Can anyone link to a rational explanation of bedroom tax from the right?

[specialmagiclady]

I mean, something with numbers and, you know, evidence? I have seen lots of reasoned argument against it and so far, so unbelievably livid and enraged.

In the interests of balance, I'd like to see some (I repeat) reasoned and evidence-based comment from someone intelligent who thinks it's a good idea.

Thank you

[Talkinpeace]

ttosca
The deficit was caused by the financial crisis - which is global in nature. It wasn't caused by spending too much on schools and hospitals.

Sorry but that is just factually incorrect.
For every year that Gordon Brown was chancellor he increased government spending on the basis that future tax receipts would rise to balance it. But for every single year that Labour were in power, actual income fell short of his predictions.
But rather than cut back spending to match what was coming in, Broon kept spending faster and faster - especially once he became prime minister (which was AFTER the financial merry go round had come to a shuddering halt).

Broon merrily borrowed from our children to give our parents nice treats.
That has to be undone.

The methods being used by Cameroon and Gideon are crass and iniquitous, but the structural deficit HAS to be sorted out somehow.

[ivehadaverybadday]

niceguy. In my job as an OT I work with lots of families where one spouse has such a severe disability that it's not feasible at all for their partner to slept in the same bedroom, and that same partner is the full time carer. Often in these situations the property will have been adapted, at the councils expense, to suit the resident. So they will get a discretionary grant. But for how long? And the discretionary pot is finite, so once it's gone, it's gone, and it may not be enough to cover all these special cases. Please understand that some people's lives are not as straightforward as you think, and that many of those people are currently terrified.

[ttosca]

Talkingpeace-

Sorry, but you are incorrect.

Government spending may have increased year on year during Gordon Brown's time in power, but that was not the cause of the financial crisis. Deregulation and casino banking was the cause of the financial crisis.

The deficit before the financial crisis was just under 3%. After the financial crisis occurred, the deficit increased to over 11% in just one year.

You will note that the 2008 crisis was global in nature. If it were merely UK government spending which was the cause, then it would not have been global in nature.

What happened was that the financial crisis costs the government billions in bailout money. Most importantly, though, it caused a recession. The recession meant that tax receipts dropped dramatically, and the welfare bill shot up due to unemployment. Of course, under these conditions the deficit will increase - government revenue has dropped dramatically.

The recession also means that more unemployed people. Apart from the welfare bill, it means fewer people have money to spend, and there is less job security, so there is less demand in the economy.

The methods being used by Cameroon and Gideon are crass and iniquitous, but the structural deficit HAS to be sorted out somehow.

They're not just 'crass and iniquitous', and they're not just immoral, but they're actually counter-productive. That is, they are actually making the economic situation worse.

The UK has experienced no growth since 2008 and has performed worse on average than many of our european neighbours in terms of growth. We may even be heading for a triple-dip recession. Today, once again, the IMF warned that the austerity policies are harming growth and told Osbourne to let up on the bloodletting.

So the austerity measures are not just cruel and immoral, but they're making the situation far far worse.

Other countries which have taken a more Keynesian approach of public investment have seen their economies improve. The UK, on the other hand, is spiraling down in to depression.

[Mrsdavidcaruso]

dotnet
Yes it stinks that people who have been bought up in an area and have made friends have to move. BUT people who rent in the private sector or buy have been doing that for years.

I was bought up in a council house but when I got married because we had no DCs and OH and I were earning reasonable wages we are not entitled to a council place we could not afford to rent in the area so we had to move away from our families, community and friends. After years of paying rent and saving for a deposit on our own place we decided to buy, yet again we had to move from the area we loved and the friends we made as we could not afford house prices in the area.

So thats TWICE we had to move whilst at the same time friends who were earning less or who had DCs were allocated Council houses in the area we grew up in and where my parents still live. Well that's not fair is it?

To say 'you don't treat people like this' infers that council house dwellers are being asked to do something others don't have to, when in fact they are being told they may have to do something that 1000s of other people
have to do as a matter or course.

I agree that there are problems with smaller properties and I agree that disabled people and the elderly should not have to move from the communities which offer them support.

