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.....

and WORKING people cant afford their own rent because the LL are charging too much

a landlord can't simply decide to charge too much just like a house seller can't decide to just sell his house for more. the market has to sustain that price. if the landlord is "charging too much" nobody would rent it. the point is he can charge more because housing is scarce. that's the problem.

They just said on N ewes night that 7 people are chasing every rental property.

Quite a shocking statistic that I have trouble accepting.

Ive seen 3 programmes in the last week all talking about working class people who can no longer afford to rent in London as their rents have increased.

surely this situation is not sustainable. If workers cannot afford to live in the capital city who will provide services there?

it's getting quite scary. a bit Bladerunner!

If workers cannot afford to live in the capital city who will provide services there?

no one. or wages will go up.

Butbif wages go up then rents will go up.

It's a vicious circle.

Alternatively, people start moving out of London, which appears to be happening, then London rents fall to a more manageable level.

Who knows?

yup. if you want rents to come down, you need to build more houses.

So the man who has children visiting should have a spare.room for them? Really? His children should have 2 rooms? Because that's whats being said.

If you want more rooms than you need (ie main bedrooms for people actually living in your house) then get a job and pay for it. If there are no jobs in your area then move to somewhere there are.

Yes it's crappy to have to move to where.work is, but that's life.

I wanted to buy a house in Brighton, but no way could we afford it, so we live waaaay outside the city, should I get a subsidy because I 'want' to live there?

So there are options for people, moving into a smaller property can be done without the council or housing association finding you one. There are options, and people did have warning.
But the options are to move into somewhere that costs more and offers less in the way of security.

It's not the councils job to provide someone with a home though.
Local Authority Housing was created for exactly that purpose.

But the options are to move into somewhere that costs more and offers less in the way of security.

like most other people?

I don't understand why the solution to poor rental protections in the private sector is more social housing. Make private rentals more secure so everyone has secure tenancy.

I really don't like the existence of a parallel housing system. Ideally everyone would rent privately, though possibly with improvements in the rules to make it better than it is now for tenants, without going so far as to make it unattractive to landlords.

As an interim measure, maybe social housing waiting lists/criteria should be abolished and what is currently social housing should be rented to the highest bidder (i.e. at market prices.) If a millionaire wants to outbid someone on benefits for the right to live in home with an assured tenancy, they can.

People who say this would lead to a higher housing benefit bill are correct, but misrepresenting the change. The truth is not that the housing assistance bill will have gone up, but that a hidden part of it will have been brought into the open. The hidden part is the extent to which social rents are below the market rate. That rental income currently foregone is a subsidy to tenants.

A single system would (among other benefits) render the "bedroom tax" obsolete. The question would simply be in what circumstances (if any) the system should give someone on housing benefit extra cash to fund an additional bedroom.

The options aren't that amazing for anyone, you make it sound as if everyone can have what they want except for those who claim housing benefit while living in social housing.

And anyway, moving somewhere more expensive with less security isn't the only option, I saw a programme a few months ago that showed people turning down the alternative accommodation they were being offered because they'd rather stay in the accommodation they were already in. Some will have valid reason for that, some will do it out of choice because they want their extra room. That's fair enough, and those who genuinely need their extra rooms should be given what they need. But taxes shouldn't pay for people's housing choices. That's the whole point.

Local authority housing isn't available to everyone, so if the councils job was to provide everyone with a home, we'd all be lucky enough to get a council house. But we aren't, so I maintain that it isn't the councils job to provide someone with a home.

Woowoo

If you are found to be homeless through no fault of your own, then your local council does actually have a legal obligation to house you.

That's a pretty big if though isn't it?

Especially considering the number of people who get their parents to throw them out of home so that they can get council accommodation.

Either way, I'm not saying it's wrong that councils and the government should pay for housing for people that need it, it's obviously a good thing that we are very fortunate to have in this country. But let's not relate that to the government also paying for people to have spare bedrooms in their homes that they don't need.

rules to make it better than it is now for tenants, without going so far as to make it unattractive to landlords.

this country is out of step with other places. It is very comfortable for LLs here. I think there is plenty of room to make it better for tenants. One issue I think is that people here are unaware of how much better it is elsewhere.

It's not a tax. It's removing a subsidy, it's a slight reduction in taxpayers' money given to others.

Whether the spare room subsidy is a good or bad thing is a totally different issue and clearly needs more exemptions... but it's not a bloody tax!

Better rights for private tenants would be a very positive thing, but it is nt comfortable for landlords at all. They get no support whatsoever in dealing with thieving tenants who don't pay their rent or damage the property, so while we should absolutely make things fairer for tenants, we should also make them more responsible so that landlords have some worthwhile comeback when the tenants are in the wrong.

The present government are truly evil. I think they just want poor people to suffer and die off and they're actually having fun making it all happen. If they get in again I think things are going to get much, much worse for those at the bottom. The problem is a huge proportion of people in this country are brainwashed or mean enough to support it.

Labour are not perfect but I don't think they are anywhere near as cruel. It's worth voting for them.

' Ideally everyone would rent privately, though possibly with improvements in the rules to make it better than it is now for tenants, without going so far as to make it unattractive to landlords. '

Pigs might fly.

Yes, wanting people to pay for their own spare rooms that they don't actual need means I am mean and have been brainwashed.

That makes sense.

@woowoo sure. I wouldn't suggest just giving tenants a whole bunch of new rights. Address the problem as a whole.

My impression here is that good tenants have too few protections and it really is difficult to deal with bad tenants. But I think the balance is rather clear here. I was warned when renting here for the first time that LLs really take the piss and try and keep your deposit. I know a lot of people for which this has happened here and very few back in america.

I have lived in a number of different places and protections for tenants here are pretty much rock bottom in my experience.

WooWoo - making people who have no money pay for something they can't afford and probably make them homeless. You don't think that is a bad thing? You are either mean or brainwashed, pick one.

Labour would never have introduced the bedroom tax in the first place.

Labour did introduce the bedroom tax, in 2008, for private tenants.

I don't think making people pay for something they have and want is a bad thing, no.

People who need their spare rooms shouldn't have to pay for them. Disabled people shouldn't have to pay for them.

People who are healthy and of working age should have to pay for their luxuries, and spare rooms are luxuries.

I think we need to start putting poor people in camps. They shouldn't have homes at all. They are taking up too much space that could be used for proper people.

We can have large dormitories with bunk beds and they can be grateful for that. They've had it easy for too long.

They can still go to work from the camps. We'll arrange special buses. After all someone has to do the cleaning and stuff.

If god had meant poor people to have homes he'd have given them wealthy parents to get them started.

'People who need their spare rooms shouldn't have to pay for them. Disabled people shouldn't have to pay for them.'

But they do. And no government has changed that.

People who are 62 are exempt, and this is working age. Again, the government hasn't changed this.

No reform of rights for private tenants - still legal to say 'No children, no LHA/HB' - rip off fees from agents, no regulation of letting agents, a reform to challenge 'revenge evictions' (complain to the LL about needed repairs and he/she serves notice on you) was quashed.

Backonlybriefly

Is that you mr Cameron??