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.

How the AF do I come across as ungrateful Jolleigh?! Please enlighten me...

Nicholas - you may see it as penalising the poor. I see it as the government stopping paying for people on housing benefit to have spare rooms. I was raised and currently live in an area where you were seen to be daft if you went to work and the government has repeatedly failed to address those types of pockets of society. I've quite literally been asked by my neighbours why I bother to work the hours I do and my answer is always 'to make ends meet'. These pockets are now being addressed. There are thousands of areas like that around the country. Do I wish it had been executed better? Of course I do. I also wish there had been more exceptions built into the policy.

That said, there are a lot of people who aren't taking advantage of the system who are affected. And yes, those people also have a difficult decision to make. But in cases like Misspixie's , doesn't the fact that she's capable of absorbing the cost prove that although yes it may have been a difficult decision what to cut back on, the government were right in thinking that she's adult enough to make that decision for herself.

You are only allocated a council house on your needs.

You are not given a 3 bedrooms house unless you need one.

And there has never been a surplus either.

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

It could be a couple of reasons.

If it was after the LHA came in (off the top of my head I cannot remember when exactly this was but it has been for quite a few years) it would be because her house was over the amount allowed for the LHA band she was entitled to claim.

If it was before the LHA then it could be because the rent was high for the area and the type of property and the fair rent assor did a property inspection and stated the property had a unfair rent (basically the LL was over charging) the intention of these inspections was to force the LL to reduce the rent to a fair ammount but often they did not but it did limit what HB would pay as they would only pay the fair rent.

Or if she had a job for a few hours a week (not enough to qualify for The benefit that was before WTC but enough to go over the small earnings disregard) then it could be due to the means testing.

Obviously for the last two possiblities it could be a combo of them both.

And this problem was created when Thatcher sold all the council houses off.

i get the reason behind it, and to a point i agree with it.

HOWEVER . there isnt any places for people to move to, some will get priviet housing, but you know what.. it'll cost the govermeant MORE.

our town has allways had the rules they imposed, so hasnt really effected our town to the extent it will have others, we always had very strict rules on the ages children can share etc, its only the older but not oap age that have been hit and a few exceptions.

i recently had a latter thought, saying that they where thinking of taking the "tax" away and was asking for opions/interveiws. i was picked and shall be stating thzt its a vile thing to do, i see the need for a reform but this is not the way. diont p unish thouse who cant move, build more house for these people to move to and keep the rules, just not for thouse exsiting in the house.

You do in know that a lot of the older people living in CH were given their houses because of slum clearance,don't you?

a letter though..

Come on then Jolleigh please point out where I come across as ungrateful? I am more than aware how grateful I am to be living in a Country where they have safety nets like this in płace and have never knowingly implied anything of the sort ~

Usual, nowadays you might only be allocated a house according to your needs, but that wasn't the case for many people who are now over 61 having lived in the same house for decades.

It isn't penalising "the poor" anyway. It's just bringing one set of housing benefit claimants and social housing tenants more in line with the conditions imposed upon other housing benefits claimants and/or social housing tenants.

Besides which, once the policy becomes the norm in years to come, just as many families and children will benefit from it as it'll (hopefully) make it far less common for older adults to cling on to the bigger houses for life.

You were always only allocated a house according to your needs.

Its not a tax, just a reduction in benefits. A long term policy to ensure properties are not under occupied. If you want the luxury of an extra bedroom when not paying the rent yourself then obviously people and government want to address that.

If somebody who pays their own rent or mortgage wants an extra room, they they expect to have to pay more. This creates a more equal footing, still not enough but a good start. People will need to budget for the extra rent if they want to stay. Most families have to make cut backs to live in certain areas or get the number of bedrooms they want.

Sorry! Tried to correct a spelling mistake and it didnt end well!

missPixie

That would have happened to that lady even if she was not using it as a bedroom. A social LL cannot reclassify based on how the room is used unless it has been adapted by the LL to prevent its use for anything else( think tiny bedroom turned into a lift) but it can reclassify (only up for amount of bedrooms) if they decide they fancy it.

One big reason for this if if they have had to reclassify down on quite a few properties in an area then they will reclassify up on a few as well to make sure they do not go over an acceptable amount of downgrades and invite it appearing that they are doing so to get around the 'tax' as doing that threatens the entire gov HB subsidy they manage.

the poster upthread saying about the childminder

No your childminders rent is not subsidised if she is not getting any HB. Social housing rents are self supporting they are not a subsidy from the tax payer

You were always only allocated a house according to your needs.

That's just not true in my experience. When I was a child I had quite a few family members living in council accommodation, five of them had spare bedrooms, only one was over occupying.

Anyway, that's not really the point.

Those of you that object to absolutely everything about the 'bedroom tax' - do you really think it's right that people are given more money than they need to house themselves?

Do you really think it's wise to spend our limited amount of money on paying for people to have bigger houses than they actually need?

How would you feel about everyone being given money to house themselves, as long as they are on an income of say, less than £40,000? That way, everyone would be able to have an empty bedroom in their home, and socialists would be happy because everyone is being treated the same. That would be fair, right?

You called me ungrateful for no reason whatsoever. You cant point out where I come across as ungrateful because I havent. You wasnt questioning my need. Really? So the 'ticking all the boxes' and 'other people so desperately need' comments were saying what exactly? ~

Misspixie - I've actually explained all this quite clearly to you. Now if you don't mind, I'd much rather have a sensible discussion with people who aren't under the misguided impression that I'm talking about whether or not they're entitled to housing benefit.

the poster upthread saying about the childminder

No your childminders rent is not subsidised if she is not getting any HB. Social housing rents are self supporting they are not a subsidy from the tax payer

Actually I agree with the up-thread poster, I started a whole thread about this recently. The child-minder is being subsidised if her rent is less than it would be if the council decided to rent to the highest bidder.

To use the example from my other thread (which was started after seeing the "How to get a council house" program relating to Tower Hamlets) if the child-minder is paying £100 a week but the property is capable of generating £300 a week, then she is getting £200 of free housing and the council is losing £200 a week of rent.

From Wikipedia

According to one OECD definition, ?A subsidy is a measure that keeps prices for consumers below market levels, or keeps prices for producers above market levels or that reduces costs for both producers and consumers by giving direct or indirect support."

What do you mean you'll stay put? Are you now under the impression I'm telling you to leave?