But I do not agree that it is unfair to move the vast majority of council house dwellers just because 'they have always lived there'

[ttosca]

Where are they going to move to when there aren't enough houses with fewer rooms, Mrsdavidcaruso?

[Mrsdavidcaruso]

As I have said in my post ttosca I agree there are problems, with smaller properties but the general consensus of opinion that social housing tenants should not be required to move just because they have lived in an area all their lives is wrong considering people who do not get social housing and who rent and buy without HB have to do so.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

There's got to be scope for setting up a house-swapping scheme if it doesn't exist already. People with spare rooms on the one hand and those who are overcrowded on the other.

[ttosca]

Mrsdavidcaruso-

As I have said in my post ttosca I agree there are problems, with smaller properties but the general consensus of opinion that social housing tenants should not be required to move just because they have lived in an area all their lives is wrong considering people who do not get social housing and who rent and buy without HB have to do so.

These are not 'minor' points. They are central to the issue.

Firstly, where are they going to move if there are no suitable houses? What do you expect to happen when they can't find a house? Are you OK with making families homeless?

Secondly, the policy is in effect punishing people for actions for which they had little or no choice in the first place. Remember, if there are no houses to move in to now, how could they make the choice to move in to a 'suitable' house in the first place?

So how are they - anyone, as a point of principle - morally culpable for actions for which they have no or almost no choice?

[ttosca]

Cogito-

There's got to be scope for setting up a house-swapping scheme if it doesn't exist already. People with spare rooms on the one hand and those who are overcrowded on the other.

Well, that's the thing. There are thousands of empty unused homes out there which are only occupied for a weeks or a couple of months every year.

Instead of doing more to discourage second homes or empty homes, the govt. instead chooses to attack the most vulnerable, those in social housing claiming benefit.

[Mrsdavidcaruso]

ttosca

Again you have missed my point I was addressing another poster who was saying its UNFAIR to move people from communities where they have lived all their lives because they are on HB

Quite rightly you have said that there are problems with smaller accommodation and quite rightly I agree with you.

BUT that was NOT the issue I was addressing as you can read from the rest of the post you copied ( and ignored)

I am saying that it is NOT unfair that people on HB may have to move from their communities if that's is the only way they can downsize so in fact I was talking about the PRINCIPLE of moving.

I will throw a question to the general forum

If its is unfair that a family has to move from a 3 bed property into a 2 bed property (IF one is available ttosca) because it would mean any DCs would have to change school or Gran isn't around the corner to babysit, would you equally say its would be unfair to move a family with 3 dcs from a cramped 2 bed flat into a large 3 bed house with a garden, if the location of that house also means moving a child from their school or moving away from general family support and the community they grew up in.

[Startail]

No!
I voted for the idiots, but I cant explain such an unfair illogical policy.

[Startail]

As the poster above says it just doesn't work.

The hamlet I live in has one council house, you could easily be asking people to move 15 miles to the nearest city for a smaller one.

God alone knows how people sort schools, getting to work, family support etc if you do that. There certainly isn't any public transport.

Also as families have more children, different gender DCs get to old to share and then the oldest leave home, you can see families being eligible for several sizes of houses over the years.

It's quite bonkers!!!

[Xenia]

Well those of us who are not entitled and do not receive housing benefit believe it or not may actually have to move as much as 15 miles - can you imagine it! in order to find work, keep our families. We may have to move away from family hundreds of miles to find work to keep our children. I do not see why those claiming housing benefit should not have to do so just because their particular hamlet just has one council house.

If we can persuade people not to claim housing benefit at all and view state support as something of which to be ashamed, that they have failed by not being able to support their own families that would be a good thing. We are no where near getting anywhere near that as people think they can continue to take take take when the cupboards are bare because they have "rights".

[ttosca]

Xenia-

If we can persuade people not to claim housing benefit at all and view state support as something of which to be ashamed, that they have failed by not being able to support their own families that would be a good thing. We are no where near getting anywhere near that as people think they can continue to take take take when the cupboards are bare because they have "rights".

God you're nasty. The majority of people who receive state benefits are in full-time work. Many of these people are middle-class families.

In the case of the poor, we have reached a situation where companies don't even pay a living wage, and the state is having to subsidise the workforce in order for them to having enough money for food an rent.

