This bedroom tax is really a pile of s*** isn't it?

[sweetkitty]

I was thinking about this and the people it affects is so tiny it's not even worth it really is it?

It doesn't affect the disabled and rightly so.

It doesn't affect the grannies and grandpas living in 3 and 4 bed council houses.

It doesn't affect anyone working.

So it only affects the very poorest people who are receiving benefits. And if you are only getting £71 a week to live on an extra tenner is a lot.

Most of these people cannot downsize as there are no homes to downsize to. So they are forced to pay a charge through no fault of their own. Are the government hoping they will move in with family as they cannot afford to live thereby freeing up a council property?

A friend of mine has 3 DC in a 2 bed flat she has been told she had no chance of a council house ever. She doesn't want to privately rent as her rent would go from £220 a month to £500 and she could be thrown out in 6 months.

My mother and her DP live in a huge 3 bed house but as her DP works and pays rent they get to keep it, he's approaching retirement age so they'll just go onto a pension and still keep the house.

The whole housing system in this country is completely screwed isn't it? But don't worry Doreen bought her council flat for 8K and its now worth 100K but no one can afford to buy it.

Well it's has the desired effect in my situation, I have a 2 bed house and 3 children and I am shortly swapping with a lady who is living in a 3 bed just her and her teenage son an she can't afford the payment on the extra bedroom. Although I can see this is likely to be something that won't happen a lot.

I wouldn't waste a second feeling sorry for the Government

A more logical idea would surely be to offer one of these mythical smaller, 2-bed properties to anyone currently living in a larger place, then give a reasonable timescale in which they either move or pay the room supplement/tax/whatever they are calling it this week.

Of course, under current rhetoric, you'd be a feckless breeder who selfishly had three kids in order to scrounge the privilege of a larger house - displacing responsible, hard-working mum-of-teen who's just paid for a new conservatory.

All rubbish, of course.

But you see how the bullshit can be sprayed any way one chooses.

It's ill-thought out because it's a reaction to the cries of "It's not fair!"

The thinking goes:
"It's not fair that someone on benefits gets more money/ lives in a bigger house/ doesn't have to work as hard as I do. So let's punish them for that."

Rather than thinking through the practical implications of what behaviour this will encourage - are thousands of families supposed to move house? Where to? How will they pay for all the unavoidable costs of moving? Find new schools for their children? Or take in lodgers?

It's not a great policy. And while yes, any government should be considering issues of "fairness", this smacks of the politics of the playground.

No one is exempt except pensioners. It disproportionately affects disabled people.

For example, a disabled single mother with 2 children living in a specially adapted 3 bedroom house will be charged, because she is only "entitled" to a 2 bed house. The fact that thousands have been spent on adaptations and there are no 2 bed properties she can move to is irrelevant. I assume the government thinks she should buy less food.

Or, a family with 2 children, one of whom is severely disabled on wakes frequently in the night, in a 3 bed house. They are only entitled to a 2 bed house, the fact that it would mean very disturbed nights for the whole family if the children share is irrelevant.

I can kind of see the justification if you have one person in a 3 bed house claiming HB but in reality is this actually happening a lot?

In reality it's probably more common for someone to be living in a 2 bed flat with a second bedroom, is the procession of a second bedroom really at the forefront of this governments economic policy?

I don't know the statistics of HA housing versus private in this country but at a guess I would say the majority own their own homes, homes that have been allowed to sky rocket in price therefore they are totally exempt from this bedroom tax so it's the old "it doesn't affect me" thing.

Yes it all started when Maggie allowed council houses to be sold off cheap, councils took the cash but didn't replace the stock, house prices rocketed under Labour who did nothing about housing, then this Government inherited the mess and do what they do best, hammer the feckless breeding poor. And how the LibDems can sit by and allow this to happen is behind me, they had done good ideas before the election, they've sold their principles to get a shot at being ministers

I said a while ago and this is just little old me but the fairest way of getting us out this was an increase in Income Tax, yes it would be unpopular but a 1p increase across the board would be fair, would affect everyone in work, the systems are in place for it, all these new pieces if legislation, UC, changes to tax credits, CB and this bedroom tax all require new admin and systems.

