Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Bedroom tax will be costly disaster, says housing chief

999 replies

vivizone · 31/03/2013 06:51

I don't understand how they can implement it. When a council tenant signs the tenancy agreement, if bedroom tax is not mentioned, is it not illegal to implement it at a later date?

I don't see how it is enforceable. Let's say a tenant refuses to pay/can't pay. They then get evicted - wouldn't the council still be obliged to house them after eviction, especially if they have children?

The whole thing is a mess. Why so many changes all at the same time?!

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/30/bedroom-tax-disaster-housing-chief

Cost-cutting policy will push up benefit bill, cause social disruption and create widespread misery, say critics

Ministers came under new fire over benefit cuts last night as the independent body representing 1,200 English housing associations described the controversial bedroom tax as bad policy and bad economics that risks pushing up the £23bn annual housing benefit bill.

David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said the tax would harm the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. It comes into force this week alongside a range of other tax and benefit changes.

"The bedroom tax is one of these once-in-a-generation decisions that is wrong in every respect," he said. "It's bad policy, it's bad economics, it's bad for hundreds of thousands of ordinary people whose lives will be made difficult for no benefit ? and I think it's about to become profoundly bad politics."

His intervention came as opponents launched nationwide protests against the tax, which will hit 660,000 households with each losing an estimated average of £14 a week.

Crowds gathered in London's Trafalgar Square yesterday to protest against the measure, and simultaneous protests were being held in towns and cities across the UK. One protester, Sue Carter, 58, from Waltham Forest, told the Observer: "I'm a working single parent with a tiny boxroom and now I'm faced with the choice between food, heat or paying the bedroom tax. People have looked after their homes, improved them ? why should they be turfed out?"

Under the scheme, which is introduced tomorrow, people in social housing with one spare bedroom will have their housing benefit cut by 14%, while those with two or more unoccupied rooms will see it slashed by 25%.

Ministers say the tax, which David Cameron calls the "spare room subsidy", will encourage people to move to smaller properties and save around £480m a year from the spiralling housing benefit bill. But critics such as the National Housing Federation (NHF) argue that as well as causing social disruption, the move risks increasing costs to taxpayers because a shortage of smaller social housing properties may force many people to downsize into the more expensive private rented sector.

The federation's warnings came as charities said the combination of benefit cuts and tax rises coming in from this week will amount to a £2.3bn hit on family finances.

Labour said analysis of official figures showed average families would be £891 worse off in the new tax year as the changes ? including those to tax credits and housing benefits ? begin to bite.

Research by the NHF says that while there are currently 180,000 households that are "underoccupying two-bedroom homes", there are far fewer smaller properties in the social housing sector available to move into. Last year only 85,000 one-bedroom homes became available. The federation has calculated that if all those available places were taken up by people moving as a result of the "bedroom tax", the remaining 95,000 households would be faced with the choice of staying put and taking a cut in income, or renting a home in the private sector.

If all 95,000 moved into the private sector, it says the cost of housing benefit would increase by £143m, and by millions more if others among the remaining 480,000 affected chose to rent privately.

As well as the move on spare bedrooms, council tax benefit will be replaced from this week by a new system that will be run by English local authorities but on 10% less funding. Pensioners will be protected under the changes but, as a result, it is feared there will be a bigger burden on poor working-age adults. Restrictions on the uprating of a number of welfare payments will also hit millions of households, homelessness charity Crisis has warned.

Chief executive Leslie Morphy said: "Our poorest households face a bleak April as they struggle to budget for all these cuts coming at once. People are already cutting back on the essentials of food and heating but there is only so much they can do.

"The result will be misery ? cold rooms, longer queues at food banks, broken families, missed rent payments and yet more people facing homelessness ? devastating for those directly affected, but bad for us all."

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: "Our welfare reforms will improve the lives of some of the poorest families in our communities, with universal credit simplifying the complex myriad of benefits and making three million people better off. And by next year, we will have taken two million of the lowest earners out of paying tax altogether."

