Bedroom tax

[anything I don't mind]

I don't think a new tax is ever a good idea.

Why don't they do a massive audit on the housing stock because i bet they don't even know who is in what half the time. Then just start to ask people to move around to optimize the capacity. In london there should not be any single people getting free houses they should go in to a house share. I used to work with a girl earning a good salary that got a free 1 bed apartment from the council. No reason why she got a free house, she said she just applied for it.

 

[loggo]

An alternative argument could have been maybe you should have tried a bit harder at school, college, uni, or in finding a decent job so you aren't stuck in a low paid one. You not achieving these things probably does make you lazier than those who did, at least on average.

Of course thats a bit of a stupid argument because there aren't enough good jobs to go round and following that logic creates a race to the bottom, but superficially you still get the worlds smallest violin.

Harsh aln, there could be many reasons, why i never got a good job. There was not though. I should have tried harder at school!! You sound like my mother

It's still unjust for people in my boat and i bet there is more then we think being treated like this. That's the tories for you.

 

[nath247]

Some will like it, some won't I guess.

 

[aln]

Harsh aln, there could be many reasons, why i never got a good job. There was not though. I should have tried harder at school!! You sound like my mother

There are other potentials such as having a career but being made redundant due to mass outsourcing or something similar, but most of those people fall on jobs which are a lot better than low paid from my experience. For or the most part, we all get a free education and anyone who doesn't make something of themselves probably threw that away. It's generally always that reason, at least you're man enough to admit it, I can certainty respect that.

It's still unjust for people in my boat and i bet there is more then we think being treated like this. That's the tories for you.

It's unjust for you to say I should pay for you because you couldn't be bothered to make a proper life for yourself but decided to have some kids anyway, don't you think? I mean the people receiving benefits don't normally think about it like that, but thats essentially whats happening. Someone dips into my pocket and re-appropriates it to others who didn't try as hard. (thats actually a largely BS argument btw, I accept that, I'm just trying to outline the general rage over often specific situations)

However, I typically also feel its unjust to set your life in stone based on your actions as a teenager. The UK killing of free higher education for those of you south of Scotland is core to the issue. If you're gonna tell people to sod off and make a life for themselves, at the very minimum you should give them reasonable opportunity and tools to do so.

Currently we neither have enough jobs nor do the people south of the border have easy access to the tools to better themselves. It's a completely sucky situation. With that said, assuming you aren't mega old (if you have young kids I'd guess you aren't), you should totally make a better life for yourself. In the short term you probably won't benefit any, but in the long term you'll lead a much better life.

Also for the record, I had access to free education all the way up until my masters (I paid that myself). I have absolutely no problem paying my taxes to help others. It's not only the right thing to do, but I've probably not even paid back what I've received thus far. My point isn't really just me trying to be harsh, but just promote that theres an alternative view point.

 

[Mr Jack]

So, IDS has backed down a little. Parents with children in the armed forces will be allowed to keep a bedroom for them but, note, if they're killed in action this exemption will cease to apply. That's right, thanks to the Tories, if your child is killed in battle the Tories will offer you the choice of moving house or having your income slashed. Nice.

Ah, and another nasty sordid little detail of this policy: the 'bedroom tax' applies to separated parents so that only the parent who gets primary care of the child(ren) is allowed to have extra room(s) for them. So if you get the children at the weekend: tough, they can sleep on the sofa.

So much for supporting families.

 

[nelly_8423]

I see this argument from two sides. I agree that people who are capable of paying their way should be and so if they are in an accommodation above their need then perhaps they should consider moving somewhere more suited, it makes living cheaper for themselves and gives somebody who needs a larger house the opportunity!
On the other side of the argument is one that my mom is currently facing! She is 2 years below being able to retire (thanks to the government upping the retirement age) but much too ill to work! She lives in a 3 bedroom house with her boyfriend sharing her room and me taking up another. I'm a university student working part time hours so I can't afford or be asked to pay the full rent. My mom has osteoarthritis yet the government want to find herb work although she can hardly work, is undergoing physiotherapy and having injections to help ease the pain she experiences. She is also agrophobic, so is stressed whenever she leaves the house. She has lived and brought up her family in this house and paid into the country all her life. I realise I'm biased on this but if I met somebody else under similar circumstances I would also feel for their cause as I think that this system is flawed!
On top of this there are currently two houses in our street that are boarded up, so I personally think the government should aim to be filling the empty houses up and down the country before they start to try and fill their own pockets with alternative ways (because let's face it, the only reason behind the bedroom tax is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer)

 

[LordSplodge]

Else its just guesswork on your part.

