To think that if your answer to complaining about Bedroom Tax is "get a smaller house", you are a bit thick?

[MarmaladeTwatkins]

Where IS this glut of smaller properties, just waiting to be filled by people being stung by the bedroom tax?

TWICE today I have heard supposedly intelligent people say "Well if they don't want to pay the bedroom tax, they need to move to a smaller house."

Fucking depressing. I think it earmarks you as being a bit hard of thinking if that is your solution. :(

All the more reason to allow my children a little bit if personal space then! If its our of your control its out of your control but to actually continue procreating when your children don't have any space of their own is utterly selfish.

Having a big family is therefore only an option if you're rich then. How many do you have filee?

I think though filee that there are times it doesn't go according to plan. For example a friend in a one bedroom flat decided with her DH that they could cope with one more child, give the children the large bedroom and buy a sofa bed for the living room. She didn't bank on a multiple pregnancy though! S there she was with a toddler and twins in a one bed flat......as both she and her husband had found work since being housed by the council she was able to move into a private let but had she not been in that position (ie a husband with a well paying job) it could have been awful.

In most areas ground floor flats are very easy to offload and they tend to be like golddust.

I think that's my biggest beef with this HB cut, there ARE no smaller properties and to date I can't see much evidence that the housing list is moving much as was the plan.

but filee do you provide your child with its own bathroom? and a swimming pool? and tennis courts? and ponies? no? appalling parenting!! (your words from upthread where you judged on what provisions a family have)

Kristal just replied to you on your other thread

Ground floor flats are easier...and especially if they have a garden to boot. It's anything above the ground floor which struggles....my friend has spent two years on a home swapper site....nobody wants her lovely fairly new build two bedroom place because it lacks a garden.

Like gold dust indeed though are the ground floor ones.

I remember seeing a young girl once being allocated a one bedroom place with her partner and new baby. It was a bungalow with a massive garden.....she will have no problem swapping to someone who wants to downsize but my friend on an upper floor with no garden will struggle.

Not rich, but surely it's selfish to have more if you're struggling to support the ones you have already. I certainly held off from having any until we felt financially secure. I'm not being pompous as I understand that some people will never feel totally financially secure and shouldnt be denied parenthood but yes, I think that should influence how many you have.

If the aim, really was about freeing up housing for those that needed it, it would have included the biggest group of under occupiers - pensioners.

They were excluded for nakedly political reasons. The whole scheme smacks of punishing the poor for their poverty and appeasing the Daily Mail, rather than freeing up housing.

I can't believe a swimming pool and tennis courts have been put in the same league as allowing your child a tiny bit of personal space. Speaks volumes it really does.

its not so much 'how many' you have.....more like the mix of sexes,which obviously,you cant control

I'm not sure where the idea that council/housing association rents are subsidised has come from, it's something that I read a lot not just on here but in the 'informed' press too. In most circumstances it is probable that the original construction of the homes were subsidised by government in some way particularly after both world wars, but over time the rents received by councils and increasingly by housing associations have more than covered these original costs. Many prefabs are still used as 'social housing' today. Currently, so-called 'affordable homes' (and for new tenants at rents set at 80% of the already inflated market rents this is hardly so) are constructed using monies paid by new build developers and from the rent profits from the social landlords. If you delve into the accounts of the local councils that still have their housing stocks you will find many that run these departments at a profit, using these receipts to subsidize other services. The housing associations also manage to cover costs such as repairs and staff and make enough rent 'profit'/revenue to be able to contribute towards the new-build social homes. It is only housing benefit itself that is taxpayer subsidised and this benefit is paid to not only some social tenants but private ones too. So you could say here that the taxpayer is really subsiding the profits and capital gains of the 'buy-to-let' landlords, of whom very few are guided by any form of social conscience.

no,but where do you draw the line filee,that's what i'm getting at!

Careful float you don't want to bring anything like 'facts' or 'reality' into this debate, when people out there get their knickers in a twist about an anonymous stranger having something that we should all be entitled to: a secure and affordable home.

