Bedroom Tax: A Letter Everyone Should Read(140 Posts)
Wish i was told about this when dh lost his job!!! it seems that They will help pay my motgage for 2 yrs? Good i always thought it made sense to give people a hand when they need it. They wont helpe forever though - and people shouldnt expect to get handouts/ benefits for ever. ( Im not saying evryone does) . There is not enough money in the pot to support the amount of people who need help its really very sad. I think the reason the country is in the way it is it insteas of the welfare state being there for those who need it , people think it has become 'their right' and because we are supporting all those people too we dont have enough for this who really need it- that includes giving our nhs resourses to health tourist etc
Mrs devere i do not understand why someone will b told to downsize for a few years until their dc are older and the will need a biger home again - is that not pointless/ waste of time? Is that really what will happen ?
Agree completely with Mrs Devere. Stories like this will be just the tip of a very very large iceberg. Shame on the government
My friend has four children in a three bedroom house. She will be 'taxed' because the house has a dining room. I really don't understand the mentality of this legislation. If she was to move to a different three bed council house with no dining room, how would this benefit anybody? She would have exactly the same sleeping arrangements! Who would be deemed worthy of the house with the luxury of a dining room?
Bugger just lost my long post.
Ok mrs devere- so you are saying that there is a shortage of one and two bed homes- so then where will all the people in their'big' homes move to? No where ? So they yake them to court for not paying the extra as they cant afordit and then they say we evict u but there is no where to evict them to ? How is that sensible? X
People won't move, they will pay the extra from somewhere. Harsh, but in many many cases, fair.
When I read the letter I initially felt the same as Saskia, because its not up to the taxpayer to fund someone's living in a more expensive place than they need just because they chose to leave a loved ones ashes there. But if she is disabled, she has a valid reason for needing to stay in her home.
In many cases though, I don't see what's wrong with making people pay for the luxury of having a bedroom or a dining room that they don't actually need. If people want those things, they need to pay for it.
But they will have choice. Maybe not desireable choices, especially if those choices are between paying the extra and moving away from an area where your are settled, but that's still choice that other people shouldn't have to pay for when their own choices are also limited.
I live in a rented house because I can't afford to buy - at any time, my landlord could increase the rent or just decide he wants me out. I don't like it but I know I can't expect to live there forever. So why are council houses considered homes for life?
That's what I'm getting from this - that people believe they can stay in their home for as long as they want, even though they don't own it. That's just not how it works.
Heard a woman on my local radio station today, she lives alone in a 3 bedroom flat in Eton, she says she needs that space because her granddaughter stays over on most weekends
unfortunately, cases like that make a lot of people agree with the bedroom tax
Its heart breaking. And I really dont think she should be made to move.
But I honestly wouldnt have scattered my husbands ashes in the garden of a house that did not belong to me.
-This policy will create problems for so many people,It will not create more housing. But that's, ok they are only council house tenants.can't have them having something the mighty home owner hasn't got can we?
I completely agree that we should be providing more housing, and making appropriate social housing available to many many more people.
Find the money from limited funds or find the money to move away and try and get services in a new area?
But this is the reality for many families who don't get social housing, don't get HB because they earn that little bit too much, don't get benefits and tax credits. Why should HB claimants be exempt from the realities of life?
Take a child out of school where they have a statement and know the staff and move away and start the process all over again?
I don't think we can base government policy for millions of HB claimants on the relatively small number of people who have children with statements. And families with disabilities need to be considered individually anyway, that doesn't mean the entire idea is flawed.
I think the problem is each case needs to be dealt with individually, to weedle out the scroungers .if i choose to have a large family thats my choice and my responsibility- as a homeowner i will buy a larger house ir squidge up - whereas a relative is on her 8th child and has just moved to a larger social housing property , paid for totally by the gov and that seems to be MY responibilty too as a tax payer. NOtt all circumstances are the same thou
It's not about wanting those to have little to have less at all.
It's about those who have little not wanting to pay for others who have little to have things that they themselves can't afford.
That is what is happening, although people don't like to admit it. It would be great if everyone who claimed to 'have no choice' got given the money to pay for a spare bedroom or a dining room, but as that's never going to happen, it shouldn't be given to anyone who doesn't have a very valid reason for needing it.
'When I read the letter I initially felt the same as Saskia, because its not up to the taxpayer to fund someone's living in a more expensive place than they need just because they chose to leave a loved ones ashes there. But if she is disabled, she has a valid reason for needing to stay in her home.
In many cases though, I don't see what's wrong with making people pay for the luxury of having a bedroom or a dining room that they don't actually need. If people want those things, they need to pay for it.'
Here is what is wrong: because in many cases, the only way to downsize is to go for a privately rented home. And here's the kicker about that: even with LHA caps, the rent on a smaller, privately-rented home is higher. The mover then has to claim more housing benefit than they did in the socially rented home.
And here we go again, anyone age 61+ is completely exempt from this, no matter if they are still working part-time and claiming partial HB, have never worked, don't have kids living near them, etc.
So all these people who 'have less', and don't want to pay for others to have more than they, instead of directing ire at why they have so little for working so hard, at the real source of why - low wages in relation to the cost of living and, in particular, housing; increasing inflation; the insecurity and expense of the largely unregulated private-sector rental industry, including letting agents; decreasing social mobility - direct at people in . . . council houses.
Best example of Wag the Dog I've seen in a long time.
MrsDeVere you are so right. What I can't understand is why people seem to be so envious of people on HB, it is no fun and very few people enjoy being on benefits FFS I am sure they would rather be buying their home just like me. I am so lucky
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.