[Closed] Bedroom tax,what's the fuss?

They should make her get a lodger in.

"tax" ?

not a tax. it's a reduction of benefits. if you don't get said benefits, you're not affected

They'll be plenty of takers in central London when the "reforms" kick in 🙂
johndrummer mea culpa "spare room subsidy"

My only problem with it is that in a fair world, the benefit reduction would only apply when a person turns down a suitable property and stays in a larger one, whereas as I understand it, it will be applied to everyone despite the majority not having the option to move and reduce the number of bedrooms.

As with all of these propose a better solution of moving people with houses bigger/more expensive than their needs with smaller houses. I'm guessing if they were footing the bill themselves they would have moved by now already....

It should also free up larger social houses for those that are crammed in smaller ones and on waiting lists.

The policy implementation may be blunt but the outcomes may be better.

Perhaps assistance with moving and proactive finding of other properties/swaps would work.

2 points I can see in favour.
Why should someone in a subsidised house have spare rooms when there is overcrowding and waiting lists elsewhere?
Why should tax payers subsidise bigger houses than are required?
If it means someone has to move out of an area, tough. We can't all afford to live where we want to.
.
On a related point, I think we should abolish the idea of a council house for life too. To pick an example, Bob Crow, union leader. He got a council house when he needed one. Fair enough. He now earns £80k and so no longer needs it, but still lives in it, subsidised by us all,he should move out to free it up for someone who really does need it. A council house should be given to people who need it, for as long as they need it, but no longer.

Show me the evidence that council houses (although most have now been transferred to housing associations)are subsidised by us all?
All the figures I have seen show that tenants have paid for them many times over.As far as I could see from the figures that Manchester City council used to publish on their website and in the breakdown of how your rent was spent the tenants were actually subsidising the council and it's other services.

What spooky said.

Show me the evidence that council houses (although most have now been transferred to housing associations)are subsidised by us all?

Council Houses are rented at lower than Market Rates.

They could be rented out for more, but the rents are "subsidised" by the council.

All the figures I have seen show that tenants have paid for them many times over.

Isn't that precisely the argument the Tories used when justifying selling off council houses at knockdown prices to tenants ?

the rents are "subsidised" by the council.

So where does this "subsidy" go, ie, who receives it ?

They could be rented out for more,

Council Houses are rented at lower than Market Rates.

So where does this "subsidy" go, ie, who receives it ?

The occupant presumably as they occupy for less than market rent if there is such a thing, which I doubt in some areas. I don't think his usage was an abuse of the word whereas its use in "spare room subsidy" probably is, but I guess that was meeting one abuse of language with another. It is a sad reflection of modern political reporting that as much time is spent on which is the better use of language than the policy at issue.

One of the biggest issues identified locally is the lack of one bedroom properties. Lots of couples/single adults, who's kids have left home and now have spare room(s), have space when grandkids come, a place for family to stay etc are having benefits cut to subsidise spare rooms, but there is no where to move to!

we've done rather nicely out of it

we were living in a cramped two bed, with youngest in a cot in the front room.. (he is abominably loud and doesn't sleep well, there is no chance he could share a room with our oldest)
anyhoo.. we needed a third bedroom, and wanted to move back to our home town, and a nice lady there had a larger three bed with only one kid left at home..

we swapped houses, I've given up smoking and drinking to pay the bedroom tax

everyone is a winner 8)

The occupant presumably as they occupy for less than market rent if there is such a thing

So the tenant is handed over money which is then spent on their rent ? I don't think so.

If there was a subsidy then it would go directly to the landlord, in this case the local authority. But as rents over the years more than cover the cost of the build, according to the Tories, then there is no subsidy. In fact there has to reach a point when the rent eventually just becomes profit.

If there was a subsidy, then it would go directly to the landlord, in this case the local authority. But as rents over the years more than cover the cost of the build, according to the Tories, there is no subsidy. In fact there has to reach a point when the rent eventually just becomes profit.

OK then so the profit goes to the local authority - good thing?
The tenant can still access housing at an affordable rate?
People who can't rent in the private sector can get houses?
Only somebody missing the point would equate build cost to overall cost of housing, repairs, maintenance, gaps in occupancy need to be accounted etc.

