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.....

If you are lucky enough to have no financial problems, have had full employment and are firmly placed on the housing ladder it is easy to look at others who are struggling with a sense of superiority and a simplistic notion of how easy it is to work ones way up. It is simply not that easy but to understand that requires intelligence, empathy and humility.

I am lucky enough. but what you are talking about isn't quite the point. My parents weren't that well off at all, so I have sympathy for people who don't have as much as my family does. The point, however, is that the state shouldn't be providing luxuries for people. that should be left for individuals to choose, should they have the means. I am all for people who have few means to be housed, have healthcare and food, because those are all necessities. I am not for providing people with luxuries that I can't afford for my own family (I live in London, so a spare room is a massive luxury). this is why the system is broken. People feel like they are supporting people in better circumstances then themselves. As many people pro bedroom tax have said, they think that people with disabilities should be exempt, and I totally agree.

The problem is that sensible policies are being mixed with populist politics. The reason the tax has been such an abysmal failure (in terms of saving the government money) is that they have exempted the one and only group where it could actually make a big difference, and that's the elderly. that's precisely the group that should be downsizing, and is rather large in size.

Well said, pag.

Well, I'm voting Pagwatch

I actually think that social housing/council tenants who don't need/claim means tested benefits should be the ones paying for spare rooms if they have them (I wonder how many of them there are?).

It seems a bit bent to me that those who don't need financial help are exempt and those who do, aren't.

The whole idea is fundamentally daft IMO and it's created a horrible divide.

Some truly horrible and vile things being said on here by the usual suspects.

By the way Woowoo landlords do have legal protection/recourse in terms of renting out their properties. There are tenancy deposit schemes which any (reputable) landlord should be using (also protects tenants), so it's a bit disingenuous to say they have nothing.

I don't really think that my post 'wasn't the point'. I think you mean my post did not deal with the arguments you have made.
I think my post made exactly the point I wanted it to in response to some of the attitudes displayed on this thread.

I am also not sure who you are referring to when you say
"People feel like they are supporting people in better circumstances then themselves."
I don't feel like that. I think you mean some people.

Your point was that some people don't understand how the poor live. My point was that while this may be the case, I and most others aren't suggesting we snatch food from their mouths. It's the notion that what they have is a luxury, and the state shouldn't be funding luxuries.

You may not feel like that, but many people do. the mood in this country is that people at the top and bottom are doing well, but the middle is getting squeezed. I don't actually feel that way. But my point is that I, and many others, don't want to support someone in a bigger, better located house then they live themselves. Does that make sense?

By the way Woowoo landlords do have legal protection/recourse in terms of renting out their properties. There are tenancy deposit schemes which any (reputable) landlord should be using (also protects tenants), so it's a bit disingenuous to say they have nothing.

Yes, because one months deposit makes up for months and months of stolen rent and pays for all possible expenses when a tenant either cares for a property badly or chooses to trash the place.

Of course it doesn't, but you said they had nothing, which isn't true. There are legal enforcements too (section 21 I think?). FWIW, I don't think it's particularly fair on either side.

Luxury or necessity?

We have a two bed house. We have one baby and one DD (aged 9). Baby's cot bed in with us giving around 2 inch squeeze space around our bed. DD has the small, box room. An extra bedroom would not be a luxury, it's a necessity for comfortable living.

We're not in social housing btw. Just making a point.

Of course it doesn't, but you said they had nothing, which isn't true.

No I didn't. I said they get no support, which they don't. Section 21's exist, but landlords have to pay significant amounts of money for any support they get, so maybe I should have said they don't get any state support.

But they're running businesses so why should they? They can take out insurances and also have recourse to take legal action like any other businesses.

As far as I know, tenants don't have any such protection (not that this excuses vile people who trash rental properties).

Comfort isn't a necessity. Warmth and shelter is, but if you're talking about the comfort of your children having a bedroom each, then that's far from being an essential.

There's nothing wrong with children sharing bedrooms, and if you have a big age gap between your children that makes sharing uncomfortable for them, then the discomfort is because of a choice you made, not because it's wrong that taxes won't pay for your creature comforts.

The people at marks and spencer are running a business, that doesn't mean the police shouldn't help them out if people damage their stores or take their services without paying for them.

You are right that tenants have very little protection against bad landlords, but that just means that the same problem works both ways.

