The bedroom tax

[jonicomelately]

How can anyone support a Government who inflict this on people? There are no words...

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/brutality-bedroom-tax-exposed-disgraceful-9911421

I couldn't begrudge someone of pension age staying in their social housing property if they've paid full rent on it without benefits for the whole of their working life.

But many homeowners and private renters have to downsize as they get older for various circumstances. I think the expectation that you are in a home for life is an unrealistic one.

Interesting that saucyjack uses the term 'spare room subsidy' to describe the bedroom tax. I hadn't heard that term used before, although a quick google suggests it's used mainly by the tory party in addition to telegraph and daily mail readers.

Interesting that saucyjack uses the term 'spare room subsidy' to describe the bedroom tax. I hadn't heard that term used before, although a quick google suggests it's used mainly by the tory party in addition to telegraph and daily mail readers.

I think the term "bedroom tax" is also interesting in that it is actually not a tax.

The term 'spare room subsidy' is a hell of a lot more accurate than the misleading and provocative term 'bedroom tax' that labour dreamt up.

Homeowners and private renters do have downsize sometimes, but there is an element of choice involved, and if people are paying for these things themselves, then it's not at all relevant to how much housing benefit people can claim.

If somebody who has paid a mortgage all of their lives and suddenly can't pay it either because they have become unemployed or because they have retired , discovered that their endowment won't cover the outstanding mortgage and have no means of paying it then they have to move - why should a similar policy not apply to retirees in social housing? If you are under occupying and need HB then why should you not move to a smaller social housing property if one is available?

That's fine for younger pensioners that are still fit and healthy, but it would seem mean and pointless to move a frail 70yo in declining health. No one who has been hit with 'bedroom tax' has to move, they do have the option of paying the rest of their rent themselves.

The difference between pensioners and younger people is that young people have some chance of getting a job to pay a little of their own rent, pensioners are unlikely to have that option.

It's not just about moving people, it's about getting people to pay some of their own rent when they have a bigger home than they need.

A frail 70 year old who is in declining health might be better off in a smaller more manageable property. You do realise that many old and frail homeowners have to move due to being forced to sell their homes to pay for their care fees (including care required to remain in a home of their own)?

I don't even agree with the bedroom tax in its current format but I don't agree that older people should have different rules to younger people. I just think that the bedroom tax should only apply to those who have been offered a smaller suitable social housing property and have refused to move into it (regardless of their age).

Yes, they might be better off in a small and more manageable property, but if they still have the mental capacity to make their own choices, then it would be unfair to decrease the amount of housing benefit they get when they have no ability to earn more money.

And yes, I do realise that old and frail homeowners are sometimes forced to sell their homes to pay for care. I think it's horrible and shouldn't happen. If people need care then I believe it should be paid for out of taxation.

I'd much rather taxes went to pay for care of the elderly than it pay for younger people who are healthy enough to work and pay some of their own rent to have spare bedrooms they don't need.

Older people should have different rules to younger people because they are too old to work and increase their incomes. Younger people don't have that problem.

Olds.. report me, they send you an email, scary! You don't "know" more than I do, I made a statement that is actually accurate. MOST people in social housing who are pensioners ARE in receipt of pension credit and HB but don't get the cut in HB so are exempt. There are people who are in social housing who are not, but the majority will be. Because you can point out an exception doesn't mean I'm wrong.

I agree that bedroom tax is a misnomer, however "spare room subsidy" is also wrong.

This is an attack on the poor and vulnerable, which the government have so far refused to show has actually saved any money. Because of the lack of 1 bed flats in many areas people are moving into places where the cost of HB actually rises.

If it applied to ALL it would be about making better use of housing stock,but it isn't. This is purely political point scoring, a big tick in the tory box from the chattering classes.

It is not an attack on the 'poor and vulnerable'. You don't have to be poor and vulnerable to have been allocated a three bedroom house when you only needed a two and to claim housing benefit.