I have no idea if social housing rents are artificially low or private rents too high. I suspect the latter, especially if a property has earned it's building and maintainance costs in rent over a number of years. The property I am in is 10 years old so probably doesn't fall into that category just yet.

But then if we want to talk about "subsidised housing" we need to remember that many home owners started by buying their council house at a substantial discount. Or they are the product of parents who did so....either way their purchase was subsidised.

I look after my HA owned house, it can never be purchased which I am grateful for as it will always provide housing for someone in need. That person may well be DS after me as he is autistic and might always need to call this place "home". Though would be nice to think he will be independent some day.

My parents bought their council house, my friend bought his one bedroom flat for £15k from the council some years ago when prices were lower. A discount of a huge amount.

YANBU OP - TBH one might as well extend the description 'hard of thinking' to those in the Coalition who thought up this policy fondly imagining that 'markets' work like some GCSE textbook. It was always obvious that what would happen was that most people would not be able to move, would try to absorb the cost thus sucking that demand out if the retail and services sector and making housing costs rise perversely whilst actively depressing the productive economy.

Most LA housing is 3 bedroom, there will be a surplus of 3 bed houses as many now move into 2 beds.
Its disgusting and very upsetting for many, not to mention the amount it will cost to move people. This gov are wasting so much money in their efforts to save it . Oh well thats what comes from a privileged education they become academic idiots, no common sense at all.

I wouldn't want to have more than 2 children in a 2 bedroom house, if I did find myself with more than 2 children in a 2 bed house I would make a plain as their parent to allow them the space they need to grow and develop as people in their own right. Obviously everyone's 'line' is drawn differently but for me, having 2 kids and one on the way in a 1 bed flat is terrible parenting. Purposefully overcrowding a flat or house so you can get another one is dreadful and people should take responsibility for themselves and their breeding. Or stop.

You can get a 2 bedroom flat in the Olympic Village for £154 per week. This is at least half the market rent.

www.housingmoves.org/housingmoves/CFEViewPropertyDetails.jsp

The system is absurd because it is not income related.

www.housingmoves.org/housingmoves/CFEViewPropertyDetails.jsp

"Why is it ridiculous for teenagers to move schools because their parents get a cut in benefit"

Just to answer that, as well as the issues that an upheaval causes, the school may offer different GCSE options, or not be able to fit the teen into an existing class, so this then cuts the amount the teen will sit. Not all schools follow the same curriculum.

Work experience options are also reduced, as is after school opportunities.

On Merseyside every housing provider has said that demand out numbers the supply, we did not need the bedroom tax.

Many people who are finding smaller properties are now having to claim more HB, as the new properties are more expensive, so it has cost the country more.

For years there has been a plan to knock down all of the blocks of flats that made up the majority of 1 and two bed social housing properties.

Those that haven't been demolished, have been sold to private LL's, who don't take benefit claimants, in theory they were supposed to rent to a number of disabled people, but could get out of that by the properties not being suitable and were not forced to make them suitable.

My area had improved by the renting of three bed houses to people without children (even those on benefits), we are in a high crime area, including gun crime. There was an overpopulation of teens with time on their hands and a little income.

Now we have even more boarded up properties, even at £75 a week for a three bed with gardens, all fully improved. Which means that the police patrols are now constant, which must cost more than the cuts have saved.

Housing strategies should be what that particular area needs, not national.

The main issue for me is though that we have lost many major employers in my region, TJ Hughes, Ethel Austins, Peacocks, JJB sports etc, why should you have to move just because you are made redundant and more and more employers are disappearing?

Should life be as it is for many in the UK today? I think not.

Compo Jake says another few facts too.

Excellent post float - it's not social sector housing that is 'subsidised', but private sector housing costs that have been artificially inflated (well beyond normal historical metrics) by speculation and profiteering.

Ah but horsetowater, once the cost of purchase and maintainance is paid for (which admittedly might take some years) then anything on top is profit. It's why people buy these "buy to let" places because once that mortgage is paid then the profit is yours to enjoy. In the case of an HA it might well fund building of new affordable homes.