What are your views on the bedroom tax?

[Cheekychops84]

the new tax for hb claimants where u loose some hb for bedrooms u don't need? we work so at the moment won't b affected but if workers later on down the line are affected I think is a bit unfair as we are paying all rent and bills ourself at the same price as Private Rent?

Yes, they can. It's called Support for Mortgage Interest.

here

It's a benefit, as you can see.

It's designed to help those who become unemployed or lone parent not lose their home and become homeless.

not the same its not an in work benefit

'not the same its not an in work benefit '

And? Plenty of people get working tax credits that other working people don't, or child tax credits, other in-work benefits.

Its the only benefit that you cant get if your on the same income.tcs anyone can get below a certain income.hb you cant

and so, because you don't get it, since you own a home, no one else should? because it's staring to sound a little sour grapes if that's so, IMO.

Plenty of people lost their Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits. They were not happy that others still get them.

No not no one else should get it buylt just a fairer system.As I have said here unless you qualify for hb you have to live in a poorer quality property its the way the system is set up no incentive to do more

Same as losing money for uping your hours so it becomes pointless working or working more hours its a silly system.

It is only paid to the unemployed and only cover interest on a mortgage not the actual mortgage and then the rates are set b y the government and wont in most cases be the rate that is actually paid.
You only get it on the amount you borrowed so if you have additional borrowing on the house it is not covered and it wont cover arrears which theyu will have as you dont get it for the first 13 weeks.

and so, because you don't get it, since you own a home, no one else should? because it's staring to sound a little sour grapes if that's so, IMO.

NO but why should a home owner who can only buy what they can afford and then make it work regardless if they have 4 children in a 2 bed sit by and be happy to see people to live in larger homes than they need and the bill be picked up by ha?

cantspel, mortgages are usually part interest and part capital. The banks want you to pay interest only, or interest first, because it means that they retain more of the capital, so they own your property for longer. The government can't pay for something that is essentially owned by the bank, eg the capital, (they would then officially own part of it) so they pay the interest instead. If you have a mortgage you then have to arrange with the bank to make sure they pay interest first. It should amount to the same as your mortgage payment.

No in all cases as they will only pay 3.63% so if your interest only mortgage is set at 5 or 6 % you will have to find the extra.
Plus if you are claiming smi as you are unemployed you better get a new job quick as you can only claim for 2 years.

does everybody think that people who recive hb get all the rent paid for them? its actually worked out on a pound for pound basis the gov says what you need to live on each week.you have certain premiums that are protected i.e

£64.99 for each child
£17.40 being a family
£71.00 single parent over 18 but under pension age
cant remember what couple premium is off top of my head
you get additional premiums at various levels if your a carer or disabled.(if you get CA you are only allowed to keep £32.60 of it the remaining £20 ish is taken off you)

they add these figures togather and call that an applicable amount.

they then work out your income disregard certain things like DLA/CB/maintainance/£25 earnings if in work but not on sick leave/ML then they take what is left and anything that is higher than your applicable ammount gets split between rent/CT and you have to pay that.

its perfectly possible for a person to recive say £4.27 a week hb and no ct benefit.paying the remainder of the rent themselves

if you live in private rented nothing gets paid that takes you over the LHA. if you live in social housing then you lose 14% if you under occupy by 1 room 25% if by 2 rooms.this is deducted from the whole award

The LHA gets you a much bigger property than most workers could afford thats why most people cut back their hours here.

That's a good point - the LHA is certainly low in relation to private rents here in London. I wonder who sets the LHA in the first place? Seems crazy.

Have read the first 3 pages of this thread, and am surprised so many people agree with the new HB rules regarding spare rooms.

I know of a number of people living in 2 bedroomed social housing properties, where their child/children have moved out, yet they cannot downsize because there is nowhere for them to go. 2 bed social housing properties are the most abundant in my area, followed by 3 bed houses, then 4 bed properties, then 1 bed properties, then 1 bed bungalows, and finally 5 bed houses.
Where do all of these 1 bed properties come from if you occupy a 2 bed property but only use 1 room?

That's not to mention how completely unfair this new rule is on some disabled/sick people.
How many of you who agree know that tenants who are a couple, but who need to sleep apart because of a medical condition, will still lose part of their HB if they are occupying 2 bedrooms to sleep in, because as a couple they are expected to share a room, even if a medical condition means they cannot do so??

That's not to mention how completely unfair this new rule is on some disabled/sick people.
How many of you who agree know that tenants who are a couple, but who need to sleep apart because of a medical condition, will still lose part of their HB if they are occupying 2 bedrooms to sleep in, because as a couple they are expected to share a room, even if a medical condition means they cannot do so??

where do you think they sleep if they are owners of a one bed in the same circumstances? Why should it be different if you rent?

Have you no compassion at all cantspel?

Exactly I think one spare room maximum which has been the law up to this point anything more then that should b liable to a charge ? We have a lot of 1 and 2'a around but not many 3/4's so it could help around here but most of the 3/4 are elderly who r exempt

Do you think renters are second rate citizens that don't deserve a quality of life at all?

I don't think I agree with this either, but there is a shortage of social housing and this is the best way of helping people on the housing list. They can't force you out and it will never be more than £14 per week per room.

Do you think owners don't claim any benefits at all ?

Cheeky there is a variation in different areas, I don't know how they are going to address that. London is full of 2 bedroom flats and no family homes, the rule suits us here but it may be very different in different areas. In London most people would kill for an extra room for £14. I know I would!

It's not going to help because private rents are too high and tenancies insecure. So low-income people will probably just mostly suck it up unless there is a viable alternative, which there isn't thanks to LHA caps and landlords unwilling to take HB. Pensioners exempt so they won't be going anywhere fast.

it's just smokescreening, daily fail-pleasing bollocks.

there are over 500,000 empty homes that belong to the various local authorities across the UK which they are still not making any attempt to let.

Second home owners pay virtually feck all in council tax for their second homes, even though they are driving people out of their communities, because the housing prices rise so high local residents can't afford them.

and, why is it deemed so wrong to have a spare room? it could be a study/office for a self-employed person, or a room for regular visitors, e.g. GPs who might also need to do childcare for example.

And it's that person's HOME!

there has long been a scheme where you get more housing transfer points if you want to downsize, and sometimes cash incentives as well. this is the appropriate way to help move this forward.

lest we forget in all this shit media coverage, that the main reason there is a huge shortage of social housing stock is because of the Tories selling them all off in the 80s.