It isn't just about saving money, and I think in the future it will make better use of housing stock, but these things take time to work out. It's unreasonable to expect it to happen instantly, and it's good when governments occasionally do things that will make a difference long term instead of just gaining them popularity while they are in office.

MaryPoppins not sure which part of google you got your figures from but the DWP's own figures show that two thirds of those affected by the bedroom tax have disabilities; 80% in Scotland. And I think the squabbles about what to call it are totally irrelevant: it's like people on the Titanic arguing about whether they've been hit by an 'iceberg' or an 'iceshelf' while the ship's going down: it doesn't matter what you call it, the effects are still the same.

Osolea, the problem comes when there are no places for people to move to, or as previous posters have said housing stock goes unused because people are unwilling to move in.

Finally, if it was really about use of housing stock it would include pensioners, and the other exempt people who are people who lived in their properties prior to 1996. Funny how when you add that in, it does only really effect the poor and vulnerable and doesn't effect many people likely to vote tory, oh and it pleases the vindictive nature of some too.

This is not "long term" planning. Good long term plannign would see ore social housing being built, not sold off, the money used to support help to buy could do this, but it was used to inflate another asset bubble prior to an election.

osolea then by the same token disabled people/ carers who are unable to work to increase their income, should be subject to different rules.

Osolea, it obviously is an attack on the poor and vulnerable, due to the fact that the rich and non-vulnerable aren't dependent on council housing and housing benefit.

Yes, these things can take time to work out. Why not therefore take the time to work it out properly, for example by putting in provisions that properly protect the disabled and those who would be particularly adversely affected by moving (e.g. due to children's schools); and by including provisions that sanctions won't operate unless and until LAs can point to a specific, realistic and reasonable alternative property that the tenants have been offered?

Seven, I completely agree that this shouldn't affect disabled people and those who need to provide a lot of care for them.

I also agree that there needs to be more smaller properties for people to move into, especially as it does start to effect those people who will begin having spare rooms in the next few years as their children move out and their housing benefit entitlement decreases.

But we don't need to start reducing housing benefit for people that are too old to do anything about increasing their earnings, and over time as those people pass away or move into sheltered accommodation, there will be more housing available for currently overcrowded families.

I don't think councils should have to be entirely responsible for finding people alternative accommodation if they are physically and mentally capable of doing that for themselves, (although I do see the problem with private accommodation costing more) and I don't think NT children having to move schools is a particularly 'adverse affect'.

Yes I agree that pensioners should not be subject to bedroom tax - because I don't think it should apply to anyone.
However I do think free travel passes, winter fuel allowance etc. should be means tested for pensioners. I would go as far as saying the basic state pension should be frozen. Obviously pension credits would need to be increased to ensure low income pensioners would not be affected.

If it doesn't apply to pensioners then it shouldn't apply to the disabled or actually to anyone.

I think there is a major problem in this country, far too many people jump up and down in fury at the meager benefits the poor get ( and in comparison to other countries they are meager), this isn't about getting people to stand on their own two feet etc its ideological policy.

The whole understanding of benefits on MN is terrible, if we are going to discuss this you need to understand just how many benefits/subsidies are paid and to whom.

The susbsidy to grouse moors was increased and now costs us nigh on £100 million a year, for a sport that is mainly indulged in by the 1 %, why can't they stand on their own two feet and just pay more for shooting?

£98 billion is paid in corporate welfare, subsidies and tax breaks. There are tax breaks for public schools, if you own art, if you have land, if you have savings.

We cut inheritance tax, we've cut the top rate of tax, capital gains stands lower than many other countries. The list goes on and on and on.

Tell me this is about housing stock, and the pensioner/ 20 years argument disproves it. Tell me it is about saving money, the above disproves it.

Its political, its to please all those on MN and the Daily Mail that behave like spoiled toddlers and look at the poor and go: " Look at what they've got,wah, wah, that's not fair."

If it doesn't apply to pensioners then it shouldn't apply to the disabled or actually to anyone.

