Advanced search

To think this is a cruel policy, and not an actual 'tax'?

(313 Posts)
katykuns Fri 25-Jan-13 23:11:08

I just think its unrealistic, and completely ignores reality that it is not just easy to drop everything and move. It is also very unfair to the disabled.

Why can they not target the damn landlords charging extortionate rents?

It is not directly affecting me, but I do claim housing benefit and I work, and life is hard. I just feel like it makes it impossible to live with a 14-25% cut of your benefit.

Its not a tax, its a benefit cut. Say it as it is hmm... just another attempt to make people struggling to get by struggle even more!

edam Fri 25-Jan-13 23:14:36

It's stupid and cruel. Ministers are so determined to bash the poor that they quite knowingly and deliberately took out amendments that would have exempted foster parents from the cut. Even though it's a requirement that foster children MUST have their own room. So if you are between foster children, you will be penalised for having a spare bedroom ready for your next placement. Ludicrous. The government knows it is ludicrous. The government knows there is a desperate shortage of foster parents. But they insisted on doing this anyway. And that's just one example, I bet there are plenty of others.

katykuns Fri 25-Jan-13 23:21:13

That is a very good point edam... and with foster carers being encouraged to stay at home rather than work, due to possible difficulties etc... it must make them feel that much more trapped.

And what difference will it make overall? How much money are they going to have to spend hiring more staff to assist putting this 'tax' in place?

edam Fri 25-Jan-13 23:26:36

I doubt it will save much money. Disruption costs money. Even disruption that eventually saves money usually costs in the short term. I think they've done it for ideological reasons, or merely so they look as if they are doing something.

Because they don't want to actually sort out the dysfunctional housing market (both rented and for sale), it's easier to bash the vulnerable and make it look as if you are taking action.

PrettyKitty1986 Fri 25-Jan-13 23:31:10

I have to be honest, but I agree with it. Some people do take the piss with the size houses they have. A single neighbour of my mothers has a three bed...a couple with one child that live a few doors down also have a three bed. It's unnecessary. Yes, those are touching stories etc...but the family do not need a bedroom each for their kids. Not does the single guy need a 'studio' hmm

Chrestomanci Fri 25-Jan-13 23:37:19

But the biggest group of people who under occupy are OAPs who are - guess what - exempt from the bedroom tax. Not that I think that OAPs should be forced to move either, but ime they are often keen to move when there are suitable properties, like 2 bedroom bungalows, but of course building those costs money.

katykuns Fri 25-Jan-13 23:38:10

Yes but PrettyKitty, its not so much whether they 'deserve' it... and more to do with the reality of either forcing a family out or making them pay considerably more money to make their lives that bit more difficult. It just is utterly daft. A very small number of people could move, mainly because it costs a lot of money to move, but also, the man in his 2 bedroom flat would actually end up WORSE off in a 1 bedroom flat, as there are such a limited amount of them and they cost £25 more pm than the 2 bedroom!
The policy completely ignores the needs of the disabled, or as edam noted, foster carers that NEED a spare room for when they take a child in. They are doing a considerable service to the council (that usually funds most foster carers) by taking on these children needing homes, yet they will be charged 14-25% more when that room is vacant. I personally think its disgusting and incredibly poorly thought out personally.

Sunnywithshowers Fri 25-Jan-13 23:42:01


It might be more reasonable if there were sufficient right sized homes for families / single people, and disability needs were taken into account.

shagmundfreud Fri 25-Jan-13 23:49:25

And what happens when young adult children who've moved out (to go to university or for work) have to move home because they've finished studying or no longer in work? The government has cut hb for under 25's and I think is planning to remove it altogether.

Celticlassie Sat 26-Jan-13 00:18:01

What about parents who only see their children at weekends? Will they be allowed a room? Or a room each for their children? (Older / different genders) Are parents who don't live with their kids full time not allowed to have them to stay any more?

sashh Sat 26-Jan-13 05:59:13

the man in his 2 bedroom flat would actually end up WORSE off in a 1 bedroom flat, as there are such a limited amount of them and they cost £25 more pm than the 2 bedroom!*

He won't be worse off as he will still get HB, but we will be paying more.

What about parents who only see their children at weekends? Will they be allowed a room?

No, only the parent where the child is resident.

Kitty no one is saying anyone needs a studio, we are saying why force hm to move to a smaller but more expensive property?

I've just started work again, I don't know how long I will be able to work from and when I'm not in work I only get a contribution for which I'm grateful.

I live in a property that was specifically built for people with disabilities / mobility issues.

Level access and all doors wide enough to get through in a wheel chair. This kind of property is allocated according to physical need and the housing association only built 2 bedroom accommodation.

