To wonder if Labour really will scrap the bedroom tax?

[GaryShitpeas]

Not going to go into why i am against it but I am. Doesn't affect me ATM as not on Hb but I probably will need to be in the future.

But I personally will be voting labour for this reason alone ....this is the first time I've ever voted (to my shame) because I want it gone. But I wonder if they'll actually keep their promise.....

What's unfair is the price of rent in the private sector, trying to raise the rent in social housing doesn't make it fair, just means its unaffordable for even more people

^^ This

Maybe you'd have to see them written - I would be scared to live on those estates and am very grateful I don't have to consider it.

You would do. Council estates often have shared outside space and many many are far from grim. 1000 pcm for a 3 bed is a steal in London if all it has is four walls.

£11648 pay rental paid out of taxed income us getting on for an amount approaching £14,000 per tax! thats a whopping amount if anyone's income

that doesn't matter. the point is that the rent is far lower than equivalent private housing. so social housing tenants get a double benefit. stronger protections and lower rent.

Exactly Wet. For a tiny floorplan, often no outside space, a grim neighbourhood, high crime, shoddy maintainence and london living costs on top.

while specific London neighbourhoods have high crime, London is remarkably safe. I am not sure if you are saying high crime because it's London or an estate, but neither imply high crime. We are both in the same position of not knowing the specifics of the particular dwelling in question. But go give a look. tell me how many 3 bed places you find for 1000pcm. My guess is literally 0.

Yes, normal people in jobs with no housing benefit and those not in social housing move regularly. We moved - first when I was pregnant, then 2 years later, then 2 years after that. That is normal life.

While I am not endorsing greengrow's sharing plan, I know many single people in good jobs in London and all but a tiny fraction share with people, and I mean non-partner non-family members, out of sheer economic need. I don't hear the loud voices for these people claiming "it's unfair" or that "we live in a rich country". In London, you live in a large expensive european capital. Space is tight for everyone.

You would do. Council estates often have shared outside space and many many are far from grim. 1000 pcm for a 3 bed is a steal in London if all it has is four walls.

I would do what?

Google the Winstanley estate in Clapham Junction. Would you use the shared outside space if you lived there? Or the Clapham Park estate nearby?

I don't think I'm of a particularly nervous disposition, but I would do almost anything to avoid raising my DC somewhere like that. Including what I do currently which is stretching myself to pay a LOT more than £1000 pcm for housing. Who cares if its a steal if you are surrounded by gang culture and muggings?

while specific London neighbourhoods have high crime, London is remarkably safe. I am not sure if you are saying high crime because it's London or an estate, but neither imply high crime

Well I've named the specific estates. I know them. I'm not sure what else I can say. It is the enormous London council estates that are the London crime hot spots, generally speaking.

We are both in the same position of not knowing the specifics of the particular dwelling in question. But go give a look. tell me how many 3 bed places you find for 1000pcm. My guess is literally 0.

The council rent policy is linked above. It applies to all their stock.

While I am not endorsing greengrow's sharing plan, I know many single people in good jobs in London and all but a tiny fraction share with people, and I mean non-partner non-family members, out of sheer economic need.

Most of us did that as young singletons. Greengrow is advocating it for families with children - rather different. She also seems to be envisioning it as some kind of billetig system whereby families have other familes deposited into their spare rooms by an outside agency.

I would do what?

Typo. I meant "You would too" as in you would also need to see them.

Well I've named the specific estates. I know them. I'm not sure what else I can say. It is the enormous London council estates that are the London crime hot spots, generally speaking.

I don't know your connection to the person who posted this, but I am certainly not sure what estate is being talked about. Now, as to the estates you mention, my point stands: that is cheap for that area. My guess is that you won't be able to find any other private rentals for that price, good neighbourhood or bad. It is therefore inexpensive by the local standards. My guess is there are no empty flats on that estate so they are charging either on or below what it's "worth".

the fact that you nor I would live there isn't relevant. It sounds like you can afford better so you pay for it.

Most of us did that as young singletons. Greengrow is advocating it for families with children - rather different

I know. That's why I am not crazy about the idea. But there seems to be this idea that everyone else in London should suffer the space squeeze except for social housing families. I have my own house and while we don't share with anyone we are very tempted to put DC's in the same room and rent out the newly spared bedroom. That's just what's going on nowadays in London. We are ALL squeezed and only the ultra rich are spared from that because of deep pockets. Most other people are in really tight spaces now.