Housing Associations receive a grant from central government, this is a subsidy, they also raise funds independently using debt. They charge rent which covers interest, repairs and potentially new investment. They are not required to return the grant or make a return on it so that essentially enables them to offer lower rents than someone who does not receive such a grant. This is an indirect subsidy to the tenants.

I struggle to understand the economic logic behind council house sales, although the electoral logic was self evident.

Only somebody missing the point would equate build cost to overall cost of housing, repairs, maintenance, gaps in occupancy need to be accounted etc.

You think rent doesn't cover repairs and maintenance ? I think [i]you[/i] might be missing the point 🙂

gaps in occupancy

😀 A staggering cost to the taxpayer no doubt.

With a most inhuman cruelty, they who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness

we've done rather nicely out of it

we were living in a cramped two bed, with youngest in a cot in the front room.. (he is abominably loud and doesn't sleep well, there is no chance he could share a room with our oldest)
anyhoo.. we needed a third bedroom, and wanted to move back to our home town, and a nice lady there had a larger three bed with only one kid left at home..

we swapped houses, I've given up smoking and drinking to pay the bedroom tax

everyone is a winner

Are there a lot of people in a similar situation, do you think?

Are there a lot of people in a similar situation, do you think?

nooo, well... I don't know - I try to avoid thinking, Precariat you see.. 🙂

Although what I do know is that my neighbour has just roared off down the street to work and our sitting room is now full of diesel fumes from his car, even though our double glazed windows are firmly shut.. 😐

Bedroom tax!!! What about the MP second homes?

To ask people to downsize would be a reasonable request if any smaller properties were actually available to downsize too.

They're not. Something the government will have been well aware of.

So to ask people to do so, while being fully aware that its impossible to comply with the request, then sanctioning them financially for their lack of compliance is absolutely typical of the cynicism and casual cruelty of this government. I'm sure they heartily congratulated themselves when they devised this little wheeze

not a tax. it's a reduction of benefits. if you don't get said benefits, you're not affected

Moving small families out of big homes and into smaller ones does make sense on the surface but the way they are going about it is stupid (lets forget for the moment there aren't enough 1 and 2 bedroom houses to provide for these small families) and it doesn't take into account special cases. The families shouldn't have to move halfway across the country either.

wonder if this will have an affect on birth rates...

My only problem with it is that in a fair world, the benefit reduction would only apply when a person turns down a suitable property and stays in a larger one, whereas as I understand it, it will be applied to everyone despite the majority not having the option to move and reduce the number of bedrooms.

This.

Cynical and vindictive, designed to appeal to people's worst instincts, egged on by their cheerleaders in the tabloids. Depressing.

To ask people to downsize would be a reasonable request if any smaller properties were actually available to downsize too.

They're not. Something the government will have been well aware of.

So to ask people to do so, while being fully aware that its impossible to comply with the request, then sanctioning them financially for their lack of compliance is absolutely typical of the cynicism and casual cruelty of this government. I'm sure they heartily congratulated themselves when they devised this little wheeze

Exactly.

SO the government is either incompetent for not knowing the state of the housing stock or wilfully cruel for imposing this tax when they know people have no alternatives

I doubt it will even save any money.

SO the government is either incompetent for not knowing the state of the housing stock or wilfully cruel for imposing this tax when they know people have no alternatives

doesn't instil much faith does it..?
And it just makes me even sicker to hear folk on other threads defending this rabid shamble

The benefits system isn't fair, no matter which party started it, adjusted it or currently plans to overhaul it. Life isn't fair, don't expect benefits to be either.

Incompetent or cruel? This lot are most certainly both, but there's no doubt that this is yet another calculated assault on the poorest in society. They like that kind of thing. It plays well to Mail Readers.

In Hull, for example, 5,500 are deemed to be over-occupying, and have been told to downsize to a one bedroom property, or have benefits removed. However, Hulls social housing stock has 70 one bedroom properties available. The same applies across the country. Does anyone seriously believe the government didn't know this?

The benefits system isn't fair, no matter which party started it, adjusted it or currently plans to overhaul it. Life isn't fair, don't expect benefits to be either.

Yes but why make it worse/less fair purely to pander to the nasty instincts of Daily Mail readers?

In Hull, for example, 5,500 are deemed to be over-occupying, and have been told to downsize to a one bedroom property. However, Hulls social housing stock has 70 one bedroom properties available. The same applies across the country. Does anyone seriously believe the government didn't know this?