And bias on yours.

You believe self worth esteem and hope for people to be above the poverty line? I'm sorry but those are earned by the individual, not handed out with your weekly benifit payment.

You're so clueless there's no point even responding really. I'm out.

 

[SB118]

Ah, and another nasty sordid little detail of this policy: the 'bedroom tax' applies to separated parents so that only the parent who gets primary care of the child(ren) is allowed to have extra room(s) for them. So if you get the children at the weekend: tough, they can sleep on the sofa.

So much for supporting families.

Um, you do know that this has always been the case don't you?

 

[Mr Jack]

Um, you do know that this has always been the case don't you?

To an extent, yes; however, the 'bedroom tax' will make the situation even worse.

 

[SB118]

To an extent, yes; however, the 'bedroom tax' will make the situation even worse.

How will non-resident parents not receiving housing benefit for their childs room change? They already get zero assistance from any benefit department, how will things get worse?

ps, I know how gash the existing setup is, I'm a non-resident parent for my eldest, she only lives with me 4 days a week.....

 

[Mr Jack]

How will non-resident parents not receiving housing benefit for their childs room change? They already get zero assistance from any benefit department, how will things get worse?

A large number of people who currently get housing benefit for houses with one more bedroom than they "need". Some of those people, unsurprisingly, have children they look after at weekends. The 'bedroom tax' will apply to those people.

That's movement in the wrong direction.

 

[SB118]

A large number of people who currently get housing benefit for houses with one more bedroom than they "need". Some of those people, unsurprisingly, have children they look after at weekends. The 'bedroom tax' will apply to those people.

That's movement in the wrong direction.

It's moving things into line with private tenants. The people this will impact already have cracking good rent rates.

 

[Mr Jack]

It's moving things into line with private tenants.

No, it's not. Previously the benefit was paid on what was reasonable for the kind of accommodation you needed and what was available. That meant that many tenants in both council and private housing had accommodation where they could have a spare room because it was either cheaper than comparable accommodation without or there was a shortage of accommodation without.

The people this will impact already have cracking good rent rates.

The nominal rent "paid" is irrelevant. They're not getting it. It makes no difference to someone on housing benefit whether they're house is rented for £2.50 or £2500. They never see the money.

 

[estebanrey]

So, IDS has backed down a little. Parents with children in the armed forces will be allowed to keep a bedroom for them but, note, if they're killed in action this exemption will cease to apply. That's right, thanks to the Tories, if your child is killed in battle the Tories will offer you the choice of moving house or having your income slashed. Nice.

Whilst I don't agree with the overall 'Bedroom Tax' policy, if it's going to be done I don't see a problem with the above if you want it to be fair.

You can't base policies on feeling sorry for some people and not others. I'm sure, if someone is killed in action the council won't turn up the next day telling you to move out so it depends on the time limit really. To put it another way, would it be 'fair' if 50 years after the death they still have the room for example?

 

[SB118]

No, it's not. Previously the benefit was paid on what was reasonable for the kind of accommodation you needed and what was available. That meant that many tenants in both council and private housing had accommodation where they could have a spare room because it was either cheaper than comparable accommodation without or there was a shortage of accommodation without.



The nominal rent "paid" is irrelevant. They're not getting it. It makes no difference to someone on housing benefit whether they're house is rented for £2.50 or £2500. They never see the money.

The local housing authority will calculate the amount of housing benefit a person is entitled to based on the size of their family. If they only need a two bedroom place, they get housing benefit at the two bedroom rate. If they then choose to live in a three or four bedroom house, they have to cover the rest themselves.
They don't work the sums backwards, "ah you've rented a four bedroom house for you and your one year old twins, no worry, we'll cover all of that for you", doesn't happen.

 

[teulk]

According to the new rules every adult or couple in a property will be allowed their own bedroom. Children under the age of 16 and of the same gender will have to share a room. All children under the age of 10, regardless of gender, will have to share.

So those currently living in a 3 bedroom house/ flat falling into this category will either have to move or have to pay as the 3rd room would be deemed "extra".
They then move to a 2 bedroom house until the children are 16 ( or 10 if different gender) by then they will be eligible to qualify for a 3 bedroom house/flat. They then move to a 3 bedroom house/flat until the kids leave home to then have to move again or pay for the extra rooms.