Crisis argues that homelessness is set to rise dramatically. This winter has already seen a rise of 31% in the numbers of rough sleepers across the country and a 20% rise in people seeking help with homelessness from their local authority in the past two years, according to Crisis.

ChartiesCharities are also concerned that the government-funded network of homelessness advisers in England is to be scrapped. The team of regional advisers and rough sleeper and youth specialists which have provided councils with expert guidance on meeting statutory homelessness duties since 2007 will be disbanded just as the bedroom tax comes in. Also being scrapped are the crisis loans and community care grants which provided a lifeline for people in financial crisis who needed essentials when moving to a new home.

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said: "This is the week when the whole country will see whose side David Cameron and George Osborne are really on and who is paying the price for their economic failure."

OP posts:
JakeBullet · 02/04/2013 08:45

No....and believe me she has other destructive behaviours too. If she didn't smoke she would maybe indulge one of those....they are cheaper....like cutting herself which a cigarette will stop her doing.

I don't smoke....as an abuse survivor....but my abuse took place with a loving family who helped me through it. Her family was a car wreck quite honestly.

I also know other families where there are no smokers who are going to struggle with this cut. They don't have much they can save money on...not even the cost of smoking.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:50

Really rhondajean ? So pasta, veg, tinned toms? £6??

twofingerstoGideon · 02/04/2013 09:04

Skinny and Flatbread, I do think you have completely derailed this thread with your poor-bashing. It seems you're happy to bring any subject into it (smoking, insomnia...) just to justify your 'argument' that the poor are feckless/entitled/unable to manage their budgets/have skewed priorities, etc.

Why not go and start a thread by yourselves where you can slag off the needy to your heart's content, where you can support each other in your misguided belief that the poor can be easily split into deserving/undeserving and congratulate yourselves on having such marvellous lives?

twofingerstoGideon · 02/04/2013 09:05

Really rhondajean ? So pasta, veg, tinned toms? £6?

Let them eat cake, eh?

flatbread · 02/04/2013 09:14

Really rhondajean ? So pasta, veg, tinned toms? £6?

Let them eat cake, eh?

Entitlement much?

This is what a lot of people eat. And it is healthy, what is not to like?

Rhonda - dried beans are less than a £1 for a bag. You only need half a bag for 4-5 people. Soak overnight. Cook in a slow cooker with carrots or another cheap seasonal veg and spices. Eat over a jacket potato or rice.

I can get a bag of 15 potatoes for £1 from my local farmer market. You will need less than half of that for a meal for 4.

Xenia · 02/04/2013 09:20

I only drink tap water. However no one is saying it is dead easy to survive on benefits. No one wants it to be or no one would bother to look for work ever. It needs to be hard and very nasty but enough to keep you alive. Hopefully these very light and very few cuts which are nothing like as much as is needed, will help some people work harder at finding work or making work.

The bottom line is that the cupboard is bare and the squeezed middle are sick to death of being the ones bearing the brunt. Even now benefits are going up 1% a year! Many many workers have not had a single pay rise for 5 years.

LittleAbruzzenBear · 02/04/2013 09:22

Jake your poor friend. Sad. To go through what she has, smoking is nothing. I am surprised the poor girl hasn't ended up on drugs, as many abuse victims do.

skinny whilst I think I get what you're saying, it is easy from where we are sitting to say people shouldn't smoke, for some there is no need, but you have to look at an individual's circumstances.

twofingerstoGideon · 02/04/2013 09:22

Skinny and Flatbread, I do think you have completely derailed this thread with your poor-bashing. It seems you're happy to bring any subject into it (smoking, insomnia...) just to justify your 'argument' that the poor are feckless/entitled/unable to manage their budgets/have skewed priorities, etc.

...and now nutrition.

flatbread · 02/04/2013 09:52

Many many workers have not had a single pay rise for 5 years

Many people have had a 10% or higher pay-cut over the last five years.

Yet they go about thir lives quietly, tightening their belt and adjusting to their circumstances.

