in the past seem to eager to hand out money to undeserving people). We need sensible actions that are considerate and best for all people instead of constantly pandering too much to one group or the other.
Personally I much preferred Dolphs(maybe?) idea of charing rates based on a percentage of income.
Lets force those who don't really need to be living on the cheap out of social housing and see if we can actually get some of it back before we start essentially charing the needy who have little to no choice about where they live.
Also if we wanna move people, just move them. The proposal isn't really clever, it's clear what they're trying to achieve.
Two things; receiving benefits is not mutually exclusive with being in work, and while I agree with your general principle the answer is not to make things worse for people at the bottom but increase the value of work.
For me the issue is with people in social housing that can afford to pay.
At work I have two staff members.
1 is 28 and lives with his girlfriend. Their joint income is £35,000 a year. They rent a 2 bed house for £650 a month and pay all their bills.
1 is 45 and married, no kids and has a joint income of £35,000 a year. They have a 2 bedroom flat overlooking the quay in a nice part of town. they pay £350 a month for it.
Now if the younger couple lose their job they can't pay their rent and will get evicted. The other couple lose their jobs and social pay for the house, they cant be kicked out and the place is theirs for as long as you like.
So couple two pay a lot less for a property and have way more security than couple one. Yet their security and cheap rent is actually covered by us the tax payer.
The system is poor and needs some form of a re work. Essentially if people can afford to pay they pay the going rate the same as everyone else if they can't then benefits are limited to put them in a place that is enough for them but certainly isn't above the standard of those working and paying for a living. It is not right that many that don't work and have a few kids are better off than those working for minimum or slightly better wages.
The main issue is 15 years of labour going mad on benefits and immigrations means there is a shortage or social housing and especially the correct sort of housing.
At work I have two staff members.
1 is 28 and lives with his girlfriend. Their joint income is £35,000 a year. They rent a 2 bed house for £650 a month and pay all their bills.
1 is 45 and married, no kids and has a joint income of £35,000 a year. They have a 2 bedroom flat overlooking the quay in a nice part of town. they pay £350 a month for it.
Now if the younger couple lose their job they can't pay their rent and will get evicted. The other couple lose their jobs and social pay for the house, they cant be kicked out and the place is theirs for as long as you like.
So couple two pay a lot less for a property and have way more security than couple one. Yet their security and cheap rent is actually covered by us the tax payer.
The system is poor and needs some form of a re work. Essentially if people can afford to pay they pay the going rate the same as everyone else if they can't then benefits are limited to put them in a place that is enough for them but certainly isn't above the standard of those working and paying for a living. It is not right that many that don't work and have a few kids are better off than those working for minimum or slightly better wages.
The main issue is 15 years of labour going mad on benefits and immigrations means there is a shortage or social housing and especially the correct sort of housing.
Last edited:
it's not a tax, it's a disincentive to combat waste. in a time when there is a high demand for social housing why should some individuals or families enjoy extra, empty bedrooms?
on the same subject, eligibility for social housing should be re-assessed regularly, and if you're fortunate enough to have a decent income then owe it to society to hand back your council home
on the same subject, eligibility for social housing should be re-assessed regularly, and if you're fortunate enough to have a decent income then owe it to society to hand back your council home
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,951
I'm all for it tbh, while they are at it they should start paying housing benefit direct to the landlord not the tenant.
Growing up in a **** area on free school meals and not wanting my kids to go through the same is why I worked very hard to get to where I am today, being comfortable is not a motivator.
Growing up in a **** area on free school meals and not wanting my kids to go through the same is why I worked very hard to get to where I am today, being comfortable is not a motivator.
Surely this is just going to encourage people to pop out a few sprogs? It's a pretty logical outcome I would have thought - don't want to lose benefits because you have too many bedrooms for your family? Make your family bigger! Then the state/taxpayer loses out even more because there's child benefit/tax credits etc. to pay as well!
i think the typical scenario where bedrooms free-up is in older families, where the kids have grown up and left home. it's unlikely that a young couple will be given a house or flat with extra bedrooms
There's a general undersupply of one-bedroom flats. Instead you're looking at a lot of people living in the smallest accommodation actually available. Note as well that there's no requirement that if people move they'll actually be claiming less. You could move from a cheap two-bed place to a more pricey one-bed and get more money.
You don't seem to comprehend that 1 bedroom flats and bedsits are rare compared to 2 bedroom houses and flats.
Damn dude. You should run for Government, apparently you're smarter than the lot we currently have.
Pretty sure a few twigs and a blade of grass could do a better job than the current lot!!
Well, at least it wouldn't make stuff worse.
Pretty sure a few twigs and a blade of grass could do a better job than the current lot!!
Christ, don't give em ideas, they'll be taxing grass and twigs next. Then we'll have a GD is it a twig or a bush rant...
Last edited:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21760365
More red tape now that the reality of their simplified benefits ideology comes home to roost.
More red tape now that the reality of their simplified benefits ideology comes home to roost.
But surely better aligning houses with the number of occupants isn't going to make it any worse than it already is?
Sounds fair and just? Is there no end to trying to rubbish a good ideology?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21756567 or we could have more proof that people just can't shoulder responsibility and they have it too easy.
"Paying the money directly to me it created temptation to use it for other things
Margaret Tonks
Tenant"
Daft Bint, you're a grown woman with children, take some responsibility for you actions and stop expecting the government to bail you out.
Paying the money straight to housing benefit tenants works in the private sector because if you miss a payment you're out on your ear. This has to be extended to people in social housing too, no more can eviction be the last port of call for tenants in rent arrears and causing anti-social behavior.
Coupled with a long term goal of removing housing benefit for people in full time employment thus lowering the burden on the state and returning better market principles to the rental market.