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

YY longtime i think the same. The UK has been voting that way for at least the last thirty years.

Sometimes people will complain out of envy, some of the time that will be misguided, and sometimes people will complain because it's a government that runs the system so there's likely to be something worthy of complaining of.
It's also quite useful for the government to have people complaining about those with the least as it's a great diversion from what's going on at the top and that the government are enabling it.

Sorry that first para should have bee in bold (quote).

"Economics is not my strong point"

Yet your engaging in a discussion which is based on spending cuts,implimented as part of a very specific economic policy, which is based upon a very clear economic ideology.

The way in which you benefit from raising house prices is that your asett increases in value, and meants that the amount you owe becomes smaller in comparisson, reducing your risk, loan to asset value ratios are important in judging things like interest rates, remortgages etc etc. It works in your favour.

For renters, first time buyers and the poor, it merely increases their costs disprortionately. The higher the price of the house, the more rent will be needed to pay, the higher house prices go in an area, the more a landlord can charge because its desireable. It means that more of their income is paid to another party, lowering their standard of living, and actually meaning the economy doesn't grow as fast.

So, the policies benefit those with houses, giving them a vested interest. iT REALLY benefits those with lots of property.

The benefits of soceity that we pay tax for should be felt by all, not just to protect the interests of a few. Not socialism, but equity.

Yet your engaging in a discussion which is based on spending cuts,implimented as part of a very specific economic policy, which is based upon a very clear economic ideology.

Yes, because I'm a normal, functioning, contributing member of society so I have normal thoughts and opinions on the policies that effect my fellow citizens. I thought it was meant to be a good thing for the masses to engage in politics!

The way in which you benefit from raising house prices is that your asett increases in value, and meants that the amount you owe becomes smaller in comparisson, reducing your risk, loan to asset value ratios are important in judging things like interest rates, remortgages etc etc. It works in your favour.

I don't owe anything, but even if I did, I still don't see how there's any benefit until a property is sold. Until then, the value of a property is just a made up figure of what you might get if you sell and if you don't need to buy somewhere else that has gone up in value equally as much.

Ok, in the last 6 years we have had recession, which would normally see a deep fall in house prices, and then periods of low growth. Yet much of the housing market has grown at a faster rate than the economy. Without QE, help to buy etc the market would have fallen further and growth in prices would have been far smaller.

You benefit because of the actions of the government cause your assett to grow faster than inflation or the economy, meaning that when you do sell you will have far higher purchasing power than you would have.

As an individual who lives in a house the benefits are only realisable of you downsize, which you will do one day, or access some of the increased value in your house through arrangements with the bank. You benefit.

The more you own the more you benefit. Simple.

Also those who do owe have their debt reduced through inflation down to QE etc etc.

Sorry, still not seeing it as a benefit. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just genuinely not seeing a benefit that's worth having for average people like me that are neither wealthy or poor. And if it's not worth having then I find it hard to see why people would say that things like this are in favour of the apparently 'wealthy' (I don't think that someone is wealthy just because they own a house) to the detriment of the poor.

And if it's not worth having then I find it hard to see why people would say that things like this are in favour of the apparently 'wealthy' (I don't think that someone is wealthy just because they own a house) to the detriment of the poor.

It is (not blaming you!) to the detriment of the poor in the respect that in order to keep the housing market buoyant, housing policy is balanced to the benefit of home owners far more than renters. Renters on low incomes are worst hit by this because there is a severe lack of good quality housing in this area of the market and government are happy to let things continue in this fashion as they are well aware that building more social housing to accommodate those on low incomes will bring down housing demand and so bring down house prices.

Its worth having because it means that you, your future, and the future of your children is more secure due to increasing value of your asset. This allows you greater freedoms and protects you against some of the economic difficulties of the moment.

I don't think someone who owns a house is wealthy, but someone who owns more than one I think is getting there. It favours the wealthy because it makes them even more secure than anyone else.

So policies which favour in the majority older, more middle class voters (help to buy, inheritance tax etc etc) are implimented at the same time in which policies that are at the detriment of the young and poor ( HB cuts, Uni fees, tax credits, bedroom tax etc).