You obviously aim to encourage the young mothers to share with their friends rather than complete strangers as happens with people who support themselves.

Anyway we are never going to agree on this thread. The bottom line is whichever party wins power next year there will be cuts like we have never seen before.

I know. That's why I am not crazy about the idea. But there seems to be this idea that everyone else in London should suffer the space squeeze except for social housing families.

The space standard in social housing is tiny. I was shocked when I read it. Then I got curious so I went on rightmove and looked at the floorplans of some ex-council flats on the big london council estates (which are changing hands for ££££ BTW) a lot of them are miniscule.

So even those social tenants who theoretically do have a spare room are not swanning about in acres of space.

And as PP said, siblings under 10 of same or opposite sex are expected sex are expected to share, but may not in practice, so a couple with a 5 year old DS and 8 year old DD in a tiny 3 bed flat are deemed to have a spare room. In practice, the DC may have a small single room each and the flat might be quite a squeeze all round with no outside space, but the statistics tell us they are underoccupying.

And what I can see around me is plenty of very comfortably housed people who bought large houses in the 90s or earlier and have loads of space. The issue is generational, noy universal or tenure-specific.

Greengrow why do you think 'young mothers' and 'people who support themselves' are two distinct and opposite groups?

Yes to be fair Arsenic the project I mentioned IS an intervention project for single mothers on extreme circumstances who might want and need the extra support. We have plenty of young single parents who DON'T need this. They generally get offered halfway accommodation initially and once something comes up they move to a more permanent tenancy.
I suppose I was thinking more of the young Mum who had this house before me. She was less than 23 and was offered this beautiful 2 bed house but had no skills to make a success of it. She built up massive rent arrears and was evicted....after trashing the house. Thing is that she had no appreciation of how fortunate she was to get this house and at such a young age.
Personally I'd like to see much more support for all young parents, single or otherwise to try and help them make a success of life wherever they live.
I don't think the idea of a single parent sharing with another single parent is the way forward though. Not least as you'd need to move people on very rapidly aa their babies grew.
The other issue is that most young single parents have a partner. He might not live with them but generally they want to be together with their baby. Halfway accommodation allows for that. Flat sharing just doesn't.

The space standard in social housing is tiny. I was shocked when I read it. Then I got curious so I went on rightmove and looked at the floorplans of some ex-council flats on the big london council estates (which are changing hands for ££££ BTW) a lot of them are miniscule.

So even those social tenants who theoretically do have a spare room are not swanning about in acres of space.

everything in London is tiny. The question is whether or not that's a good deal for a 3 bed. I just went to rightmove. There isn't a single 3 bed in that area for 1000pcm. Not one.

I know several single parents (and couples) with one child in one bedroom flats. They are not getting larger properties locally as there is a shortage of two beds. They are told to use the living room as another bedroom. Not simple if either parent works night shifts.

everything in London is tiny.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm sitting in Zone 2 now and I can see nothing but large four bedroom victorian house from my spot here at the window.

The question is whether or not that's a good deal for a 3 bed. I just went to rightmove. There isn't a single 3 bed in that area for 1000pcm. Not one.

No that's not the question. The question is, if you made the tenants move out purely because they were earning a shade too much to need HB to pay the £1000pcm rent, where would they go? And would they,as a consequence, need HB again?

Sorry -point about the proliferation of big victorian houses is many are converted into pretty roomy flats and others are occupied by just one or two people, yet others are packed to the gunnels.

There is a huge diversity of housing and tenures and housing situations in London.

They would have to slum it out in outer London like I do because I cannot afford to live in the middle or places like Watford and Luton. Yes they might be 5 miles from their mother but the rest of us who keep benefits claimants have to suffer such traumas.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm sitting in Zone 2 now and I can see nothing but large four bedroom victorian house from my spot here at the window.

I live in zone 2 too. what's the rent on those large four bed victorians? 1000pcm? Sign me up!

No that's not the question. The question is, if you made the tenants move out purely because they were earning a shade too much to need HB to pay the £1000pcm rent, where would they go? And would they,as a consequence, need HB again?

that's not what we are discussing in our little subthread. We were talking about that 1000pcm for a 3 bed in Wandsworth and the person living there say it wasn't a "giveaway". My point is that it's cheap for that local area, as evidenced by rightmove not having a single 3 bed dwelling in that price range.

