Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder if Labour really will scrap the bedroom tax?

285 replies

GaryShitpeas · 05/12/2014 16:34

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 Blush (to my shame) because I want it gone. But I wonder if they'll actually keep their promise.....

OP posts:
Delarosa · 07/12/2014 17:28

It should be scrapped

TsukuruTazaki · 07/12/2014 17:40

I doubt they will scrap it and personally I don't think they should.

I'm in favour of it.

Dawndonnaagain · 07/12/2014 18:14

No Carol there are a few and in the meantime, it's the disabled who are suffering. Again.

Dawndonnaagain · 07/12/2014 18:15

It concerns me a great deal that someone who reads Murakami can be so pro demonisation of the poor.

WooWooOwl · 07/12/2014 18:20

Disabled people who need an extra room could and should be given as much housing benefit as they need to cover their rent.

That doesn't mean everyone else in social housing should be given money to pay for rooms that are a luxury instead of a necessity.

LegoAdventCalendar · 07/12/2014 18:29

It doesn't save any money. It's another attempt to put more people into private-sector rentals - for which the LHA is more expensive - and line the pockets of BTL landlords even more.

As for swaps, they work the same way with those needing more bedrooms - plenty of people live in 3 bed flats but if they aren't on the ground floor with a garden, or a house, very few will take them.

TsukuruTazaki · 07/12/2014 19:55

Give over Dawndonna. I'm not demonising anyone.

Dawndonnaagain · 07/12/2014 20:05

You are in favour of the bedroom tax. A tax brought in to ensure that the poor suffer more cuts than the rich. It has nothing to do with equitable societies, Tsukuru

WooWooOwl · 07/12/2014 20:13

It might not save any money, but hopefully in a few years it will help to naturally ease the shortage of housing. People will start to leave their large family homes when they children fly the nest and move into smaller properties, and the family homes become available for the next generation.

It's not all about money, and it's certainly nothing to do with making the poor suffer just for the sake of it. That assumes that everyone who claims HB in the first place is poor, but wages are so low compared to the cost of living that you don't have to be poor to need help with rent.

And again, it's not a tax! It's people paying a bit of their own rent. There's a major difference.

LegoAdventCalendar · 07/12/2014 20:26

'It might not save any money, but hopefully in a few years it will help to naturally ease the shortage of housing. People will start to leave their large family homes when they children fly the nest and move into smaller properties, and the family homes become available for the next generation.'

Hahaha! No, by the time the kids fly the nest, given they can no longer claim any HB at all until 25, the occupants will be old enough to be exempt or too close to that to not stay put and stump up a few years.

The only thing that will ease the shortage of housing, not just in the social landlord sector but the private sector as well, is to build more housing, which no government will do because all are interested in keeping prices artificially propped up.

It's a policy designed to demonise the poor, and works very well in that respect, as only one poster, myself, brought up the fact that MPs claim taxpayer monies for rents on their second homes in London with no conditions on the number of bedrooms they need (and often enough, rent from mates so the mate gets his/her mortgage paid by you and me into the bargain), and the fact that if you pay your council/HA rent, no matter how low, then you can rattle about in however large a property you like whilst the private sector is shafted.

It's wag the dog at its finest and appears to be working a treat.

TsukuruTazaki · 07/12/2014 20:27

Even if that analysis of the bedroom tax were correct (it's not...) how would that equate to me demonising the poor? Hmm

There are a lot of hysterics around here.

Dawndonnaagain · 07/12/2014 20:30

It's a further tax on those least able to afford it, in many cases. It also penalises the disabled and adds to the insidious government line of shirker/worker. The Hard Working Tax Payer is a phrase frequently used by this government, it demonises those on benefits for whatever reason, hence the increase in disability hate crime.

LegoAdventCalendar · 07/12/2014 20:34

Because it's a reduction in benefits for those who can least afford it, particularly the disabled, who are not exempt, even those with disabled children. But hey, it makes the sheeple thick enough to fall for this 'We are a government of fairness' happy, so it works and keeps their eyes off the fact that 'us taxpayers' are being fleeced like hell by this government.

WooWooOwl · 07/12/2014 20:36

Lego, there is loads of house building going on around here. Too much IMO because I can't see how the roads and other infrastructure can support that many more people when there's already a shortage of school places etc.

Whether HB claimants will end up old enough to not bother moving by the time their children leave home depends on many things, but mostly how old they were when they gave birth. Plenty of people will have years in between their children leaving home and them becoming pensioners.