We should all be ashamed that we've allowed things to get this bad. That we've allowed neo-liberalism to completely screw over the majority of working men and women in society.

The only people who 'take and take from the cupboards' are the wealthy elite; many major corporations are paying little or no corporate tax, and wealth inequality has reached levels not seen since the early half of the 20th Century.

You should be ashamed of yourself that you continue attacking people who are trying to make their way and work hard instead of addressing the systemic problems almost everyone faces in society today.

[Unami]

Xenia You think that people who may need to claim housing benefit have failed? You do realise that most people claiming housing benefit are in work? It is hardly their fault if they are in employment but their job doesn't pay them enough to cover life's basic necessities. You really think that 5 million people in this country are failures?

I hope, for your own sake, that you never need to rely on some of our state services, like a life-saving operation from the NHS, since being unable to cover the private health care fees abroad would make you a failure, by your logic.

[Xenia]

My comment is by the way the traditional English view. It still is of a lot of the elderly - any state help is shaming and your principal responsiblity is to kpee your own children and not claim housing benefit whilst you are in work even if you need it or are entitled to it. The fact it is regarded as a shocking view illustrates how much work will be needed if we seek to change the mentality of most British people back to the idea they support their own and the state does not.

Labour made it worse by making benefits claimants of so many of the middle classes with tax credits.

[MiniTheMinx]

What about another equally shocking idea Xenia,

Corporates and businesses pay their taxes, that employers pay everyone a living wage. That wages rise in line with profits and productivity.

I agree that everyone should be accorded the dignity of providing for themselves without state help where possible (there are exceptions)

Years ago we didn't have a welfare state, capitalists must pay wages that allow the worker to reproduce himself on a daily basis, with food, shelter etc, but reproduce the next generation of workers for future wage slavery.

The reason we have huge state subsidy of the above process is because of the greed of the capitalist, who refuses to pay living wages.

If you have a problem with state welfare........go talk to the people that created that need.

You can not fill empty bellies on pride.

[MiniTheMinx]

Oh, and for the record you aren't nasty Xenia, you are deluded.

[JakeBullet]

Xenia, I didn't claim housing benefit while in work....even though I was entitled to it. It would have been £17 a week....but here's a shocker.....had I realised I most certainly WOULD have claimed because life was dreadfully hard. It's even harder now I am out of work. Only someone who absolutely does not have to worry about where the next penny is coming from could have the arrogant view that NOT claiming what you are entitled to is somehow a virtue!

I am a volunteer now and I make sure people KNOW what they are entitled to claim. Just relieving the pressure and stress that a lack of money brings can make the difference between a family sinking or swimming....those that sink could end up costing the tax payer far more.

You are SO out of touch that you actually do not belong on any thread where benefits are discussed, you don't claim them, never have and never will. Good for you....the rest of us are just trying to get through life and do the best we can with sometime limited resources. Asking for a bit of help when we need it is not a crime.

[zadie78]

I'm with you, Mrsdavid - totally understand the point you are making.

We are one of those families that cannot afford to live where we are and are looking at areas hundreds - yes, hundreds - of miles from where we currently are. We are living on a family income which is only just above the 'poverty line' - google it if you need to - and do not live in social housing (bought a tiny house some years ago before dc when I worked full-time in a fairly well paid job, but now I only work part-time - through choice - want to be there for dc - and dh is minimum wage, but we still have a mortgage to pay), so having looked at all the options, the only thing we can think of is to move. Like 1000s of others.

In fact, we would have liked another child, but we can't afford one because we are already two to a bedroom.

[goodoldgirl]

This whole bedroom thing is based on what is, in comparison with the rest of the world, a very wealthy society. Dh is Greek. His mother, father, older sister and two brothers all lived all their growing up lives in a 2 bedroomed apartment. As did most of his friends with similar sized families. The parents had one bedroom, the sister had the other, and the three boys used to bed down on the sofas every night. This is normal there. I understand it's normal in a lot of other countries too.

Let's get some perspective here, ladies.