Yes, because everyone, no matter how fit and healthy, have the same difficulties increasing their earnings as people too disabled or too old to work.

I think there is a major problem in this country, far too many people jump up and down in fury at the meager benefits the poor get ( and in comparison to other countries they are meager), this isn't about getting people to stand on their own two feet etc its ideological policy.

It depends which countries you are using for your comparisons, we are also extremely generous compared to some, and our people are no more important to humanity than people in other countries.

The susbsidy to grouse moors was increased and now costs us nigh on £100 million a year, for a sport that is mainly indulged in by the 1 %, why can't they stand on their own two feet and just pay more for shooting?

Can't say I know enough about this particular thing to judge, I may well disagree with it too if I knew more, but either way, you can have feelings on more than one issue at a time and grouse moors aren't really relevant to housing benefit.

Tax cuts are not a bad thing and they have benefitted poor people as well. Tax cuts are just letting people keep (mostly) a bit more of their own money while still getting revenue from them at the same time, so I don't have a problem with those.

I have a problem with tax cuts for the wealthy while the regressive taxes like VAT increase. Actually lots of research shows that where we tax the wealthy progressively, everybody prospers, but when we don't just the wealthy prosper.

I have a major problem subsidising a sport which is mainly indulged in by the very wealthy when the poor are being forced from their homes so yes it is a linked debate, if you don't know enough about the topic, don't engage in the argument.

"Yes, because everyone, no matter how fit and healthy, have the same difficulties increasing their earnings as people too disabled or too old to work."

Yes, because everyone who is poor is lazy and feckless aren't they? Just where are they supposed to increase their earnings and at what cost? Your statement there just shows that you believe in the perpetuated scroungers myth. Shall I repeat again the statistics that talk about the number of people receiving benefits in work?

In this country where zero hours contracts, low pay, short term contracts abide it is difficult. You can't just make more. The DWP statistics on this have been openly ridiculed in Parliament (check Hansard if you don't believe me) and by many of others for being false.

It is an attack on the poor, it shouldn't be allowed.

Oh and we have meager benefits in comparison with our European neighbours, I would only compare us to advanced societies with similar GDP and social security structures as ours.

the facts in this case would be :
as the person with disability had lived there before 1996 - he should have been protected from having to pay the extra
assuming the max disabled benefits - that would be an income of at least £250 per week
plus carers allowance
plus I think there are extra benefits added on to HB for tenants with disability
the maximum spare room subsidy is 25% for 2 or more spare rooms which suggests the rent is £100 a week - private renting would be much more and is similarly restricted to number of persons (without the security of tenure)

the above suggests this story should never have happened if all the checks had been correctly in place and I hope it is an isolated case that was picked up by the newspaper in question (and used to criticise the government).

There are lots of cases though, where people can't afford to pay the difference and either the council just operates in arrears or they get evicted. In a society as wealthy as ours this should not be happening!

Yes, because everyone who is poor is lazy and feckless aren't they?

I didn't say that, or imply it, and I not stupid so that's not what I believe.

But I do know people that have only started working because of the reductions in the benefits. If nothing had changed since the days of labour throwing money at people, then they would still be sitting at home all day doing nothing productive, and their lives are better for it. Admittedly this is in London where there is plenty of work available, and I know it's not like that everywhere.

But there was always something wrong with a country that allowed millions of people not to work and live very comfortably just because they had children. There was something wrong with a system that gave out free money to people to live in homes far bigger than they needed.

There have been problems with implementing the reduction on housing benefit that I too wish didn't happen, but I don't think we could or should have carried on encouraging people to take so little financial responsibility for themselves and their families.

Lack of small housing is a problem, as are elderly house-blockers. Most low-income people would probably prefer a small place that's cheaper to heat (and quicker to clean) but the stock is not there.

But there was always something wrong with a country that allowed millions of people not to work and live very comfortably just because they had children. There was something wrong with a system that gave out free money to people to live in homes far bigger than they needed.

Yes.