It's a policy designed to demonise the poor, and works very well in that respect, as only one poster, myself, brought up the fact that MPs claim taxpayer monies for rents on their second homes in London

In London where they have to be to do their jobs you mean? Anyway, you may well have a valid point about MPs expenses, but it don't see how you connect it to demonisation of the poor just by making them pay for their own non essentials.

Viviennemary · 07/12/2014 20:42

How can it possibly be a tax. It is not a tax. It is a reduction in benefit. To call it a tax is totally inaccurate and more than ridiculous. It will free up more houses for families in the long run which can only be a good thing.

LegoAdventCalendar · 07/12/2014 20:44

'In London where they have to be to do their jobs you mean? Anyway, you may well have a valid point about MPs expenses, but it don't see how you connect it to demonisation of the poor just by making them pay for their own non essentials.'

It's very simple: why are some sectors, MPs, not paying for their non-essentials and others are? MOD employees who have to work in London have a strict allowance, if they want more bedrooms for their family to stay, they have to make up the difference. So why is this one sector exempt, and everyone else not? Why are people on benefits singled out as those who must pay for non-essentials, but others who are also on benefits not?

Dawndonnaagain · 07/12/2014 20:47

In many cases, WooWoo a spare room is an essential.

effects on the disabled

costing more than it saves

Vivienne No, it isn't technically a tax. It is in effect though. That's why even the press call it a tax, despite the multiple requests from the government not to do so.

handcream · 07/12/2014 20:53

In many cases it isn't, the chap complaining he needed two spare bedrooms for his kids from different relationships - he was of course he claiming he was looking for a role, the 60 year old women living next door to my DB who has never worked residing in a 3 bed flat in Central London wanting to transfer it to her son who is also still looking for a 'job'

writtenguarantee · 07/12/2014 20:54

The man in my example ALREADY LIVES IN A ONE BED but he needs two beds and the bedroom tax would apply if he moved to a two bed. Being single and unemployed he can't afford the shortfall, i.e. the bedroom tax.

hmmmm. I am an immigrant. As such, when my family (not extended, I mean my parents) visits they can't just come for a weekend; they have to come for a few weeks. We too really need an extra bedroom for them. Should I expect the state to pay for that? Why not?

Yeah I get that saucyjack but then why not campaign to make it fairer for private tenants? Instead of ooh we've got it so shit, therefore let's make it shit for social tenants too (Not you specifically SJ, just people in general that think us in council housing have it far too good and would like to have us made worse off. you know, put our rent up to make us skinter, make our tenancies shorter so our dc suffer when they have to move house and schools all the time etc etc hmm)

the problem is if we just raise the standard of private rentals, then all private rent would have to be subsidised to the same rate the social housing is. Can we afford that? I would say private rentals should have the same protections in terms of evictions as people in social housing.

I don't believe that it's fair to penalise people for having an extra room unless they've been offered suitable alternative accommodation and given a financial incentive to move.

I agree. you shouldn't be penalised if nothing is available. But "nothing available" should be in a reasonably broad area.

they probably moved there ages ago when the housing market in central London wasn't as crazy as it is now. Is it right to effectively move the goal post and force them out of London after many years? I don't think it is.

why not? I don't see why people should support others to live in expensive areas. this boggles my mind. Where does this right to live in Kensington/Islington/whatever come from? Can i have that right too?

handcream · 07/12/2014 20:55

If I had 3 children and was living on benefits having split up with the father I wouldn't be bleating I was entitled to a 4 bed.

writtenguarantee · 07/12/2014 20:56

costing more than it saves

the reason it isn't working well is that we aren't targeting the biggest group that should be downsizing: pensioners.

Viviennemary · 07/12/2014 20:59

I think disabled people should have been exempt. And on the subject of pensioners yes I think they should come under the tax within reason. Say an age limit of 75 or thereabouts. Because there would only be an outcry like 90 year old forced to move from house they have lived in all their life.

handcream · 07/12/2014 21:00

I agree - definitely agree targeting the pensioners. Why should a single say 65 year old pensioner be entitled to stay in a 3-4 bed house just because she wants the GS to stay....

handcream · 07/12/2014 21:02

Vivienne is right. Must have a target age.

LegoAdventCalendar · 07/12/2014 21:07

Currently it's anyone age 62+ exempt.

Swipe left for the next trending thread