So continued discomfort is acceptable?

Do you know everything about individuals' circumstances when you talk about choice?

Five years ago I was at my lowest ebb, I lost everything with a marriage breakdown, I literally had nothing.
The local council housed me in a three bedroom maisonettes. I didn't need three bedrooms, I only needed two bedrooms biut such is the shortage of two bedroom properties in this area many people needing two beds ended up with three bedrooms.
The maisonettes was also on the local sink estate. Nobody wants to live there.
At the time I was in full time work, five years on I am on benefits as DS is autistic and needs lots of support.
Thankfully I am no longer on the sink estate as I definitely would NOT be able to downsize as nobody wants to move to that estate,
So I would be stuck with a benefit cut when I had no option to change my circumstances. Too many people are in the same boat..THAT is what's unfair about this.
Personally I will vote for anyone who can recognise this and the rest can go and take a hike. I definitely will NOT be voting for the heartless Tories.

which is why is said I don't think it's particularly fair on either side.

ffs!

That is why you move another mother and baby into the 3rd room in the 3 bed flat. I don't see what is wrong with that. If normal Londoners in full time work house share why should we protect the poor from that. If posters on here have children cramped and sharing rooms and children sleeping in their room because they are paying so much tax to keep benefits claimants with more rooms than those paying taxes have that is very unfair on the workers.

There has been huge support from both Labour and Tory supporters for many of these moves such as the bed/ room blocking measures. It is about time these people lives in the real world where house sharing is pretty normal. In fact where two female single parents work full time in London it can be a really good idea to rent a 2 bed flat together and have your child in your room with you as that saves on rent and you have a baby sitter on hand. It's a really good plan. Those who would not like my proposed change to that effect could always - heaven forfend get a job or take a second job to earn enough to afford to rent a place where they aren't sharing.

Writtenguarentee

I genuinely think you are misunderstanding me

I'm sorry - ill try again.

My point was not at all that some people don't understand what it's like to be poor, nor that everyone on one side of this discussion is trying to snatch food out of anyone's mouth.

This thread contains well made and coherently argued points from both 'sides' . I'm not demonising a point of view because I disagree with it, nor all of those who make it.

My point was that a few posters seem to see it as a virtue to spout nonsensical and simplistic 'why don't they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps' bollocks every time there is any kind of debate about the poor, the disabled or anyone less fortunate than them.
More particularly they present their ignorant guff as if it isillustrative of some kind of intellectual wisdom when ironically it always illustrates the exact opposite.

Wow. Many many many parents who work live in shared houses yet the poor think they are entitled to all their own space! This is what we have come to and why the nation is bankrupt.

It shouldn't be necessary to bring children up in student-style living arrangements in such a wealthy country.

The only reason that it ever is, is that the housing economy is completely skewed.

Attempts to blame the victims of the corrupt system for their own misfortune are just vile.

It shouldn't be necessary to bring children up in student-style living arrangements in such a wealthy country.

The only reason that it ever is, is that the housing economy is completely skewed.

Attempts to blame the victims of the corrupt system for their own misfortune are just vile

^^ this

"I actually think that social housing/council tenants who don't need/claim means tested benefits should be the ones paying for spare rooms if they have them (I wonder how many of them there are?).

It seems a bit bent to me that those who don't need financial help are exempt and those who do, aren't."

Goodness. No wonder some people support the bedroom tax if this is the sort of nonsense they believe.

You must realise that working social housing tenants who are not claiming HB will be paying full rent for the property they occupy- regardless of whether they have spare rooms or not.

It is not a tax. It is a cut in benefits so that rent is only paid for the size property a claimant needs.

Some one who is under-occupied but not claiming HB will be paying for the luxury of their spare room(s) via their rent.

I actually think that social housing/council tenants who don't need/claim means tested benefits should be the ones paying for spare rooms if they have them (I wonder how many of them there are?)

Oh my goodness, who said that??

In what way could rent payers possibly not be paying for the rooms in their homes!?

Can people not read or just not think?

Does everyone not understand that the bedroom tax is a restriction in the amount of housing benefit a tenant can claim?

If a tenant is paying their full rent themselves, then they are paying their full rent themselves.

No unfair advantage there

but are you seriously suggesting that single mothers should be forced to share accommodation?

'New-workhouse' is just round the corner perp