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

Scarlets is right, that's the problem. As well as the fact that in many cases people have moved to private sector housing that is more expensive. It seems rather illogical.

"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."

Ah the own two feet argument? So why then do we subsidise corporations that make large profits, actually paying them to invest in stuff that will benefit them the most? £98 Billion of it a year, far more than the £500 million saving originally quoted ( and subsequently discredited) by the DWP.

Why does our taxs system therefore favour the wealthy who benefit the most from society and impact regressively on the poor? Sorry the people back to work stories are few and far between, especially outside of London where there are far fewer jobs. If it were true then IDS and the DWP wouldn't be using false statistics to prove their point, they would have genuine data.

Jesus, I sound like a loon on here, but I'm really not a consipracy theorist or anything. This is not about deficit ( actually none of the govt cuts are), its not about housing stock, its about political point scoring. Its n

I have never understood why the Coalition excluded bed blocking elderly people fro these changes when there are huge numbers of poor families wanting to be housed. Why should Janet aged 65 stay in her 3 bed council house in London when her 5 children have left home years ago just because the Government wants to buy her vote? Why not say she can stay where she is but must accept a mother with with daughters into the house too (if we have a shortage of one beds)?

Two teenagers mothers with a new baby each could easily share a two bed flat just like their school friends who didn't get pregnant and are sofa surfing or flat sharing with friends do in most cities.

Cause it would lose them votes Janet.. this policy isn't about anything other than being seen to be tough on benefits "scroungers".

Yes but the raving stupidity of the bedroom tax is there isn't the necessary smaller housing available for people to move to

I think the people who say this in every thread on this subject are assuming that anyone in social housing has a right to remain there for life, even if that's at the expense of people who aren't in social housing, and have a greater need.

In other words, it's untrue, as soon as you realise that the people moving out could go into the private rented sector. That might be crap for them, but a family who are a better fit get the vacated property, so the end result is that greater good is being done with the available resources.

DH is disabled and has to sleep in the living room. We live in a small one bedroom flat and have to put a single putyouup bed in the living room every night.

DH is 65 We really need two bedrooms but we a. dont want the stress of a move because it wont do him any good.
b. DHs conditions will shorten his life.
c. which means i would then be subject to the bedroom tax if we were in a two bedroom place. Im 42.

So it affects ppl indirectly as well as directly.

Its bizarre that we live in a country where policies that benefit a very small number of people are allowed to be pushed through, inheritance tax changes for example will only effect the top 3 % of estates, and policies that inflict misery on many others are championed.

I don't understand at all why people back this, none of what is being implemented is to benefit the middle or the bottom but very small percentage at the top who have large salaries, inherited wealth.

People are aspirational though so expect to be in that better of category and also if you tax the rich too much there is less money generated to help the poor as tax perversely goes DOWN so it is a difficult balance. The big issue is that we are spending even after 5 years of a coaltion masses and masses more than we take in. It is not sustainable and the coaltion have been absolutely pathetic over this. They have not made inroads into that difference between spending and what they receive in at all.

Thing is though, its actually fine for a country to run a deficit, especially now when bond yields are low/interst rates are low and most of the debt that we have is owned by the BOE and the British populaton.

The running a country like a household myth that is propregated is utterly wrong and those that believe it are economically illiterate.

The other thing is that people are aspirational, thats fine, but they ut their own noses off to spite their faces. Tax cuts for the wealthy, increased subsidies for XYZ that benefit the elite, and corporation tax cuts only lead to one further thing. Cuts in public spending, that has been the great equaliser for opportunities.

Meritocracy in this country is at a low not seen since the 1920s, yet the middle all look at the poor and blame them, rather than the wealthy who are fixing it for themselves to stay that way.

It belies belief that people actually believe the tories crock of shit.

Exactly , we as a country should be borrowing , it's good for the economy. We also need policies that support trickle up economy not trickle down.

longtime should a country run a deficit for ever?
andnow how is borrowing good for the country?

Well it seemed ok in most years between 1945 and 2008 so why not now?

I think, and I will check, that there are only 4 -5 years in surplus in that entire time, 2 of which where under Blair and Brown.

Swallow the daft data at your peril.

And if its debt you want to know about, the last WW1 set of bonds, were paid off this year!

Misnomers, misinformation and misunderstandings everywhere.

Agree with all the above, but is it desirable? The chickens will come home to roost - IMF bailout in 1977 anyone?

and the IMF bailout had what long term effect? Within 10 years we had the Lawson boom, within 20 we had the start of the longest boom since the 1950s.

1977 was at the end of a long period of economic mismanagement, mostly under the Heath Tories.

OPEC, 3 day week, minors strike etc etc etc.

Also GPB exchange rate in 1945 was 4USD, now 1.5, compared to Germany 11DM in 1953, compared to 2 today, 1000 Yen in 1953 compared to 200 today.

So compared to the US, we have lost 4 times value, 5.5 times against Germany and 5 times against Japan.

Maybe if we hadn't run a deficit all that time, we would have more value in our country.

You're comparing the the US which runs the world's largest deficit and is the world's No 1 debtor?

You need also remember that GBP in 1945 was infuenced against demand for exports, what was Germany exporting at the time, in fact, Germany wasn't even one country at the time.

Stats see, use them at your peril.

Oh and btw, what has really done for us since 1945 is the sell off and assett stripping of our exporting industries.

Why does Germany do so well? Well one reason is that they make products that everyone wants to buy, two is that they make the components and the machines that make everything else everyone wants to buy.

1. Would be that since 2008 the Euro is at a low compared to other currencies and this has benefited German exports greatly, they would not have prospered so much if it had been DM.

