Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

Morlock

princessdon wrote: »

And?? I have 2 spare bedrooms although I use 1 as a walk in wardrobe and 1 as an office.

I bought my own home so why does this apply? If I was ever to receive SMI (which I won't and can't) then I'd accept that, is that data for SMI claimants or the UK as a whole?

As long as you have 'paid' for your own home, it is fine that others are homeless because of a housing shortage. That's a great conclusion if you are selfish, self-centred and don't care that others are suffering because of your walk-in wardrobe.

"Official figures show government spends more money on supporting owner-occupiers than social tenants

Let's start with the sector that's really cushioned by the government – that's owner-occupiers, especially those who have paid off their mortgages. Of course, significant benefits to mortgage payers were wiped out when tax relief was cut by Margaret Thatcher's government and eventually ended 12 years ago. But all owners still enjoy capital gains tax relief, currently worth almost £6bn.

Those with no or only small mortgages also benefit from not being taxed on the value of their home (as used to happen through the old schedule A tax). This tax relief is now valued at over £11bn. Pooling these benefits and adding back in the stamp duty and inheritance tax of approximately £5bn that owners do pay, the net subsidy received is still a surprising £12bn per year."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2012/jan/27/government-subsidised-social-housing-rent

(The data in the table is UK wide, not only SMI claimants)

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

In most areas, the highest demand in Social Housing is for 2 bed properties. All those first time mums, see?

Is that data from the Daily Mail? What a pathetic comment.

princessdon

Morlock wrote: »

As long as you have 'paid' for your own home, it is fine that others are homeless because of a housing shortage. That's a great conclusion if you are selfish, self-centred and don't care that others are suffering because of your walk-in wardrobe.

"Official figures show government spends more money on supporting owner-occupiers than social tenants

Let's start with the sector that's really cushioned by the government – that's owner-occupiers, especially those who have paid off their mortgages. Of course, significant benefits to mortgage payers were wiped out when tax relief was cut by Margaret Thatcher's government and eventually ended 12 years ago. But all owners still enjoy capital gains tax relief, currently worth almost £6bn.

Those with no or only small mortgages also benefit from not being taxed on the value of their home (as used to happen through the old schedule A tax). This tax relief is now valued at over £11bn. Pooling these benefits and adding back in the stamp duty and inheritance tax of approximately £5bn that owners do pay, the net subsidy received is still a surprising £12bn per year."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2012/jan/27/government-subsidised-social-housing-rent

(The data in the table is UK wide, not only SMI claimants)

Never received any tax breaks.

One thing I DO agree with is rebanding Council Tax. My home is in the value of £70 - £100K and worth a lot more.

If they rebranded CT I'd pay and happily do so (it seems fair).

I am not prepared to pay because I bought and renovated/extended a home with love without a penny help or support so someone can have an additional room.

Why do they not rebrand Council Tax to reflect the value of homes so we pay our fair share - which I think we should if honest.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

As long as you have 'paid' for your own home, it is fine that others are homeless because of a housing shortage. That's a great conclusion if you are selfish, self-centred and don't care that others are suffering because of your walk-in wardrobe.

"Official figures show government spends more money on supporting owner-occupiers than social tenants

Let's start with the sector that's really cushioned by the government – that's owner-occupiers, especially those who have paid off their mortgages. Of course, significant benefits to mortgage payers were wiped out when tax relief was cut by Margaret Thatcher's government and eventually ended 12 years ago. But all owners still enjoy capital gains tax relief, currently worth almost £6bn.

Those with no or only small mortgages also benefit from not being taxed on the value of their home (as used to happen through the old schedule A tax). This tax relief is now valued at over £11bn. Pooling these benefits and adding back in the stamp duty and inheritance tax of approximately £5bn that owners do pay, the net subsidy received is still a surprising £12bn per year."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2012/jan/27/government-subsidised-social-housing-rent

(The data in the table is UK wide, not only SMI claimants)

None of which explains to me why you think under occupying Social Housing tenants relying on HB should not make a modest contribution towards the benefits of a spare room in the same way that EVERYONE else does (including Social Housing tenants who pay their own rent).