We are all loosing something under this Government, we had to but make it fair and protect the most vulnerable font shaft them whilst giving your millionaire mates a tax cut! You couldn't make it up if you tried!

OP - just to try to help your friend out a bit (4 of them in a 2 bed...) Does she know what her local housing allowance is? She may well be able to get HB to cover a substantial amount of the £500 rent for a 3 bed house. When I was renting privately (working too, but still qualified for HB) my flat was £475/pcm - if I had been eligible for the full amount payable on that flat my HB would have been $450/pcm leaving me only £25 to find.

Depending on he ages and sex of her DC she could get a 3 bedroom so they weren't so overcrowded and still qualify for full HB. Don't know if she's looked into it or not, and things obviously can change wrt benefits payable, but if she hasn't found out, it may well be worth her enquiring.

If she hasnt' used it before, the Turn to Us benefits calculator can help with her finding out her Local Housing Allowance.

Seems a shame her being overcrowded when she might not have to be.

Pensioners are exempt...and yet, according to a BBC programme I was watching the other day...50% of the benefits budget goes to pensioners. I've got nothing against pensioners per se, but I'm not understanding why they are exempt? And why aren't' the people who have been placed in housing with more rooms than they need and now have been told there isn't anything else for them to move in to exempt until they are suitably rehoused? How is that their fault?

skipped - I don't think she is entitled to any HB as her DH earns too much. It's also the uncertainty of private renting having known people moving 4 times in 2 years Her 3 DC are all single sex as well which counts against her.

She was told she could be offered a house in the roughest part of town but its a school move and she doesn't fancy living there. That's another problem the only HA houses left are in less desirable areas as the best ones have all been sold. I know streets where every house had been bought.

I agree skipped. If people were placed in houses to big for them, it seems really unfair to penalize them if no smaller places are available.

I can see why they're doing it.

However, there's sod all in the way of two bedroom properties round this way. There's flats with no lifts which are obviously not appropriate for anyone with a pram or a disability. The few streets of two bed houses are full.

They need to move the pensioners out of the huge houses (harsh but necessary), move the peeps who are overcrowded in two bedrooms into these vacated houses and this will free up the two beds.

Too much like common sense though, so won't happen.

For some people, the answer to this is to make social housing as expensive and insecure as private. For others, the other way round would be nice.

Social housing should cost the same as private. (Though I'm not sure how you take the difference in tenure conditions into account.) "Should" in the sense that it is "economically correct" to do so, and "should" in the sense that (I think) the last government brought in a rule that required social rents to be something like 90% of private rates.

The high/private rates are the "correct" ones, because they are being set by a market. If the social rents were too high, properties would stand empty, so the likelihood is that they are to low. Where there is a waiting list for social housing, that is proof that rents are too low. Rents would be correct if there were an insignificant number of empty properties and anyone could go onto the waiting list and get a property within a reasonable time, less than a year I'd say.

Social rents being too low means the tenants are receiving an implicit subsidy. I believe this is wrong: if they are going to be subsidised, it should be done explicitly through housing benefit, where factors such as their income can be taken into account.

I would like something to be done about security in private rentals though. People should be able to routinely get seven year leases, say. Not sure if there are any law changes/tax incentives that would make a difference.

Chris....if you raise social housing rates to the same rates of private rentals that is going to cost the government even more money I would think? I don't have figures for how many people in social housing are claiming part or full HB, but if your proposal were to happen HB payments under the current means tested system that they are on now would raise would they not?

Is your reasoning based on a belief that most of those in social housing earn enough to not need to claim HB?

And rents for social housing properties would stand empty if the rents were too high? You really think so? Where are all those people going to go when their rent is higher than they can afford? What do you suggest? If they are doing all they can to bring as much money as they can and they still cant' afford their rent, where exactly are they going to live? What is your solution?

It depends what your goal is.

If your goal is a perfect market in the housing commodity, doing marketty things, booming, busting, becoming monopolised, then yes, social rents "should" be the same as private.