1. They invest, long term, have good solid relations with unions and workers are treated well. Unlike fast buck Britain ( and the U.S) where everyone is waiting on just next years figures. In fact the Germans buy many patents registered in Britain because we can't get people to back them.

Come play again dearie, its fun.

Well we are - borrowing more than ever. Our borrowing went up in the last 12 months so Labour supporters on the thread must be very pleased. I'm not but the left should be going round with huge grins as we are getting more and more into debt.

However it woudl have been even higher under Labour. We have just pushed ahead of Germany by the way - www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2818602/Britain-ranked-prosperous-major-EU-country-says-Legatum-Institute.html

The nation spoke - we wanted the state not to spend beyond its means and we are fed up with supporting a massive welfare state and in particular claimants who do not work. Thankfully we got the Tories whose policies are sensible albeit not reducing the deficit (never mind the national debt) as a long term plan.

What is sensible about forcing people out of social housing and into smaller more expensive private housing - or even worse, very expensive temporary housing and b&b accomodation?

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.

But surely the concept behind this is that the frail 70yo should have been moved 15 years earlier when their last child moved out of home? Thus freeing up the house for a younger family to use the resource. I'm sure it will take time to trickle through, but eventually, as the current generation become the older generation, if they are used to living with the fact that they will have to move home several times over their lifetime, then it will just become normal and people will plan accordingly.

Every single political party except for the Tories would have abolished the bedroom tax if they had come into power at the last election.

I'm in a 3 bed, now DD has moved out I'm desperate to move but there are no 2 bed properties available and no help at all is offered by our HA.

I don't think there are easy answers to this problem and there will always be cases that hit the headlines. I am an Occupational Therapist and my job used to involve ensuring that people with disabilities moving into social housing or changing properties ,moved somewhere suitably adapted or adaptable. I also wrote reports to the local council to recommend adaptations so that people could access Disabled Facilities Grants. There were lots of situations I saw that frustrated me. Many elderly people living in 3/4 bedroomed houses asking for the baths to be removed and a level access shower put in because their mobility was deteriorating. I would discuss with them how a move to a more manageable bungalow might be sensible but often they would not want to move. There were cases where families had had a bedroom/bathroom built on to the house for a disabled child who had later passed away but the families would not move out and free that adapted property up for another family with a disabled child because after losing their child they did not then want to lose their house. I could always see both sides and the Council I worked with never forced the issue.
On a different but related note,there are many thousands of people with disabilities particularly elderly but not exclusively, who are unable to use the bath in their homes and are reliant on a flannel wash or even visiting a local day centre to use a shower facility. Some put up with this long term and some apply for adaptations to their bathroom. The man in this news story had already had his home adapted but having been forced to move could have had the new property adapted too. This might have taken a while but would have been agreed to given the level of need. He would also have been on full rate care and mobility componants of Disability Benefits which would have covered the extra rent about 6 times over.
Another interesting thing is that as an OT,one of the bits of equipment we used to recommend (although rarely) for very disabled people who were pretty much cared for in bed was a Water Genie www.geniecare.com/watergenie/
This was pretty much a paddling pool on the bed and for those who had no access to a shower with running water, this was a great thing.
There are always stories of people who had a difficult time but compared to many countries in this world we do at least offer housing and benefits and adaptations when needed, even if it can take some time. I would prefer to be living here than most other places.

He would also have been on full rate care and mobility componants of Disability Benefits which would have covered the extra rent about 6 times over.

Except perhaps the mobility component might have been paying for a motability vehicle and the care component might have been covering the additional costs of living with a severe disability - extra washing, extra heating and electricity, specialist dietary foods, medicines or additional continence supplies not provided by the NHS....

"The nation spoke - we wanted the state not to spend beyond its means and we are fed up with supporting a massive welfare state and in particular claimants who do not work. Thankfully we got the Tories whose policies are sensible albeit not reducing the deficit (never mind the national debt) as a long term plan."

What utter rubbish, the Tories won the election yes, but I wouldn't say winning 24% of the available vote the nation "speaking".

The debt is actually higher now due to the incompetence of the Tory management of the economy. The dramatic cuts in Government spending made in 2010 while the economy was growing meant that growth stopped, and the country went into a double dip, almost triple dip, recession and had the longest period of low growth and negative growth since before 1900.

You can cut spending all you like, but when it results in much much lower tax reciepts it means the deifict will continue.

Osborne then had to go back on himself and start spending on things like help to buy etc in order to get the economy moving, and actually really followed Alistair Darling's plans for the country. Remember the Omni Shambles budget and the "march of the makers"?

We should have been spending on job creation projects, infrastructure spending and the like, but we cut spending instead and also cut taxes to the rich, funny that isn't it.

As I said before the "living beyond our means" analogies do not work for state fiscal policies, don't quote Greece at me, thats a whole other kettle of fish.

Question: Why is it ok to subsidise grouse shooting to the tune of £100 million in grants, and the gun licenses that go along with it (£50 a pop, but £190 for police to do all the checks) but kick people out of their homes for something that doesn't seem to save much more than that?

Even with proportional representation the Tories woudl have got in. People wanted them and people love them. The fact the left are iong into meltdown does not mean most people are unhappy. I accept the voting system is not perfect - UKIP shoudl have had the 50 seats SNP got based on numbers of votes etc but without doubt the Tories won fair and square and most of us are very pleased.

Now all we need is Corbyn to get elected as leader and we are assured 10 years of Tory rule. It's going to be great.

another I agree the principle is fine, the application of it has been horrendous.