I challenge anyone to find property local to them for rent that a wheel chair user could move into without it being adapted.

The adaptions, btw, are paid for by the council which actually means by you.

lollilou Sat 26-Jan-13 07:04:57

Is this new law only for people in social housing?

Tee2072 Sat 26-Jan-13 07:21:11

It's not a tax at all, or we'd all pay it. It's a punishment for those on benefits. Or shall I say another punishment for those on benefits?

If it was a tax then the government could make a lot off it, after all, how many people need those 6 - 10 bedroom houses we all drool over on property porn threads? Millionaires would get hit hard.

Instead they are removing yet another benefit for those who cannot afford it.


Sunshinenow Sat 26-Jan-13 07:21:29

I think this. Is wrong too. There is ahuge shortfall of smaller properties. The government knows this.

I checked out the DWP impact statement. Two parts particularly stood out.

'In many areas this mismatch could mean that there are insufficient properties to enable tenants to move to accommodation of an appropriate size even if tenants wished to move and landlords were able to facilitate this movement. In these circumstances individuals may have to look further a field for appropriately sized accommodation or move to the private rented sector, otherwise they shall need to meet the shortfall through other means such as employment, using savings or by taking in a lodger or sub-tenant'

And in another part it was felt the only impact on tenants was removal costs! Not mentioned refurb costs. Will old furniture and white goods fit in new place? Cost of new disabled adaptations......and on. Nada.

'Claimants moving home within the social rented sector are likely to incur removal costs for moving from one property to another. The number of claimants affected would be determined by the behavioural impact of tenants and landlords to the measure. In some cases it is possible that social landlords will help facilitate the movement of tenants, or help to offset some of the costs associated with moving.'

manticlimactic Sat 26-Jan-13 07:21:42

lollilou I thought that if you were in private let then HB is only paid up to the value of the size of house you actually need? I was sure they won't pay full HB if you're in a 3bed and only need a 2. They pay proportionally.

Sunshinenow Sat 26-Jan-13 07:24:05

Here is the impact statement. I am truely appalled. It is ideological.

Unless a house is 'significantly' adapted for a wheelchair user it is included. Sick and disabled people will have to pay or move.

Sunshinenow Sat 26-Jan-13 07:25:55

It covers every one. Even in private sector. Extra room = cut of 12% or 25 %

lollilou Sat 26-Jan-13 07:28:47

Thanks manti, yes that is true private lets have a cap for the size of house you need. Just checking that they weren't going to hit us in private rentals again.

JeezyOrangePips Sat 26-Jan-13 07:32:32

They don't need to include the elderly. Old people die, so over a period of a few years those houses will be let again anyway.

They are perfectly aware of this, but manage to look like they are being sympathetic to the older members of society.

Tee2072 Sat 26-Jan-13 07:47:11

If you're on housing benefit, shunshinenow. I have a 3 bed privately let house but pay for it all myself. I won't pay a tax on my extra bedroom, because it's not a tax, it's a benefit reduction.

If it was a tax, then they would send me a bill for my extra bedroom.

Waitingforastartofall Sat 26-Jan-13 08:01:42

i have to agree, apparently under this tax sd does not qualify as needing a bedroom despite spending 4 days a week here.

Sunshinenow Sat 26-Jan-13 08:05:40

Sorry, yes affected everyone on housing benefits only.

lollilou Sat 26-Jan-13 08:07:21

Do you think this is just a revenue making scheme? Or a way of freeing up larger properties for bigger families?

diaimchlo Sat 26-Jan-13 08:09:25

As already said this is the government targeting the lower income families whether they are employed or not.

Do bear in mind that the people that are putting these cuts in place get their rent paid on their second homes at the tax payers expense as well through their expenses.... MPs have be known to sell their second homes to friends and then rented them back to enable the tax payer to cover their housing costs, is this not also a benefit??????? I would be surprised if any of these homes only have 1 bedroom. One of the main instigators of this cruel new tax Iain Duncan Smith lives rent free in a large house on his fathers estate.... do I need to say more????? It is definitely 1 law for the rich and another for the poor.

OK rant over!

OneHundredSecondsofSolitude Sat 26-Jan-13 08:13:22

Hmmm the execution is clumsy but we live on a street of lovely, big, solid 3 bed local authority houses, built in the 1920s as family homes with huge gardens. All of the ones still on local authority ownership have one or in a handful two old people living in them. The gardens are wild and unused. Those that have been sold off all have families in them and when one comes on the market they're snapped up within weeks

It's a wicked waste when families are either crammed into smaller houses or unable to get one at all

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: