Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

sunnyone

Morlock wrote: »

Not that anyone did address that, but is it such a stupid idea?

Considering the current UK housing crisis, the fact that owner-occupiers have benefited more from government spending than social housing tenants have over the last few decades, and the massive under-occupancy rates in the private sector, perhaps it is time to start recouping some of that expense.

Bedroom tax for owner-occupiers would encourage downsizing and the renting out of spare rooms, relieving pressure on the housing crisis and generating income for the treasury. It sounds like a very sensible option.

Owner occupiers have not benefit from the goverment tax wise since MIRAS.

lighting_up_the_chalice

sunnyone wrote: »

Owner occupiers have not benefit from the goverment tax wise since MIRAS.

Not even from stamp duty changes?

Dunroamin

barnaby-bear wrote: »

I find this a big difference between working private renters and social tenants, moving from the immediate area is seen as unfeasible whereas in reality a 30mile/1hour+ commute is pretty normal to a lot of people. I'm also surprised at some people's enthusiasm to stay in areas where they say there are no jobs. Most working young people who grew up in London aren't going to find anywhere within an hour of where they grew up - so I think for the rest of the country the expectations of fairly insecure tenure and little choice on area (it's what you can afford), plus expecting to share houses/rent the smallest is so normal that the social tenant's expectation just seems so out of line with normal now....

Thank heaven for the voice of common sense!:T:T:T:T

Dunroamin

ijwia wrote: »

i'm not moving and im not paying extra if i can help it

i never asked for a 2 bedroom house this is what i was given as my home was demolished

unjust and unfair

What gives you the right as a single person to hog a 2 bed house that could give a secure home to a family of 2 adults and 1 or 2 young children?

Now that is unjust and unfair!

mazza111

barnaby-bear wrote: »

But surely this policy will encourage those with spare rooms to get a lodger and if there's such a 1-bed shortage that's another plus to policy and another route to extra rental accommodation in the social sector. I certainly couldn't afford a 1-bed flat for the whole of my 30s so it was lodging on short term notice or shared houses... it's pretty normal.

Don't think so, cos those who take in a lodger, will inevitably be losing their HB anyway. Non dependent income would do away with the HB unless the lodger was unemployed etc too.

I dunno how it's all gonna work out in all honesty. I thought about taking a friend into lodge before I downsized, a friend.. But I need my own space too much after being stuck in... well that's irrelevant really.

I just think it's unfair for those who are in 2 bedroom properties, who have no opportunity to downsize. Different if there was property available. But when there's not...


Just had a quick search on surrounding towns too in case we were in the minority.

Our town - 7 flats to let (one bed)
Next town 17 flats to let
Next town the other way - 10 flats to let.

U see what I mean about them not being able to downsize?

It's ok you saying that in your 30s you didn't have secured tenancies, but these people have secured tenancies, now expected to give them up because they can't find work? Or if you look at the under 25s... well who knows where that one's gonna work out.

And really don't get me wrong, cos I do believe in downsizing so that families can get housing, I did it myself because I believe in it. I just think if you can't downsize what do u do then?

sunnyone

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Not even from stamp duty changes?

A small amount may have but most of us havnt

mazza111

Dunroamin wrote: »

What gives you the right as a single person to hog a 2 bed house that could give a secure home to a family of 2 adults and 1 or 2 young children?

Now that is unjust and unfair!

That's unfair that u brought that up. It's what he was given not what he asked for. His house was demolished, he got offered this house, should he have refused on the grounds that there maybe a more needy family?

lighting_up_the_chalice

Dunroamin wrote: »

What gives you the right as a single person to hog a 2 bed house that could give a secure home to a family of 2 adults and 1 or 2 young children?

The 1985 Housing Act.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

Don't think so, cos those who take in a lodger, will inevitably be losing their HB anyway. Non dependent income would do away with the HB unless the lodger was unemployed etc too.

I dunno how it's all gonna work out in all honesty. I thought about taking a friend into lodge before I downsized, a friend.. But I need my own space too much after being stuck in... well that's irrelevant really.

I just think it's unfair for those who are in 2 bedroom properties, who have no opportunity to downsize. Different if there was property available. But when there's not...


Just had a quick search on surrounding towns too in case we were in the minority.

Our town - 7 flats to let (one bed)
Next town 17 flats to let
Next town the other way - 10 flats to let.

U see what I mean about them not being able to downsize?

It's ok you saying that in your 30s you didn't have secured tenancies, but these people have secured tenancies, now expected to give them up because they can't find work? Or if you look at the under 25s... well who knows where that one's gonna work out.

And really don't get me wrong, cos I do believe in downsizing so that families can get housing, I did it myself because I believe in it. I just think if you can't downsize what do u do then?

You adjust your personal finances so that the shortfall is affordable?

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

That's unfair that u brought that up. It's what he was given not what he asked for. His house was demolished, he got offered this house, should he have refused on the grounds that there maybe a more needy family?

He did have that choice, and any number of years since then to explore the option of downsizing on moral grounds alone. Only now, when there is a small financial incentive, is it even being thought about.