It has a massive effect, and although the benefits may not be seen by you to be tangible, it doesn't mean that they aren't.

At the very end of the fairy tale it becomes apparent that this situation is not the result of the "bedroom tax", but an individuals cock up.
The whole article is politically motivated, emotive crap, at its worst.

But most of the propaganda going the other way is politically motivated, emotive crap, all the benefit queen stories, documentaries and what not.

Longtimelurker, my asset has not grown as a result of QE, it still has two bedrooms.

redbinneo, you know what I meant...

Ok, I can see how it's detrimental to renters who have to pay more in rent if they're paying market value, but as individual people, we are all affected positively and negatively all at the same time.

I might have a house to live in, but it's not going to benefit my dc until I die, by which time they could well have grandchildren of their own. We are still negatively affected by things like tuition fees etc. These things are fluid, and I think I just get annoyed when it seems to be said that people like me are raking it in from the Tories when the reality for all but about 5% (if that) is very different.

I have repeatedly aid that it benefits a very small minority of the population but does benefit others in some ways too. You may not agree that it benefits you, but it does even in the way of security.

I certainly don't think you're raking it in as a result of Tory policy, but I do think they have quite successfully scared many homeowners into believing that their way is the only way to ensuring that their assets are secure and that if any other way of doing things (politically) is attempted it will all fall apart.
They've also conned people into believing that to sustain their quality of life that poorer people have to be disadvantaged, when this doesn't have to be the case. They have set about cutting left right and centre when some investment could have achieved the ends that they claim to desire.
Proper investment in training people into skilled trades that would enable more independence from state support and of course housing.

• Investment in housing.

I often feel that its distraction, almost sleight of hand dishonesty, look at what they've got without working for it, while we take a lot more, without working for it.

Surely the answer is to build more houses - and for social housing, that is the responsibility of councils and housing associations.
In the areas of most need, London, these are Labour dominated. So should the blame not be placed on the Labour party and their voters?

Because Carol, the profits from sales of social housong were not allowed to be used to build more social housing and many of them were used to plug gaps in funding in the 1980s. While yes, the administration of council housing is done locally, the funding for building it comes out of pots adminsitered by the National government and is handed over it terms of grants etc.

Also the Conservative government have been hacking at the funding given to local councils so much so that services have been massively effected. How do you think they can afford to do this.

So yes, the blame still lies with the Conservative partry, and their voters.

Sorry, don't think the conservatives were in power 1997-2010 when most of the rise in house prices was and housing benefit spending went from less than £15bn to over £22bn

But they were in power when the sell off of social housing was implemented and refused to let councils reinvest those funds in building new housing. A policy which was designed to allow the private sector to take up the slack and start building the housing required by the nation. However the P.S builders didn't do so, and the supply of housing was woefully short in the years following 1980. Driving up prices, this also then drove more and more renters into the private sector ( as there was less social housing available) paying private landlords mortgage costs, hence the increase in HB over time.

They also deregulated the financial services and mortgages allowing the rise of more buy to letters, took away regulations in the housing market.

the tories have a nasty havit of bvlaming Labour for everything, its just not true. Want to play some more Carol?

For example Carol the report "Right to buy to let" published in 2013 showed that around 52,000 homes in London formerly owned by local councils and sold under buy to let were now being let out by councils from private landlords, causing increases to the HB bill and showing incredibly poor value for money for tax payers.

Right to buy is the cause of the increase in the HB bill, not any Labour policy.

Oh, I love wiping the floor with a tory, its such good fun.

Not wiping the floor, I am just asking why the Labour party did nothing in 13 years in power, when house prices really increased.

They could have changed right to buy, they could have built more properties, they could have introduced caps, they could have done anything with the large majority they had, but instead they encouraged a debt fuelled house price boom, leading to a massive bust.

As this graph shows, real average house prices barely changed between 1979 and 1997, at less than £100,000 for an average house, compared to nearly twice that when Labour left office.