The amount of whining on this thread is unbelievable. Major entitlement syndrome.

NicholasTeakozy · 02/04/2013 10:03

...an extra £2 on their rent... Are you for real Skinny? At the reduction rate of 14% for one extra bedroom that would mean a rental of about £17pw. Can you put up a link to thiese properties, then I'll go and rent one.

aufaniae · 02/04/2013 10:06

Skinny, I know I should leave this alone, but really, the idiocy of your arguments keeps dragging me back in.

You say "90% in homeless people sleeping rough" smoke.
Now, do you really think they are buying them from the shops at £9 (or even £4) a time?!

Or, possibly, doing one or more of the following:

  • relying on the kindness of strangers to give them spare fags / share fags with them
  • collecting and re-rolling buts they find on the streets or perhaps walking through pubs to pick up large buts left in ash trays
  • buying rolling tobacco and rolling the skinniest roll-ups they can to make it last
  • picking up still-smoking buts that commuters chuck on the floor
  • friendship groups sharing every fag they smoke if in company

(I have seen people do all of the above).

May I point out also that you were using a figure of 90% which is for homeless people to make a point about people paying rent. Do you not realise that makes you look a bit silly?

And also, the figures you quote actually go against your argument. If there is a large and consistent disparity between the well-off and deprived in terms of smoking rates, then that backs up the argument that it's either easier to get off the fags, you're less likely to get addicted in the first place or a combination of the two if you are well off. The figures seem to show that the better off you are, the easier it is.

Dawndonna · 02/04/2013 10:06

Fuck me, I'm so glad that Flatbread and Skinny aren't running this country. Or maybe there are.
We started off discussing the bedroom tax.
Flatbread insists that children with learning difficulties etc are not entitled to their own bedrooms and that people in overcrowded owner occupied housing manage. Of the three families where I know this to be the case actually use the sitting room as a bedroom at night, one is waiting for the planning permission to come through from the local authority, the extension will be paid for by the L.A. The third has an extension, paid for by the L.A. The first family are in fact in discussion with the OT about drawing up plans, this is standard practice. The Disability is not always or purely physical in these circumstances.
As for discussing the price of food and the smoking issue, apart from the fact you are way off topic, you are misguided.
Skinny Locally there are a very well off family, thick intellectually, but not in a business sense. One of their daughters is, academically extraordinarily bright, she's planning on running away in the summer to live with a friend so that she can take her A levels, her parents want her to understand the meaning of life and have insisted she leave school at sixteen and get a job to learn the realities of life. Do I know you?

pollypandemonium · 02/04/2013 10:11

Children with disabilities are entitled to their own bedrooms if their sibs are opposite sex and over 8. Families that need an overnight carer do get to keep a spare room.

aufaniae · 02/04/2013 10:19

I think it's time for this again:

The poor spend all the money. Isn?t it obvious?

Flatbread, skinny, Xenia etc, when I read articles like this I think of you.

Xenia · 02/04/2013 10:21

Indeed polly. The left have their own agenda so it suits them to misrepresent how these measures will work. The bottom line is that we should not give more housing than is needed when there are others in more need. Most people support this measure. I do not see why it is not extended to the old. you may get a lady of 60 in her 3 bed council house who lives alone for the next 40 years.

FergusSingsTheBlues · 02/04/2013 10:25

I wonder how many homeless families are campaigning against bedroom tax? How many children in BnB? You cant be take from welfare state without being at least a little flexible - whatever resources there are need to be split fairly.

My neighbours had four children in a one bedroom flat at one point. My friend has three children in a two bed property despite being on the list for years. I think people underestimate the amount of overcrowding in this country. Id happily move house if I were lucky enough to have an extra bedroom.

(We Have to forget of course why this country in in such a fkn mess re housing in the first place and just concentrate on trying to redistribute whatever is left although it is very frustrating that as usual the poor are paying for the crimes of the rich. But a welfare state it is at the end of the day.)