Who foots the bill for having to move and perhaps storage for the extra belongings that will no longer fit into the smaller house / flat.

If they offer you a smaller place and you don't want to move then fair enough pay the extra ( i still don't believe the bedroom tax is a good idea ). If there are no smaller places available then that is not your fault so i really don't think it's fair making you pay.

 

[SB118]

According to the new rules every adult or couple in a property will be allowed their own bedroom. Children under the age of 16 and of the same gender will have to share a room. All children under the age of 10, regardless of gender, will have to share.

So those currently living in a 3 bedroom house/ flat falling into this category will either have to move or have to pay as the 3rd room would be deemed "extra".
They then move to a 2 bedroom house until the children are 16 ( or 10 if different gender) by then they will be eligible to qualify for a 3 bedroom house/flat. They then move to a 3 bedroom house/flat until the kids leave home to then have to move again or pay for the extra rooms.

But these aren't new rules, they've been in place for private tenants for as long as I can remember.
Why should social housing tenants get preferential treatment?
And the argument about having to pay extra and/or move when the kids get older, etc is all based on the tenant being on benefits for the duration of the childs stay at the family home. If they were working they'd be paying the full rent anyway.

Who foots the bill for having to move and perhaps storage for the extra belongings that will no longer fit into the smaller house / flat.

If they offer you a smaller place and you don't want to move then fair enough pay the extra ( i still don't believe the bedroom tax is a good idea ). If there are no smaller places available then that is not your fault so i really don't think it's fair making you pay.

This I agree with, if there are no smaller units available the tenant is being penalised for the poor housing management of the council/housing association.

People are seeing this as an attack on social housing tenants. Why isn't it being seen as levelling the playing field? Private tenants have never been able to get an extra room for free, why should social tenants?

This is more a matter of fixing what was wrong with the existing system than anything else. Situations where two adults are living in a 3 bedroom home after the kids have moved out are a problem. That housing is needed by a family, not so that dad can have a home cinema room and mum has somewhere to keep her collection of teddy bears.

 

[Third Opinion]

According to the new rules every adult or couple in a property will be allowed their own bedroom. Children under the age of 16 and of the same gender will have to share a room. All children under the age of 10, regardless of gender, will have to share.

So those currently living in a 3 bedroom house/ flat falling into this category will either have to move or have to pay as the 3rd room would be deemed "extra".
They then move to a 2 bedroom house until the children are 16 ( or 10 if different gender) by then they will be eligible to qualify for a 3 bedroom house/flat. They then move to a 3 bedroom house/flat until the kids leave home to then have to move again or pay for the extra rooms.

Who foots the bill for having to move and perhaps storage for the extra belongings that will no longer fit into the smaller house / flat.

If they offer you a smaller place and you don't want to move then fair enough pay the extra ( i still don't believe the bedroom tax is a good idea ). If there are no smaller places available then that is not your fault so i really don't think it's fair making you pay.

Do you think the council pays for people to move?

I can certainly say they don't around here. A guy upstairs in my flats is being forced to move because of 'bullying'. He has severe mental health problems and just very basic benefits.

Even though moving isn't his choice he has to foot all removal costs. My partner has been desperately trying to help him get them. In the end the best available to him is a charity who will rent a van and driver for £20 an hour up to a max of £100. Lots of stuff they are refusing to move so he has to pay an extra £90 to the housing association to remove these items and carpets etc.

My circumstances got really bad and I ended up in a housing association flat. It is 1 bedroom, very damp and needs tonnes of work doing to it. I have to pay almost £500 for it. I can't rent privately due to credit rating, however I could easily get a 1 bed flat that was in a livable condition for £550.

 

[FuriousGeorge]

These really are ludicrous plans:

a) Even if everyone affected moved to smaller properties, there are no where near enough smaller council properties available, meaning that:

b) the people affected will have to move into private sector properties, which have higher rents, thus increasing the Housing Benefit amount anyway.

c) The elderly are not affected (not saying they should necessarily be) even though most elderly council house residents do live in properties that have spare rooms.

d) The decision to break it into age related categories regarding children is a nonsense, given the current state of youth unemployment - a lot of young adults cant afford to move out of their family home.

I dont have any issue with trying to match families/individuals to appropriately sized homes, but going about it this way is outrageous. And I very much doubt it will save any money whatsoever. A much better way would be to tackle Housing Benefits paid to the private sector, which are out of control.

 

[Kimi]

I think the bedroom tax is a fantastic idea. Im all for it