Bedroom tax

To be fair, she was on Radio 4 yesterday morning and by god she talked crap. The most annoying person to listen to on the radio. She had to be ushered along as she just wanted to go for the daily mail style reporting.

You do have to ask though. How can someone come to a conclusion after 2 weeks without even talking to any policy champion? Talk about being completely one sided?!?
 
There is a significant shortage of one bedroom properties across both sectors? You said that isn't the case. I asked according to whom?

No I didn't...

I know some people, not just disabled, need a second room, it's the whole 'oh it's nothing to worry about, it's just effecting a minority of a minority and who cares about them

erm no - I've said that is an issue that needs to be addressed - though it is an issue with a minority of people... its not an argument against the idea in principle
 
The issue she was furious at most if you read it was that there are no one bedroom houses or two bedroom nearly all of the UK stock was 3-4 bed row upon row built for the workers in the early days.

My mate is single and has a two bed there are basically no 1 bed's anywhere near i think maybe five out of a stock of 2000 are one bed bungalow's and they are all taken by old people or disabled people.


So basically he will be shafted from no where for £14 he cannot spare.Some of them are building them ten miles or more away and offering people them to move away from family as well all because the housing stock is old and no one builds one bedrooms anymore.They have money spare to bomb syria yet have to stress people out over £14 a week,Im sure everyone would jump at the chance to move into a smaller home and easier to heat but where are the homes?

Your mate can rent out the second room, share all utility bills and save a load of cash!
 
No I didn't...

Are you sure?

Biohazard said:
Houses without those 'extra bedrooms' don't exist.

dowie said:
seemingly they do

So you did, or you didn't? The properties do exist, or they don't?

Care to pick?



erm no - I've said that is an issue that needs to be addressed - though it is an issue with a minority of people... its not an argument against the idea in principle

How would you address it? Would there be any point in yet again pointing out that the Tory administration see no faults with it so far?
 
Are you sure?

Yup

So you did, or you didn't? The properties do exist, or they don't?

Properties without extra bedrooms exist.... they're not necessarily council owned, they're not necessarily all available in a single area...

How would you address it? Would there be any point in yet again pointing out that the Tory administration see no faults with it so far?

Create an exemption to cover those cases. I don't care what the Tory administration thinks I'm sharing my views - namely that the principle behind the idea is fine, there are obviously issues with the implementation - such as taking into consideration the needs of disabled people
 
Last edited:
Properties without extra bedrooms exist.... they're not necessarily council owned

One bedroom flats are the problem. Across the entire sector. The majority of cases are single occupancy in a double bedroom.



Create an exemption to cover those cases. I don't care what the Tory administration thinks I'm sharing my views - namely that the principle behind the idea is fine, there are obviously issues with the implementation - such as taking into consideration the needs of disabled people

The principle behind it is horrid, it is taking government maladministration of housing both nationally and locally out on people who can least afford these cuts.

Do you think threatening disabled and vulnerable people with eviction is a fine principle by chance?
 
The principle behind it is horrid, it is taking government maladministration of housing both nationally and locally out on people who can least afford these cuts.

Perhpas they should move or get in a lodger instead of occupying social housing that's bigger than they actually require while there are waiting lists for it.

Do you think threatening disabled and vulnerable people with eviction is a fine principle by chance?

I've already said there should be an exemption where actually needed for disabled people so no to part of that... as for 'vulnerable' depends what you mean by that - but in general, the idea that you should simply occupy much needed housing because you don't want to move a few miles down the road or you think its your god given right for the state (the rest of us) to fund your existence in a particular geographical area then jog on....
 
Perhpas they should move or get in a lodger instead of occupying social housing that's bigger than they actually require while there are waiting lists for it.

Move... to where?

It's not a case that they are all bigger than they require, especially in family and disabled cases. It's even more bonkers when significant public funds have been spent on some these properties to make them appropriate and this policy is entirely dismissive or blinded to that.

A lodger would be suitable for some, but certainly not all.

Anyway I think a better solution would be to build more social housing instead of proliferate spending on the likes of HS2 and stop punishing, threatening and distressing some of the most vulnerable people in our society.


I've already said there should be an exemption where actually needed for disabled people so no to part of that... as for 'vulnerable' depends what you mean by that - but in general, the idea that you should simply occupy much needed housing because you don't want to move a few miles down the road or you think its your god given right for the state (the rest of us) to fund your existence in a particular geographical area then jog on....

Generally speaking vulnerable groups would include disabled people themselves, the elderly particularly isolated ones, the homeless, those with substance abuse issues, victims of domestic violence or crime, children and ethnic minorities and migrants. They are all at much higher risk of poverty and social difficulties. The reasons are varied, but the effect is quite similar.

