To think if you're a fan of the bedroom tax

[NicholasTeakozy]

That means you are at best a spunktrumpet and at worst a cunt. short video and see what it's doing.

And, that's what's so absurd about this tax - in the last quarter the number of buy-to-let mortgages has shot up. Demand for private rentals means rental property is suddenly a very lucrative investment again. Where's the demand coming from? Yeah, that's right..... housing benefit claimants who are trying to move to avoid the bedroom tax.

The bedroom tax increases the proportion of people in social housing, at the expense of the private sector, so overall it should depress private rents. Maybe what you are seeing is landlords buying one-bedroom places, but eventually they will presumably be selling larger places, or dropping the rents.

It's all a bit, why should poor people have something I haven't got ,isn't it?

And considering most underoccopied houses are lived in my older people who are not subject to the tax, it's all a bit of a farce really.

Still I expect it will win the Tories a few votes ...

Yes I'm more than well aware of that MissPixieTrix, but they've never been able claim housing benefit for more bedrooms than they need so the new proposals are still fairer all round.

I agree it's been done to death. The principle is right but the implementation of the policy is wrong.

There should be a proviso whereby if you sign up to say you are prepared to move but that you are waiting for suitable alternative accommodation then you are exempt from the reduction. That way individuals aren't penalised because there are no smaller properties to move to.

The benefit system as a whole needs radical overhaul, the country is in a situation whereby people working need to be subsidised just to live. Effectively the tax payers are subsidising low wages and the natural economic balance between supply and demand is totally out of balance and it will not end well....

The policy reform is very sensible, why people in social housing should have vacant bedrooms is beyond me

My neice was moved from her 2 bedroom flat into a 3 bedroom house when her council sold off the land that the flats were on to developers. There were 5 other families in each block and 3 blocks. As far as I am aware they were all moved into the 3 bed new builds.

She didn't ask for 3 beds, there were no 2 beds available.

Now she is to be 'charged' £14.00 per week for her 'extra' bedroom unless she can find someone to swap. To date she has been unsucessful.

That's why my neice has a vacant bedroom - and I'm sure she's not the only one in this position.

I dont think anybody has. When someone can explain to me why my Mum was paying a shortfall when she was privately renting a 2bed with 2DCs. Then I will say it is fair. It is not. Simply because there just isn't the smaller properties for those 'UnderOccupying' to move into. There is actually an Indefinate wait in my area now for a 2bed house. ~

If this "tax" was really about freeing up larger properties for social housing then why does it only apply to those claiming benefits / housing benefits?

Social housing isn't just for poor people, and private isn't just for better-off, it's all just housing, and those who can afford to pay for more than they "need" with their own money are allowed to.

Since the "tax" is a reduction in housing benefit, obviously it doesn't affect those who don't receive it in the first place.

On the other hand, it's illogical that those who rent social housing get housing benefit for spare rooms when those who rent privately don't. This change fixes that anomaly. That it will also increase the occupancy of social housing is just a beneficial side-effect.

The reason I think the policy is bullshit is because they've excluded people over the age of 61 but they've included disabled people who are equally - if not more - vulnerable. The other reason I think this policy is bullshit is because where are all these smaller properties for people to move into?

I have written endlessly to my MP who, to his credit, does reply but rambles in politics speak and defends the policy. I work for a disability organisation - we have a huge campaign at the moment, have appeared on Daybreak and are still in discussions about how we can move forward with this. Our partner housing organisation is swamped and underfunded and anyway, referring our clients to them is not always going to resolve the issue. We have a helpline and receive about 5 calls a day from disabled people in our borough who are experiencing a reduction in their HB due to being under occupied. Many of these people are already experiencing social isolation, poverty as a result of their disability and lack of access to the local community - how is uprooting them going to help? Also, what is the cost of finding suitable properties that are fully accessible for disabled people - ramps, stair lifts, walk in showers? Oh and again, where are all these smaller properties?

Misspixie - yes you're one of the unfortunate people affected by the changes. However, if you weren't lucky enough to have managed to get social housing and be in receipt of housing benefit, you'd have had to do what the rest of us do...downsize to make ends meet. I've been in the position where I've had to downsize. Yes, it's hard. As I've said previously on this thread, write to your local councillor if you feel this passionately because simply voting against tories won't change this reform.

Nicolas - I'm assuming you don't mean personal attacks in the sense of calling people cunts based upon them having a different opinion to you?

It's quite odd really...those of us who agree with the reform are willing to admit that some people get a really raw deal out of this. We're not daft. But the fact is, reforms like this are always going to have some negative effects. And there was a problem that needed solving. The government have taken a stab at it...if you think there's a better way, get involved and get yourselves heard. Seems like your numbers are big enough that if all if you did what you can you'd be difficult to ignore.

Precisely usualsuspect I can count on both hands how many middle aged or Pensioner couples are currently living in 2 or 3bed properties on my Street. Now I'm NOT for one minute proposing we kick them all out of the homes they have lived in for many years before I get flamed. I'm just pointing out the flaws in this Policy when as Usual so rightly put it most of them who are actually underoccupying are exempt ~

I have read all these comments with interest, and can appreciate that this is all flawed from the outset if there are indeed no 1/2 bedroom flats available for downsizing. I also think it's pretty shite and illogical to exclude over 61's while including disabled people (obviously pandering to voting blocks).