[Xenia]

It does not matter who is right or wrong, the money has run out, we are not likely to move the UK into ascendancy again. We are on the wane and are likely to move out of the cycle which started with the Industrial Revolution which saw our country rise in effect to the top. SO although those on benefits would like more money there are not enough people who earn a lot available to fund those at the bottom in the style to which they became accustomed.

Given most people in surveys support benefits cutting whether Labour or Tory voters I don't think having my views on threads about benefits should be a problem. It lets those minority who do not want cuts hear the views of the majority. I am not a single lone voice in the UK. Every study has found that the middle earners want benefits cut and are fed up with the burden they have had to come to bear.

[Unami]

Um, I think "who is right or wrong" does matter, Xenia. That's a really odd thing to say.

You also say that yours is the "traditional English view". What do you mean by traditional? Are you thinking of late 19th and 20th century debates about the deserving and undeserving poor? Have you looked at Mayhew's journalism? Rowantree's research?

Or a bit further back still - so you want this country to go back to the conditions people experiences during the Industrial Revolution? Do you think Britain was swarming with benevolent capitalists who treated their workers fairly and safely and gave them a decent standard of life? If you think that a return to the conditions of the Industrial Revolution is going to bring about a better standard of living for ordinary people then, my god, you need a history lesson.

And as to the idea that this country is suddenly, uniquely bust - it needs to be restates that our national debt isn't even historically high. It was much higher after the Second World War, and yet the government of the time managed to usher in huge changes that improved living conditions for ordinary people enormously. And blaming the current national deficit on public spending is simply disingenuous. This year the national deficit ran to £120.6 billion. For everything. To put that into context - Do you know how much bailing out the banks cost the country in 2008/9? At least £134.5 billion - and that was just for immediate interventions. At least another £781.2 was pledged just to prop the banking system up temporarily. How much did we spend on housing benefit this year? £16.94 billion. Yes, this country has financial problems (though they are not historically severe). But the poorest people in the country did not cause them, and they are not going to be fixed by cutting their already meagre benefits even more.

[Xenia]

I just meant we won't solve that on this thread (although I am obviously right - people are most helped by helping themselves not paying them to be dependent on the state) but whoever is right money is short and the middle classes (not the rich) have got sick of bailing out those who cannot support themselves. So there has been a sea change in public attitudes about this issue with most people of all parties supporting the benefits changes.

[ttosca]

Most British people are ignorant about who receives what benefits, how much, and the scale of benefit fraud.

--

Voters 'brainwashed by Tory welfare myths', shows new poll

Survey shows public ignorance of the level of benefits and who gets them

Ministers were accused of demonising benefits claimants in an attempt to justify their controversial decision to increase most state handouts by less than inflation.

Polling commissioned by the Trades Union Congress suggests that a campaign by Tory ministers is turning voters against claimants ? but only because the public is being fed "myths" about those who rely on benefits.


www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voters-brainwashed-by-tory-welfare-myths-shows-new-poll-8437872.html


--

TUC poll finds that support for benefit cuts depends on misconceptions

'It is not surprising that voters want to get tough on welfare. They think the system is much more generous than it is in reality, is riddled with fraud and is heavily skewed towards helping the unemployed, who they think are far more likely to stay on the dole than is actually the case. Indeed if what the average voter thinks was true, I'd want tough action too.

The TUC poll reveals many misconceptions about welfare and benefit spending including:

• On average people think that 41 per cent of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people, while the true figure is 3 per cent.
  

• On average people think that 27 per cent of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently, while the government's own figure is 0.7 per cent.
  

• On average people think that almost half the people (48 per cent) who claim Jobseeker's Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year, while the true figure is just under 30 per cent (27.8 per cent).
  

• On average people think that an unemployed couple with two school-age children would get £147 in Jobseeker's Allowance - more than 30 per cent higher than the £111.45 they would actually receive - a £35 over-calculation.
  

• Only 21 per cent of people think that this family with two school-age children would be better off if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job, even though they would actually end up £138 a week better off. Even those who thought they would be better off only thought on average they would gain by £59.
  

falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/tuc-poll-finds-that-support-for-benefit-cuts-depends-on-misconceptions

---

A lot of the attitudes towards social security are based on ignorance and myths, perpetuated by the likes of the Daily Fail and other reactionaries who knowingly spread these myths in order enact their ideological agenda.