Jog on? If they had houses that were appropriately sized to move into, if appropriate, I don't think anybody would have much of a problem? :confused:
 
Move... to where?
Anyway I think a better solution would be to build more social housing instead of proliferate spending on the likes of HS2 and stop punishing, threatening and distressing some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Yep - building more social housing is fine... I'd also suggest we ought to remove the right to buy, start means testing and broaden the area in which people can be housed (i.e. in London it could be organised on a London wide basis rather than per borough - pointless paying for someone without a job to live in prime real estate). Getting people to move when they are occupying a property with more bedrooms than they actually need is a step in the right direction.

Generally speaking vulnerable groups would include disabled people themselves, the elderly particularly isolated ones, the homeless, those with substance abuse issues, victims of domestic violence or crime, children and ethnic minorities and migrants. They are all at much higher risk of poverty and social difficulties. The reasons are varied, but the effect is quite similar.

Doesn't apply to the elderly or homeless people... you don't require an extra bedroom because you've got substance abuse issues... I don't see the issue with victims of domestic violence or crime moving... nor migrants... by definition they moved quite a distance to come here - having to relocate a few miles while here is hardly an issue. Plenty of people move house - isn't exactly the end of the world...
 
Yep - building more social housing is fine... I'd also suggest we ought to remove the right to buy, start means testing and broaden the area in which people can be housed (i.e. in London it could be organised on a London wide basis rather than per borough - pointless paying for someone without a job to live in prime real estate). Getting people to move when they are occupying a property with more bedrooms than they actually need is a step in the right direction.

Scotland is already scrapping the right to buy.


Doesn't apply to the elderly or homeless people... you don't require an extra bedroom because you've got substance abuse issues... I don't see the issue with victims of domestic violence or crime moving... nor migrants... by definition they moved quite a distance to come here - having to relocate a few miles while here is hardly an issue. Plenty of people move house - isn't exactly the end of the world...

And this would be a contortion of my explaining, generally, what I view vulnerable groups as.

The bedroom tax impacts on a lot of those mentioned, if not all in some way, and it is simply unacceptable in a civilized society. Give them the means to accomplish the request at the very least.

You don't put the cart before the horse.
 
So irrespective of what this policy was designed to do - which it's been discussed so long now I'm not sure what that was, save money or actually address an issue with under/over occupancy?

Let's look at what has actually happened.

"one in three" tenants now in rent arrears since the policy came into effect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24149763

So, what do you now do with these rent arrears? You can't evict the tenants I guess, it doesn't seem to be encouraging them to move to the (non-existent) smaller properties.

How much would it cost to administrate the recovery of these arrears? With how effective that recovery would be, ie: not very, I would guess it would cost more than has been saved.

So...it seems this policy is not actually working as intended so far, and only putting more pressure on the poorest in society.

The government claim -

The Department of Work and Pensions said the policy is in its early stages and it was "carefully monitoring the policy nationally, ensuring the extra funds to support vulnerable tenants are used well as these changes are introduced".

So great, you are spending money monitoring the situation to give money back to the people who can't afford the fact you reduced their money in the first place....hmm, seems an efficient way of doing things.

I'm know the issue of social housing needs addressing on many levels, but as usual the route chosen just seems to be a shambles.
 
Well, the first thing in my mind would be to check the spending of these people to determine whether a true lack of money or just poor prioritisation or financial management is the reason for the arrears.

For those who have to earn their own money and pay their own bills, there is always a need to manage and prioritise certain things, and cut back on others if circumstances change, so the same level of respnsibility must be applied to those who have their bills funded by the taxpayer.

If it turns out that there is no further cutbacks that can be made (such as smoking, alcohol, drugs, takeaway food, pay tv etc etc) then we may need to look at specific relief for some people.
 
Yep totally agree Dolph - people should always be helped to have the necessities for life and to further their lots they should not be helped though if they have are asking for more.
 
Well, the first thing in my mind would be to check the spending of these people to determine whether a true lack of money or just poor prioritisation or financial management is the reason for the arrears.

For those who have to earn their own money and pay their own bills, there is always a need to manage and prioritise certain things, and cut back on others if circumstances change, so the same level of respnsibility must be applied to those who have their bills funded by the taxpayer.

If it turns out that there is no further cutbacks that can be made (such as smoking, alcohol, drugs, takeaway food, pay tv etc etc) then we may need to look at specific relief for some people.

Problem is the way that would be done is with a questionnaire saying "how much do you spend a week on cigarettes etc" and they'd just lie
 
Scotsman said:
Scots councils among worst affected by bedroom tax

SCOTTISH councils have some of the highest proportions of tenants affected by the “bedroom tax” to have been pushed into arrears since it was introduced last year, TUC research showed today.

Eight of the 20 British local authorities which have suffered the biggest impact are north of the Border, among those councils which provided figures.

The TUC said tax had tipped nearly one in three affected council tenants into rent arrears.

Since the tax was introduced in April, 50,000 households in 114 local council areas across Britain could no longer afford to pay for their accommodation, the TUC-backed False Economy campaign group claimed.

