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. :(

well if one becomes a sahp....what then?

I have a three bedroom house and if I was getting housing benefit, I would have lost some of it, as my DCs are a girl and boy age 6 and 7.

They can apparently share a bedroom until my DD is 10. So 2 years and a few weeks time.

There are maybe not any two bed properties free right now, but I am willing to bet I could easily do a swap, maybe with my friend who has two sons and a daughter in a two bedroom flat.

All nice and simple but what happens when my DD is 10?

I tell you what happens, we get stuck in a two bedroom flat, with a DD age 10 and a DS age 9 and they have to share for years, maybe even until they leave home. Not going to happen.

Then the sahp gets maternity/paternity leave and then goes back to work... And ideally the couple save up before ttc to make up the shortfall.

Most of my friends with children under 5yo struggle a bit because of childcare costs/ loss of inconvenient because they become sahp for a bit. None of them have lost their homes because they planned in advance and/or had husbands or wives who earn enough to cover their bills for a bit.

Loss if income. Not loss if inconvenient!

I think I have addressed that by saying that if your circumstances later change and you and the 12 children you could afford at the time they were brought into the world, and you need help then have it and welcome to it.

circumstances can change for everyone but don't plan to have one or twelve children if at the time of planning you can't afford them.

Do you disagree with that Soul Sister? do you think people should have children when they know that at that time they can't afford them?

if so, why?

If one becomes a sahp when they can't afford to be and their children are healthy, then that is just taking the piss out of society and as soon as their last child is 18, they should have to pay the money back.

One wouldn't 'become a sahp' that is a luxury only afforded to those who are very rich or on a very low income. The middle earners simply don't get a choice.

One should only become a SAHP through choice if they can afford to do so. People should make themselves aware of childcare costs or financial implications of reducing to a single income household before deciding to have children.
I don't understand why it seems harsh to expect people to support their own children that they choose to have without doing what they can to maximise their income. I have no problem with people getting tax credits to top up their income, but I do take issue with people deliberately minimising their income and working hours just to get maximimum help from the state.
However, the thread was about bedroom tax so I'm not sure how it has turned into a thread about people's rights to be a SAHP.

Well no, they wouldn't have had more babies under those circumstances no. Of course not! They were worried sick about things.
They already had 3 children before this all happened. He worked in financial services and lost his job in the crash.

I don't see why we shouldn't support families like theirs short term?

To be clear, yes you should only become a sahp if you can afford to. Although ft childcare is pretty expensive and I know lots of people who are no better off for working...

Ft nursery where I am is £1600. Per month. Per child. For example!

Can I vote for MissMarple?!

YANBU

but we are talking about having more dc in social housing....and expecting/not expecting to be re housed in a larger property. not about 'affording' them as such.

If you are suggesting that people are having more chidren in cramped conditions who can zfford to get them out of that position, that is even mpre abbhorent

where am I suggesting that?

But I think that circumstances such as my friends, well they're the very circumstances were we should be handing out financial support. People who have found themselves temporarily struggling due to unforeseen circumstances.

Of course we should still be supporting those who are sick or are caring for others. Absolutely! A decent society needs to support its most vulnerable but the whole benefits thing is a mystery to me especially young couples with 3kids were neither of them work. Unless there are medical reasons then why would you want to? And why would you have 3 children if you have been in that situation since you had the first???

I was late 30s before we had our 1st. We did not even consider it before then as we both had so much debt from university and law school and we felt we needed a savings buffer just in case. I was we'll aware that this may have meant we had left it too late and were now not able to have kids but I felt it wasn't right to go ahead until we could be sure we were ok financially. I just don't understand it at all.

We need a massive overhaul with temporarily tops up low income to make it far more appealing than the benefits. Then people who want to work wouldn't be stuck in the cycle of having to stay there as otherwise they'd be worse off.

Anyway, I'm not anti the welfare state at all and don't want to turn this into a benefits bash as I know many people have absolutely no choice. I just don't understand the motivation or lack there of.

If you can afford children it means you can afford to house them comfortably. Seriously think you are being deliberately obtuse.

MissMarple

If we waited until we could afford children before having them, nobody would have any.
How many people know they won't be redundant, have an accident, partner leave them, etc. Surely by your standards unless you know these answers you don't know you can afford children.
We would have to have child care costs in place because who knows when gov will stop subsidised childcare, it didn't used to exist at all.
Things change, peoples situation changes. How could you ever be 100% sure you could afford it?

Not sure if that was actually to me or Missmarple.
Either way, Missmarple actually said that if you already had children then found yourself in dire circumstances you should be supported. The argument is having children, then having more children when you are already in the dire position beforehand.

Exactly mary

The other problem with downsizing or swapping is what MammaTJ brought up: you downsize with two or more children of different genders and then when yours grow they tell you, 'Tough, no properties available.'

So, yeah, those people will more than likely just stump up to cover the HB reduction.

And this is in addition to the fact that anyone over 61 is exempt, and people in that age range represent the largest number of under-occupiers.

Then you have that fact that, in many areas, there are precious few 1 and 2-bed properties and that few people who are looking to upsize are willing to take on a flat.

Of course none of us can be sure what is going to happen in the future, but if you can't afford to have the child from the start there is a great big clue that you may not be able to afford it in the future.

But Expat is correct. The allocation of housing is ridiculous and woefully inadequate. But then we had an adequate stock of council houses in the 1970s. I wonder what happened to them!?!?!?!?!?!