mandiskem

i was in a 3 bedroom house housing assoc i had been in the house for nearly 9 years and they told me i had to pay 26 pound a week for 2 rooms i didnt use .its more when its housing assoc in the end i wasnt using any bedrooms as i could no longer get up the stairs the stairlift was no good to me as ive got nerve damage in arms so cant use the control so i moved into a 1 bedroom place me and my partner.this tells you all u need to know about the under occupying houses it does mean all social housing those on benefits and it doesnt affect ppl of 60 or over http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/welfare_reform/%E2%80%98under-occupation%E2%80%99_penalty.aspx

nannytone_2

as ive said previously, i live in a 2 bed flat in a block of 6.
everyone living in the flats was nominated by the council, and only one was taken by its original 'viewr'.

4 of the flats are occupied by single people and the other 2 by childless couples.
all apart from 1 receives some degree of housing benefit.

so much for holding onto properties needed by families ...
the families turned them down!

the alternative would have been that they stood empty, whilst 3 of the 6 tenants rented privately getting more LHA than they do now in hb, and the other 3 would be homeless or over occupying with extended family!

lighting_up_the_chalice

princessdon wrote: »

Never received any tax breaks.

One thing I DO agree with is rebanding Council Tax. My home is in the value of £70 - £100K and worth a lot more.

If they rebranded CT I'd pay and happily do so (it seems fair).

I am not prepared to pay because I bought and renovated/extended a home with love without a penny help or support so someone can have an additional room.

Why do they not rebrand Council Tax to reflect the value of homes so we pay our fair share - which I think we should if honest.

Because the band values would all change but, by and large, the same properties would stay in the same bands. A pointless and costly exercise bound to just p people off.

Heycock

Posted by Lighting up the chalice....In most areas, the highest demand in Social Housing is for 2 bed properties. All those first time mums, see?

At last. The Elephant in the room. And on this I need no stats, certainly not lazy stats from the Guardian (Yawn!), Morlock.
Seriously, Morlock...is the Guardian the only paper you read?

I've worked the badside of my neck of the woods for 20 years and I KNOW exactly what group of people have received the pick of the social housing in that time. They've been my customers and put bread on my table.

30 year old mother living with 15 year old daughter in 2 bed council house. Don't get on. Daughter has baby...house now over-occupied. Priority list for rehousing. Gets automatic place in new 2 bed house built by local LHA/HA partnership.
One house now becomes two.
Do the maths as they say....and don't insult my intelligence with your Guardian stats. I've lived and worked amongst them, Polly Toynbee hasn't.
And no, I'm neither Tory nor a Daily mail fan...Libertarian anarchist if you want to be picky

princessdon

nannytone wrote: »

as ive said previously, i live in a 2 bed flat in a block of 6.
everyone living in the flats was nominated by the council, and only one was taken by its original 'viewr'.

4 of the flats are occupied by single people and the other 2 by childless couples.
all apart from 1 receives some degree of housing benefit.

so much for holding onto properties needed by families ...
the families turned them down!

the alternative would have been that they stood empty, whilst 3 of the 6 tenants rented privately getting more LHA than they do now in hb, and the other 3 would be homeless or over occupying with extended family!

Individual statmements do make overall sadly.

2 bed's where I am from are in vast demand. My Grandma waited 6 years for a 2 bed in an assisted programme. 1 Bed's in her assisted living are frequent. Neither your experience nor my Gran's may be the norm as it is overall that this affects and with varying degrees in Housing you can't assume 1 size fits all.

She pays £24 per week aditional for her 2 bed over a 1 bed and readily does so.

nannytone_2

princessdon wrote: »

Never received any tax breaks.

One thing I DO agree with is rebanding Council Tax. My home is in the value of £70 - £100K and worth a lot more.

If they rebranded CT I'd pay and happily do so (it seems fair).

I am not prepared to pay because I bought and renovated/extended a home with love without a penny help or support so someone can have an additional room.

Why do they not rebrand Council Tax to reflect the value of homes so we pay our fair share - which I think we should if honest.

because a lot of people bought before the property boom and now live in a house thaat they couldnt afford to re buy at todays prices.

a lot of these people are elderly and own million pound plus homes that they bout years ago.
they would be exempt anyway!