The figures, obtained from freedom of information requests, showed two-thirds of affected tenants in Clackmannanshire had fallen into arrears, which was second only to Barrow in Cumbria, with three quarters.

Dundee was placed sixth worst, followed by Renfrewshire eighth and North Lanarkshire ninth, all with around half. Edinburgh was 13th, with 45 per cent.

No figures for Glasgow were shown, which has some of Scotland’s poorest areas. A separate study, by the National Housing Federation (NHF), showed a quarter of those in housing association properties affected by the policy had been pushed into rent arrears since the change.

It found that a quarter of tenants affected by the reform in 38 housing associations it questioned had become unable any longer to pay the rent between April and June.

Under the “bedroom tax”, social tenants deemed to have more bedrooms than they need have had their housing benefit reduced, to tackle what the UK Government calls a “spare room subsidy”.

Ministers say private sector renters do not get spare rooms for free, and argue the change will save around £500 million annually.It has sparked protests across Britain, with opponents claiming it is forcing families into poverty and will increase the benefits bill by pushing people into the private sector.

The UK Department for Work and Pensions dismissed the significance of the findings and defended “a necessary reform to return fairness to housing benefit”.

“It is just wrong to suggest the early stages of the policy - as people start to adjust to the changes - represent long-term trends in any way whatsoever,” a spokesman said.

“We are carefully monitoring the policy nationally ensuring the extra funds to support vulnerable tenants are used well as these changes are introduced.”

“Even after the reform we pay over 80 per cent of most claimants’ housing benefit - but the taxpayer can no longer afford to pay for people to live in properties larger than they need.

“It is right that people contribute to these costs, just as private renters do.”

But False Economy said the early figures were likely to be on the low side as emergency funds supplied to town halls to ease the burden would quickly dry up and leave more with no help.

Campaign manager Clifford Singer said: “Together with the raft of other benefits cuts the Government has forced through both this year and previously, the bedroom tax is driving tenants and families who were just making ends meet into arrears, and pushing those who were already struggling with the cost of living into a full-blown crisis.

“At a time when the [UK] Government is actively trying to stoke a new housing bubble for purely political ends, we have people being punished for the lack of affordable housing and the decades-long failure to invest in social and council housing.”“The worst part is that these figures have been collated while councils’ emergency Discretionary Housing Payments are still available; they are being used up at record speed and when they run out, these figures will only get worse.”

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “The bedroom tax is not saving money. Instead it is pushing up rent arrears which will force councils to waste more cash on evictions, debt collection and emergency support for homeless families.”“It says a lot about this Government’s commitment to fairness that they’ve blocked a mansion tax for millionaires but are happy to go ahead with a bedroom tax on disabled and low paid families, no matter how much chaos and misery it causes.”

United Nations special rapporteur on housing Raquel Rolnik has called for a rethink after finding the change was causing “great stress and anxiety” to “very vulnerable” people.

Her intervention was met with fury by Tory chairman Grant Shapps, who wrote to UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon demanding an apology and an explanation for the “disgraceful” comments.

Liberal Democrat activists voted overwhelmingly at the party’s conference in Glasgow to commit the party to a review of the policy’s impact on vulnerable families.NHF chief executive David Orr - who will set out his criticisms in a speech to the Federation’s conference later - said: “This is the most damning evidence yet to show that the bedroom tax is pushing thousands of families into a spiralling cycle of debt.

“Housing associations are working flat-out to help their tenants cope with the changes, but they can’t magic one-bedroom houses out of thin air. People are trapped.

“What more proof do politicians need that the bedroom tax is an unfair, ill-planned disaster that is hurting our poorest families? There is no other option but to repeal.”Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne said: “The jury is now in. David Cameron’s hated ‘bedroom tax’ is pushing a generation into foodbanks and loan-sharks.

“This Government seems determined to stand up for a privileged few, but stands idle while hundreds of thousands of our neighbours are pushed into debt from which they may never recover.”

The bedroom tax is quickly turning into a new poll tax for Scotland. We are a wealthy nation that do not need to inflict this misery onto the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.
 
So we have a long thread that covers a lot of ground on both sides but doesn't seem to offer much in the way of alternatives.

I think we can agree that the current social housing setup doesn't work well either for the people in the system or the taxpayer, so what alternatives would you put into place to ensure that social housing meets the needs of all parties without becoming a trap or a money pit?

My proposal is as follows:
Abolish right to buy.
Commence a large scale building project of new social housing with a focus on smaller properties with a reduced number of rooms.
End tenancy for life and passing on of social housing.
Allocate housing according to need and manage occupancy as well.
Set rents at a proportion of income, including benefits, removing the need for specific housing benefit while establishing a financial incentive to move on when income rises.

Lets see if we can get some ideas moving rather than complaining about a bad solution to flaws created by a worse system.
 
Back
Top Bottom