If your goal is ensure the nation has its basic needs like housing fulfilled, then the market is simply one means (or hindrance) to achieving that. It's a context or tool, not an end.

And actually, as soon as a country starts giving out housing benefit, or wage benefits, it interferes in the housing market in the first place. It's no longer a pure market, and the pretence that everything else should mysteriously still be subservient to the "functioning of the market" becomes completely hollow.

Years ago (before someone decided it was a good idea to introduce right to buy), there was an abundance of council properties.
People were promised a home for life.

Now things have changed for the worse.

Surely penalizing people financially for having a spare bedroom (often a boxroom), that, in many cases they didn't ask for isn't the answer.

I think that the rules should be changed so that instead of being promised that particular home for life, the tenant should agree to downsize once that property is too big for their needs.
This seems a fairer solution to me, and would allow families to move into much sought after 3/4 bedroom homes.

There is also a huge stigma around social housing. In the 80s the Thatcher goal was owner occupied, it was an aspiration to buy your own home, hey buy your council house for peanuts etc.

This has led to this real stigma about needing social housing, often the only social housing available is in sink estates that no one wants to move into.

Private rents are too high because the LL needs them set to a set level to pay the mortgage/insurance/make a bit of profit.

Surely rents on the whole are too high if the majority of HB claimants are in work?

Seems ludicrous not to build more affordable social housing yet pay millions in HB so people in work can afford to live somewhere meanwhile lining the pockets of rich landlords?

My SIL declared herself homeless at 16 as she didn't want to stay at home with her parents rules etc after a few months dossing on sofas she was given a 2 bed flat. After 3 years she bought the flat for 17K. A few years after that she sold it for 60K. Now on the surface you would think good on her but this typifies the problem. That flat is now gone from council stock, where is the next homeless girl or homeless family going to go? Oh they could privately rent paying twice as much as they would have done for the flat but that's ok well give them HB to cover the difference. There's the problem.

There's the problem indeed, kitty!

My inlaws bought their property on the right to buy scheme and they have done extremely well out of it and so will we when it's left to us...but on the flip side to that there's little/nothing for people who are struggling and it's a horrible problem. And anyone can end up in a position where they are on their arses - even those who think they've done what they need to do to protect themselves (from what I've read here and in the papers, a lot of people who were home owners, doing ok financially, not having to rely on any benefits, have found themselves on their arses).

If your on NWM or slightly above a £200 a month rent is doable. Under the right to buy scheme you could get a mortgage for 17K on NMW wouldn't you.

But you wouldn't get a mortgage on a 60-70k property on the free market and you would be struggling to find £350 a month rent for the exact same property.

I remember my aunt and uncle buying their council flat with their savings, as they had lived there 30 years they got a huge discount, I remember them showing us the 6K in cash and we were like at the amount of money. Same flat probably 80K now

chris 'correct because they're set by the market'
oh, my sides!

stupid, I realise, but:
2.5 million unemployed
housing shortage
unemployment+housing benefit paid to private landlords =£vast
cap private rents
use same people and same money to build social housing
too obvious?

It does affect disabled people - room exemption is purely discretionary and based on pretty limited criteria - and in the hands of councils who are having their budgets slashed.

And of course it affects people who are working. Working people on low incomes are entitled to housing benefit too, you know.

Also, there is a severe lack of smaller rented properties for people to move into. They're just not there. People who can ill afford it are being penalised for lack of housing.

I agree that it's a load of crap, but not for the same reasons you think it is.

I was not the councils fault they did not build more housing.

The act that made the right to buy also prohibited using the funds to build more.

That's sounds fantastic in principle Julia but would that then mean all the families in private renting moving out into the new LA housing stock and no one wanting to rent from the private LLs, in theory this should push the rents down and in turn deflate the housing market but would this lead to loads of negative equity? The government wouldn't want to upset the millionaire landlords would they at the expense of housing the poor.

And for info.

The ONLY group of disabled people who can obtain exemption are disabled children whose disability creates a unworkable disturbance to a child normally expected to share with them.

But they will not automatically be exempt they just have the right to ask to be.