Can anyone link to a rational explanation of bedroom tax from the right?

This is a link to the DWP site on the subject of Housing Benefit and spare rooms. There is also a section on Under-occupation of Social Housing that you might find interesting. Unlike public housing, when claiming Housing Benefit for privately rented property, the number of rooms and the number of occupants is taken into account. So it seems only fair to apply the same size criteria to public housing.

'...we DO need to make cuts then someone must be affected...'

A somewhat illogical statement in the context of the bedroom 'tax'. It is not a cut ie a reduction in payment. It is putting in place an additional income stream.

Everyone in social housing is not a benefit claimant. The majority work, do not claim benefits of any description and they too are taxpayers. Social housing is not subsidised. Social landlords are simply required to charge a fair market rent, with the emphasis on fair. It was always intended to house a mixture of people. If you eliminate the aspirational then there is no-one left to aspire to be and the immediate community and the wider community will suffer. It strikes me that the biggest gainers are private landlords charging unfair and unjustifiable rents off the back of housing benefit payments that their tenants (the majority of whom are actually employed) have to claim in order to have a roof over their heads.

' Parents with non-resident kids will end up with nowhere for their kids to stay when they visit, which will damage their relationships and further alienate families.'

I know plenty of families in all sorts of situations who don't have room to put up people who don't live with them on a day to day basis. They either bunk up on the sofa or in a sleeping bag or stay somewhere else.

Are you suggesting these relationships are so fragile that the government must pay for extra space in order to maintain them?
I really have heard it all now.

So you do agree then that it's not really a tax correct?

Fairness is a relative concept. I'm sure it feels incredibly unfair to those who are affected. And understandably so. For the taxpayer who isn't in receipt of housing benefit and have to squeeze into whatever house they can afford. Or for those families in a small house because someone else is sat in a bigger house with a spare room, they are likely to feel the change is fair.

Any withdrawal of any benefit will always affect someone negatively. And there will always be someone who then complain's that it isn't fair.

But as mentioned before, unless you want to deny the obvious fact that we DO need to make cuts then someone must be affected. The age of magic wand politics is over. We are now in an era where we have to accept that even the government has limited powers.

'nice'guy-

I'd have thought you of all people Ttosca would fully understand that this is not a tax at all. To describe it as a bedroom tax is wholly inaccurate, misleading and something I'd expect from the Daily Mail rather than your good self.

I put 'tax' in quotes, as it is only a 'tax' in the sense of being a penalty.

A more accurate description is 'the removal of the spare room subsidy' but that I grant you does not roll of the tongue as easy. It also sounds much less unfair doesn't it?

No, that wouldn't be accurate either, as it's not a spare room subsidy. Firstly, the 'extra' room in many cases is not 'extra' at all, as it is being used by carers.

Secondly, calling it an 'extra' room implies a choice, where often there is none - as there is not enough social housing which has single rooms or a smaller number of rooms to fit smaller families.

Thirdly, it's just disingenuous to call it a 'subsidy'. If there were enough houses, these rooms wouldn't be an issue at all. We should assume - as everyone but the nasty coalition govt. seems to do - that families will more or less move in to houses which are of suitable size.

So no, it's not a 'subsidy' either.

Also I know someone who is in the process of downsizing, it was agreed with her HA ages ago, a house was identified and allocated to her (currently empty) and she was supposed to move 2 months ago. They have stalled and stalled, and as from now she is paying the bedroom tax. I totally and utterly despair.

OP I was going to post a very similar question. What I want to know is, can anyone link to any articles in which the Govt has explained how they can charge people extra for houses that are deemed too large for them when there are no smaller houses for them to move into?????

It sounds like a great plan, have everyone in social housing that fits their needs. But in reality IT DOES NOT WORK because we have practically no social housing that people can downsize to. So I really really want to see something in which Cameron. Clegg, Osbourne, IDS has managed to explain where all these people are supposed to move to??????????

It makes me so FUCKING angry, and it doesn't personally affect me at all.

It's a policy that as a concept makes sense. If the state is paying for your housing it should only pay for the number of bedrooms your family need. Simple and straightforward...

Unfortunately there are huge problems woth how it is being implemented, as many people have pointed out. There isn't an unlimited supply of housing so people can't move to smaller houses because there aren't enough of them. Parents with non-resident kids will end up with nowhere for their kids to stay when they visit, which will damage their relationships and further alienate families. Families with disabled kids sometimes need an extra bedroom... I could go on.

I'd have thought you of all people Ttosca would fully understand that this is not a tax at all. To describe it as a bedroom tax is wholly inaccurate, misleading and something I'd expect from the Daily Mail rather than your good self.

A more accurate description is 'the removal of the spare room subsidy' but that I grant you does not roll of the tongue as easy. It also sounds much less unfair doesn't it?

So the left have repackaged it as a 'tax' and I admit have done a very good job of marketing a blatant untruth.

dreaming

frees up larger houses, which are obviously scarce, for crowded families to use.

Houses are scarce, however, the solution is to build more houses, not to try to (effectively) kick people out of their homes.

You should know that there isn't enough social housing with single rooms for all the people in social housing with double rooms. Assuming this 'tax' manages to kick people out of their homes, it will either make them homeless, or otherwise drive them into private rented accommodation. Private rented accommodation is more expensive to rent, so the housing bill will actually go up in these cases.

Furthermore, many of the 'spare rooms' are not spare rooms at all. They are being used by professional an family carers. That is why 2/3rds of the people who will be hit with this 'tax' are disabled people.

My MIL always goes on about the welfare state being based on need. People don't need multiple spare bedrooms, so why should they get funded by the working public.

They don't get multiple spare bedrooms. These bedrooms are not 'spare' and in any case there are not enough single bedroom homes.

public finances are in dire straight due to prolific spending by labour (amongst other things).

No, they're really not in dire straights due to prolific spending by labour. The deficit was at 3% before the financial crisis.

some pruning at this stage will hopefully mean we don't get into the same state as countries such as greece where you can't even get healthcare/pensions etc

The 'Queen' just received a £5 million 'payrise', and MPs just spend £275,000 on Wine and Champagne. Unpaid tax (evasion and avoidance) costs the UK in the tens of billions per year.

Don't you think it would be better to address these issues before making disabled people homeless with a nasty, ineffectual tax?

frees up larger houses, which are obviously scarce, for crowded families to use.

My MIL always goes on about the welfare state being based on need. People don't need multiple spare bedrooms, so why should they get funded by the working public.

public finances are in dire straight due to prolific spending by labour (amongst other things). some pruning at this stage will hopefully mean we don't get into the same state as countries such as greece where you can't even get healthcare/pensions etc