On the other hand, I think it's unrealistic to dismiss as irrelevant the fact that in large swathes of the country, well-off people working extremely long hours to pay for extremely expensive flats simply can't afford a guest room. I know a pretty well-off couple going through a divorce in London right now and they're having a nightmare of a time with the whole bedroom issue because they can't afford two flats between the two parents that have adequate bedrooms for the two kids (a boy and a girl who are approaching the age where they can't share) and they're having to make hard decisions.

Jolleigh I did. I also had someone come out to measure Ds's bedroom and it was 1sq foot short of the requirements to be reclassified. I decided to pay it as I'm not planning to spend the rest of my life on Benefits (got this house after fleeing a violent relationship so yes I feel really lucky in being given a Social Housing Property ). I'm in a position where I have chosen and budgeted to pay it. After all if you think about how much it costs to move the moving costs alone would probably pay a years 'Tax'. Some people either havent got that choice or the sense for want of a better word to do this or think about it in this manner ~

Misspixie - so you don't feel lucky living in a country that has safety nets like the benefits system in place? I certainly do. And frankly I'm appalled that you clearly don't feel lucky to be getting the financial help that others who don't tick certain boxes so desperately need.

There are more than enough properties to downsize to (certainly round here), but obviously they won't just be lying around empty.

People need to be on exchange lists or homeswapping websites if they are wanting to find more appropriately sized properties.

I love the idea that, by disagreeing on MN with a government policy, you are assumed to be an arm chair politian with not active involvement in local and national politics

not in my case

here's a little reality check - so you see how people are trapped in under occupied homes through no fault of their own

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/big-lie-behind-the-bedroom-tax-families-trapped-with-nowhere-to-move-face-penalty-for-having-spare-room-8745597.html

If this "tax" was really about freeing up larger properties for social housing then why does it only apply to those claiming benefits/housing benefits?

Because you can't reduce the amount someone gets in benefits if they don't claim any benefits, obviously.

I understand that this policy is having a very negative effect on many people, and I would like to see the exemption extended to disabled people who have a clear need to stay where they are. They should be assessed on a case by case basis.

But surely it's not hard to see that we shouldn't be giving out money to people for something they don't actually need?

If we wanted to make things fairer to everyone in a socialist type way without implementing the housing benefit reduction, then we would have to start giving out more money to people who don't really need it so that they can have a spare bedroom too. Perhaps the government should step in and pay out whatever anyone needs to be able to keep affording their privately owned or rented home as well? Would that be better for the country?

I know a couple of people who have been affected by this policy, they have just paid the increase without it having too dramatic an effect on their lives. They have had to stop buying things they would normally buy, but nothing that they can't live without. They both recieve enough in child tax credits to be able to cover the shortfall.

I think in the long run this bedroom tax is the government shooting its self in the foot, those that need a smaller house and cant get one from local HA or council will be able to rent privately thus ensuring they get all their rent paid even though its at a much higher rate therefor costing the council more in housing benefit. How can this be a better way to do it.

As others note, the idea is sound but the execution is badly flawed. For instance, was it assumed that come the deadline everyone would just easily swap houses and all end up in the right-sized house?

as always, our politicians need to see the obvious and do something about it. Such as exempting the disabled who need carer accommodation, exempting those who are clearly trying to move but where there is nothing available and so on.

gordy - it's not an assumption when everyone but you has admitted they're not.

And nobody was assigning blame as to why some people are in houses that are too big (by the new standards). I think by now we've managed to establish that yes, some people are unfairly affected.

See that's what I mean why be appalled? Where did I ever say I didnt feel lucky? Did you even read all of my Post? You said I should count myself lucky to which I replied the circumstances preluding how I got lucky enough as you put it to be placed in Social Housing. ~

Nicolas - I'm assuming you don't mean personal attacks in the sense of calling people cunts based upon them having a different opinion to you?

Only if you agree that penalising the poor - again - is the right way to run a country, then yes. Loads of people disagree with me on many things, most of them aren't cunts. :) HTH.

Broken Isnt that why they imposed a Benefits Cap?...

The thing about people over 61 being exempt will work itself out eventually when these under occupying older people either die or move into care homes.

No policy ever achieves its aim overnight, or within a couple of years, bit in the long term I think this policy will dramatically reduce under occupancy. People will start trying to downsize as soon as their children have left home and settled elsewhere, which is something many people in private accommodation already do. Or, they will have the choice to pay their rent themselves and stay put, which is fair enough.

This is a problem that was created because of people being given the expectation of being able to stay in a family sized home for the rest of their lives regardless of whether they needed it or not. If social housing had only ever been allocated according to need in the first place when we had a surplus, it wouldn't be a problem and social tenants would have expected to move according to their needs.

Only if you agree that penalising the poor - again - is the right way to run a country, then yes

This policy penalises the poor no more than the previous policy penalises the not quite so poor.