Dawndonna · 02/04/2013 10:33

As do the right Xenia.

FasterStronger · 02/04/2013 10:39

fergus' point is very interesting. How can someone who is not in adapted accommodation/isn't a carer justify not moving, even if it is to another location?

when homeless families could be better housed if social housing was better utilised?

pollypandemonium · 02/04/2013 10:39

I think they have changed the rule so that people that are over 60 now get to keep their spare rooms but those coming up to that age will lose them when they get older which is probably fair. However there is an inconsistency here because if it applies to new elderly tenants, it should also apply only all new tenants. It should be written into contracts when people get their tenancy that if someone leaves that they will have to pay extra.

As I said before I'm sure it's illegal and a case will be brought and it will be put down in history as another one of those Tory bright ideas that they didn't think through properly.

PeneloPeePitstop · 02/04/2013 10:39

Funny how certain posters on this thread just keep repeating stereotypes without sources but won't engage with someone who is pointing out that they don't fit that stereotype.

Says a lot about the strength of their argument.

aufaniae · 02/04/2013 10:43

Xenia, the government do not "give" housing to those on benefits.

Council properties are owned by the local authorities, who rent them to people (some on benefits, some not).

Do private LLs give their houses to their tenants? Of course not! They merely lease them. In the same way, the local authority is a landlord not a distributer of free houses!

If someone is paying rent to a council, then at the very least the money is coming back to the public purse (if it originated from benefits) or actually creating profit where the tenant is paying out of wages.

There are some people who can be said to have been given free houses by the government however. They are the private LLs who have been accepting government money via HB to pay their mortgages. They actually do get a property in their name out of this arrangement. HB represents a massive transfer of wealth from the public purse into private hands.

I think we'll agree that we have a problem with supply of properties. Surely there must be a better solution than one which leads to breaking up communities, making thousands homeless and pushing people further into poverty?

Oh hold on a minute, how about dealing with the supply side of the problem? If we built more council housing it would be an investment for the tax payer.

More council housing, if properly managed, would bring in profit for the public purse, drive down the HB bill being syphoned off to private LLs, help support solid communities, and be an attempt to tackle the problem of a shortage of housing. It would also create jobs and be a boost to the economy. What's not to like?

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 10:56

More council housing, if properly managed, would bring in profit for the public purse, drive down the HB bill being syphoned off to private LLs, help support solid communities, and be an attempt to tackle the problem of a shortage of housing. It would also create jobs and be a boost to the economy. What's not to like?

Agreed . But I was never in support of the selling of council housing.

FasterStronger · 02/04/2013 10:59

social housing is not profitable. it is subsidised by the state.

and you would never fulfil demand, as it would rise with supply.

lottieandmia · 02/04/2013 11:00

'The bottom line is that the cupboard is bare and the squeezed middle are sick to death of being the ones bearing the brunt.'

The cupboard is bare, so how is it that there is money available to build a railway system that we don't actually need?

flatbread · 02/04/2013 11:01

There are some people who can be said to have been given free houses by the government however. They are the private LLs who have been accepting government money via HB to pay their mortgages

Complete nonsense. Anyone who buys a house, takes out a mortgage is taking a risk. They do so for a return on investment and since councils do not pay more than market rates, there is no subsidy for the LL.

The public subsidy is for the welfare recipients. We as a society choose to do so, it is not a god-given right of benefit claimants. Some gratitude vs. entitlement would be appropriate.

In the same vein, Polly, it is laughable that you think council tenants have a legal right to life-long unchanged benefits. In case it has escaped your attention, private contracts, where people work for money or deposit in banks are being pared back with protections reduced. And you think someone on welfare is entitled to be shielded from these? Why exactly are they so privileged that their contracts cannot be renegotiated like everyone else's?

Finally, with regard to overcrowding. Friends from Tokyo, Mumbai etc. grew up in tiny one bed places with 5 or 6 family members. These are high earners with great education. It is a ridiculous claim that children need their own bedroom, and that the State owes this to people on welfare