Blimey, are the private sector landlords the only ones capable of converting a semi into 2 flats?

I'm sure it's not rocket surgery to look at the available housing stock and work out a balance that is a best fit, I'm sure it won't be perfect but it will allow many to remain in the areas where they currently live.

If I go on holiday and hire a car for a week and rent a villa for a week - it doesn't make it MY car or villa. Even if I rent the car and villa for a year (or 10 years) it [b]still[/b] never becomes MY car or villa.
The same applies to a rented house (private or council) even when the occupant works and pays the rent themself.

So one of the fundamental problems is the attitude that has grown up over the last 40-50 years, that people in council houses, with the rent paid by benefits, somehow OWN the house and that it is THEIR house. It isn't.

Perhaps it is changing this attitude that is one of the Government's objectives.

Roger - Just a thought, but Maybe if local councils had the funds and resources available they 'd have done that already.
I don't know if you'd noticed, they've been having to deal with some ever-so-slight cuts to their budgets lately. This policy has also been rushed through with no consultation. As with everything else this lot do!

Ironically it's the private sector landlords who will benefit here. Social housing tenants will have to downsize into private landlords flats where rents are far higher. The end result? Housing benefit bills will actually increase. But of course the money will now going to the 'right people' as the government get to re-inflate the buy-to-let market/bubble yet again, particularly in the south east

What could possibly go wrong?

Subsidized council house rent - if a renter is paying less than the market rate for a house then it is being subsidized and the council is therefore not gaining as much money from it's capital investments as it could do. This is an opportunity cost to the council / tax payer.

robbespierre - Member
So one of the fundamental problems is the attitude that has grown up over the last 40-50 years, that people in council houses, with the rent paid by benefits, somehow OWN the house and that it is THEIR house. It isn't.

'Right to buy' might have had something to do with that attitude, and the reduction in our social housing stock.

Blimey, are the private sector landlords the only ones capable of converting a semi into 2 flats?

In the less salubrious areas of Hull, it'd surely never be worth doing that conversion though, and to suggest that councils do it would be stupid; the cost of conversion of a terrace into two one bed flats would probably cost a similar amount of money to the cost of buying a second terraced house. To put it in perspective, there are areas where a 2 bed terrace house can cost less than 20K. By the time they'd fitted even a cheap kitchen, bathroom etc and divided things off, you'd be costing them most of the cost of buying a completely new house.

So in order to save a tiny bit of housing benefit, they'd spend thousands of pounds converting essentially valueless houses, money which they could just as easily have spent on buying a few more similar sized houses (or just have not spent if the extra housing isn't needed). Brilliant idea.

Just imagine they take a step further, with all the houses on mortgages, that are under occupied, but the residents have lost their jobs are are curently geting council tax benefit and the intrest paid on their mortgages.

Perhaps stop this after say 6 weeks long enough to get a new job, or the house has to be sold for whatever value that pays off the mortgage, and the residents move, or its given to someone on the housing list in need and the local housing assosiation carry on with the repayments for the new tennants.

A win win situation for all .

I think the figure for Bob Crow's salary of £80K further up the thread is wrong - the last thing I read put his total package at around £145K in 2009 and it's presumably gone up since then.

Given his limited living costs it's reasonable to assume that red Bob is actually a millionaire living in a council house subsidised by everyone else (given that he's unlikely to be paying market rent and hence the council is not achieving the maximum income for it).

So one of the fundamental problems is the attitude that has grown up over the last 40-50 years, that people in council houses, with the rent paid by benefits, somehow OWN the house and that it is THEIR house. It isn't.

It is their HOME though. That fact is indisputable.

That, and the fact that they are part of a local community. Forcing them to move for purely economic reasons ignores this, and the impact of such measures. Not that the tories care about the social impact of their policies; after all, they don't affect they themselves at all.

Stop thinking that such things are being done because they are 'necessary'. What is necessary, is to break down social barriers, and encourage better interaction and cohesion between members of society. Such a move will not actually 'save' money, as there will need to be a greater expenditure to fix the resultant issues. Things like this (and many other attacks on the poorest in our society) are being done for purely ideological reasons; crush the poor, starve them a little, make them grateful for whatever crumbs are then thrown at them.

[i]Divide et impera.[/i]

Bob Crow - The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

When there is no way to argue the actual points, mention Bob Crow.