However, as to your question, where would they go? Outside of Wandsworth, where subsidized rent isn't a 1000pcm, just like anyone who doesn't qualify for HB.

but rest of us who keep benefits claimants have to suffer such traumas.
You don't keep benefit claimants. The percentage of your tax that goes to benefit claimants is miniscule. Do you also resent the percentage of your tax that goes on DLA? Do you resent all on benefits or do you pick and choose?

You don't keep benefit claimants. The percentage of your tax that goes to benefit claimants is miniscule. Do you also resent the percentage of your tax that goes on DLA? Do you resent all on benefits or do you pick and choose?

as I said above, I think many people don't resent providing housing and food for people without means. What people resent is supporting people in better housing than they themselves could afford.

To find an equivalent rent they'd probably have to leave London, which would London with something of a staffing problem, if it happened on a mass scale.

And, no, the 'rest of us' aren't 'keeping' the benefit claimants. You don't know what tax the claimant has paid/ will pay over their life course. And if anyone is being'kept' it is the underpaying employers and overcharging LLs. The rental market is a bubble if it requires this scale of subsidisation to function.

That's unfortunate, written but it's a fact of life. It's also a fact of life that all local authority housing is not equal, ergo some is not better quality, better located, better looked after, just as with the rental market. The real problem with social housing was Thatcher selling it off, followed by Waldegrave's housing act. Neither fair, nor funny, despite the fact that the act stated that if you lived on a council estate you were likely to be a criminal!

What people resent is supporting people in better housing than they themselves could afford.

Are we still talking about the grim London council estates?

I know several single parents (and couples) with one child in one bedroom flats. They are not getting larger properties locally as there is a shortage of two beds. They are told to use the living room as another bedroom.

I grew up in a single parent family in what is now one of the most expensive areas to live in London. My mum had a lot of single mum friends, plenty of them lived in one bedroom flats with their children. All but one of the children I know who grew up like this are now heathy, functioning, contributing members of society, having had normal happy childhoods.

People with children living in one bedroom flats isn't a big deal.

Wish was advocating that the moment working council tenants could afford to pay their rent without HB assistance, they move on. Meaning, inevitably, that they would then have to claim HB assistance to pay a higher, private, rent. Where is the benefit in that.

Actually, Arsenic that wasn't what I advocating at all. I think tenancies should be reviewed regularly to ensure housing is being distributed according to need (i.e. to the most vulnerable – the very reason of their existence iirc).

There are some people who do not need to live in SH but continue to do so purely by dint of the fact that they have lived there their entire lives (generational). There are some people who live is SH who do not need to because they have good jobs, two cars, annual holidays etc and can/could afford to rent privately without having to claim housing benefit (I was one of these in the 90s when I lived in SH in London – the chance of SH came up so obviously I was going to snatch it up over higher PS rent, but I was a little more selfish then and there was more housing stock available).

Both groups could, theoretically, free up social housing for vulnerable people if they moved. If they choose not to move, then a top up on their rent (by way of charging for any spare room/s) would IMO be appropriate and help fund the shortfall which is having to be paid by those with the least.

The second option would, IMO, be better because I believe we should live as communities – and I feel the former would lead to segregation.
As I said – it isn’t aimed at everyone in SH not claiming HB – it’s aimed at those in SH who really do not need to be anymore.

All completely pie in the sky/unenforceable in all probability, but being a bit idealistic isn’t necessarily a bad thing is it?

Maybe I'm just confused about what you are saying wish.

But if the gist is that working SH tenants get charged more/twice or moved on, isn't that a tax on working or disincentive to work?

To find an equivalent rent they'd probably have to leave London, which would London with something of a staffing problem, if it happened on a mass scale.

Employers would have to pay more then, no? if you can't find staff you have to raise wages.

And, no, the 'rest of us' aren't 'keeping' the benefit claimants. You don't know what tax the claimant has paid/ will pay over their life course. And if anyone is being'kept' it is the underpaying employers and overcharging LLs.

we don't know what anyone has paid in tax, but we do know what they are paying for rent right now, and that's the issue. LLs can't "overcharge" unless there is a housing shortage. They can't just decide to charge more, anymore than an LL in Leeds can. And yes, employers should pay more. Raise the minimum wage then, and don't subsidise employees wages through benefits.