Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 11 12

AIBU?

To wonder if Labour really will scrap the bedroom tax?

285 replies

GaryShitpeas · 05/12/2014 16:34

Not going to go into why i am against it but I am. Doesn't affect me ATM as not on Hb but I probably will need to be in the future.

But I personally will be voting labour for this reason alone ....this is the first time I've ever voted (to my shame) because I want it gone. But I wonder if they'll actually keep their promise.....

OP posts:

Report

MinceSpy · 05/12/2014 17:13

No Labour won't scrap the bedroom 'tax' nor will any other political party.

GaryShitpeas · 05/12/2014 17:49

Can't link as I'm on my phone and don't know how but I read something on their FB page that said they would. Amongst other stuff, obviously

OP posts:

MrsPiggie · 05/12/2014 18:14

The most they will do is introduce more exemptions. They won't scrap it.

meditrina · 05/12/2014 18:20

They won't scrap it. They might set up more centralised control of top up payments (for those such as households including someone with additional needs). But I'd be surprised if they went further than that.

Remember that Labour lie to decry Tory policies. But rarely reverse the profitable ones.

Becca19962014 · 05/12/2014 18:24

//www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/bedroom-tax

I don't believe a word of it but happened to have the link as a friend is trying to get me to vote labour and keeps sending me crap information to help me decide to vote for them.

GaryShitpeas · 05/12/2014 18:26

Oh yeah that's what I read too

OP posts:

Jaffakake · 05/12/2014 18:31

Would expect them to. My understanding is that there isn't enough 1 bed social housing & private 1 bed housing costs more in hb, so the tax is causing people to move into the private sector & increasing the overall bill. But maybe I've understood it wrong.....

LegoAdventCalendar · 05/12/2014 18:31

They won't.

handcream · 05/12/2014 18:35

Why should it be scrapped? I heard someone stating that they had two children and weren't with the mums. He wanted two spare rooms when he had them staying. He wasn't working. Why does he feel he is entitled to this...

meditrina · 05/12/2014 18:36

oops

"Remember that Labour love to decry Tory policies. But rarely reverse the profitable ones."

Sorry, everyone

RunnerHasbeen · 05/12/2014 19:39

It isn't profitable for most of the country though, where the council housing has been built uniformly and there are lots of 3 beds and no 2 beds to move people to. It means paying more overall to private landlords. Even if it is sort of kept for some instances, I think they will amend it to something more sensible.

GaryShitpeas · 05/12/2014 21:29

Genuinely don't get how they can promise it then not deliver

OP posts:

Barbeasty · 05/12/2014 21:41

In 97 they promised to not introduce tuition fees. What was one of the first things they did?

SaucyJack · 05/12/2014 21:43

I hope they don't scrap the spare room subsidy- and I know there are plenty of other people who support it.

Whatever you can or can't say in it's favour, it is fair on every one else.

Private renters don't get to live in a bigger house than they need without paying for it, and newer council tenants certainly don't get given spare rooms- not even if they could pay for it.

I do think there should be certain exemptions, but in the main it is a good thing.

Icimoi · 05/12/2014 21:52

I think they will, not least because it is not a sensible policy financially: the reality is that forcing people to move out of their homes when there are no smaller homes to move into simply forces them into the private sector, and the housing benefit bill then goes up, not down.

They may well change it into a more sensible law, e.g. that benefits are cut if and only if it can be demonstrated that the spare room genuinely is spare (and not, e.g. needed for a carer, panic room or lifesaving equipment) and that there is a suitable smaller property available for the family to move into. And "available" would also have to be defined in terms of practicability, e.g. it would not be practicable if it entails a child in the middle of GCSEs having to change schools.

Handsoff7 · 05/12/2014 22:03

It's not a good thing.

If there were smaller properties available and all under-occupiers were included rather than 80% being exempt, you could perhaps make a case for it.

As it is, it causes massive misery and is projected to raise £420m. We give more than that to pensioners in the richest quarter of the population in winter fuel payments.

The pointless £2000 NI giveaway to businesses will cost 4 times as much as they've saved by putting 500,000 disabled people into real poverty.

I have a business. As a result of this policy, I will pay £2000 less tax. I didn't ask for it. I don't need it. I'd much rather it was spent on housing for the needy.

Labour will reverse it as it is basically free for them to do so.

I genuinely am struggling to think of a tax that has caused so much misery for so little benefit. Ever.

I'm actually shocked to hear support for it. I can only assume SaucyJack that you and you friends have done no research on it whatsoever.

caroldecker · 05/12/2014 22:15

Housing associations and councils have never build enough smaller properties because they are less profitable - they will now do so, benefitting everyone.

SaucyJack · 05/12/2014 22:32

I live in a block of council flats handsoff. I don't need to "research" the positives that are to be gained be encouraging under-occupiers to downsize. I just need to look out the window.

Our road is like a battery farm, whereas my mum's row of council houses are still most full of single, older under-occupiers. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the available housing stock is not being made good use of.

And yes, obviously the elderly are the biggest group of under-occupiers and they are exempt. But hopefully over a few generations it will just become the norm for people to downsize once the kids have gone.

Handsoff7 · 05/12/2014 23:05

The policy is hurting people now. We can't condemn people to lives in poverty in the hope that in a couple of generations it will work out.

I can see why it appeals in theory, but if there are no smaller properties available, no one can move and what you're left with is a heavy tax on the poorest people.

If you stopped the exemption for the elderly and encouraged swaps it might work but that comes with it's own share of problems.

We just need to build more council housing. The policy in its current form will die with the current government.

SaucyJack · 05/12/2014 23:17

Well the policy isn't hurting council tenants any more than private tenants have been hurt for years, and no one's lining the streets fighting for their rights to a bigger house.....

I do agree though that there is a shortage of one-beds. It would make far more sense if they just allowed people to downsize to any smaller property to become exempt.

For instance, you have single people in four or three bed houses who wouldn't be allowed to swap with a large family in a two-bed flat, yet any fool can see that it would a better and fairer use of the available housing.

writtenguarantee · 05/12/2014 23:33

And yes, obviously the elderly are the biggest group of under-occupiers and they are exempt. But hopefully over a few generations it will just become the norm for people to downsize once the kids have gone.

that's the flaw, isn't it? why are they exempt? on top of that, they are also getting winter fuel allowance to heat homes that are too big.

As it is, it causes massive misery and is projected to raise £420m. We give more than that to pensioners in the richest quarter of the population in winter fuel payments.

scrap that too.

the trouble is that the Tories won't do it because that's part of their base.

writtenguarantee · 05/12/2014 23:33

Well the policy isn't hurting council tenants any more than private tenants have been hurt for years, and no one's lining the streets fighting for their rights to a bigger house.....

exactly. private tenants get such a raw deal.

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Email address

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Spudthecat · 06/12/2014 00:48

I wish people would stop saying "there are no one beds" of course there is. There's plenty. I'm in a one bed and have been trying to swap for years now and no one will, because they only want ground floors or gardens! Yet moan that there's no one beds... There are one beds people just don't want to live in them. My local council has 12 one beds up for bidding on this week. That's way more than any of the 2/3/4 beds. Yet people claim there's a shortage. There's always more one beds to bid on round here.

Darkesteyes · 06/12/2014 00:55

Saucy you are aware the bedroom tax includes panic rooms.

CattyCatCat · 06/12/2014 00:56

Labour should reverse the bedroom tax, the child benefit earning sanctions and universal credit.
They won't do any of that though-they are not shouting about any of that stuff anymore. Looks like I'm voting Green Party then

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 11 12

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.