HB reduction and MP

joanne79

Ahhhh ok that makes sense..£549.99 for a 3 bed...where as mine is £408 quite a saving for them,Even with paying the extra for the 2 bed LHA, thanks have made total sense of it now :-) how strange that the MP would point that out...:-/

princessdon

And everyone in private rentals paying over the LHR rate should write to their MP, along with everyone who is on the SH waiting list.

Just to balance it out.

MissMoneypenny

joanne79 wrote: »

Ahhhh ok that makes sense..£549.99 for a 3 bed...where as mine is £408 quite a saving for them,Even with paying the extra for the 2 bed LHA, thanks have made total sense of it now :-)

Then mutiply this by all the times they can do that; and it's a huge saving for the welfare state.

People living in social houses that have too many bedrooms for their needs, is a big problem. Just as those who earn a high income and still live in social housing and those claimants that churn out child after child, is a big problem too for the welfare state.

In Italy, social tenants are assessed every year to ensure these properties go to families who need the most help. Young girls who get pregnant, do not get these houses as this is seen as that young girl's parents' problem and not the states. Other EU countries also take this view on young single mothers and perhaps we too need to take this stance.

Netherlands have recently bought in a flat rate for housing benefits (unlike LHA rates in the UK which are based on the area) which means that their housing claimants have had to move to cheap areas if they wish to claim housing benefits in the Netherlands.

Dinney

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You need to look at the big picture. The welfare state will save the 3 bed LHA rate they are paying to a family that qualify for a 3 bedroom house, if they can move into your 3 bedroom house for just £408. It's an overall saving.

Or you can stay put and take a reduction in your benefits.

People had to brick up windows years ago or pay tax on them,we have all seen buildings with some of the windows bricked up,now I know why,so maybe owner occupies with spare rooms are next,it would not suprise me one bit if they checked the size of your house against the electoral register to see how many people live in each property

iluvmarmite

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

People who want benefits to pay their rent, are being assessed on how many bedrooms they are eligible for under the welfare state. If they want more bedrooms than they are eligible for, then they pay for them out of the benefits they are given, or work and pay their own rent.



"Tax" is something the government takes from those who earn, to finance government spending i.e. the welfare payments.

Therefore a reduction in benefits cannot be a tax. It is merely a reduction in the benefits the claimant is eligible for.

We lived in a 3 bed house, when the kids grew up and left home we as if we could move to a 1 bed place as that's all we needed, freeing up the 3 bed for a family, we were told there were NO 1 bed places so were given a 2 bed. We DID NOT WANT a 2 bed but that's all that was on offer.

It's unfair to state that those who want more rooms than they need should pay for them out of their meagre benefits when a lot of them are more than willing to downsize but there are no suitable properties available, it's not their fault.

And why the hell should they be made to leave a secure home to go private where there will be a huge risk that they will be evicted in the future due to landlords wanting their homes back, or greedy landlords deciding to put the rent up and the tenant not being able to cover the shortfall.

Dunroamin

iluvmarmite wrote: »

We lived in a 3 bed house, when the kids grew up and left home we as if we could move to a 1 bed place as that's all we needed, freeing up the 3 bed for a family, we were told there were NO 1 bed places so were given a 2 bed. We DID NOT WANT a 2 bed but that's all that was on offer.

It's unfair to state that those who want more rooms than they need should pay for them out of their meagre benefits when a lot of them are more than willing to downsize but there are no suitable properties available, it's not their fault.

And why the hell should they be made to leave a secure home to go private where there will be a huge risk that they will be evicted in the future due to landlords wanting their homes back, or greedy landlords deciding to put the rent up and the tenant not being able to cover the shortfall.

Why the hell should parents who have to bring up their children in the private sector with high rents and little security have to do so because some greedy so and so who's had their turn of low rent and high security in the public sector isn't prepared to give someone else a chance?

welshmoneylover

iluvmarmite wrote: »

We lived in a 3 bed house, when the kids grew up and left home we as if we could move to a 1 bed place as that's all we needed, freeing up the 3 bed for a family, we were told there were NO 1 bed places so were given a 2 bed. We DID NOT WANT a 2 bed but that's all that was on offer.

It's unfair to state that those who want more rooms than they need should pay for them out of their meagre benefits when a lot of them are more than willing to downsize but there are no suitable properties available, it's not their fault.

And why the hell should they be made to leave a secure home to go private where there will be a huge risk that they will be evicted in the future due to landlords wanting their homes back, or greedy landlords deciding to put the rent up and the tenant not being able to cover the shortfall.

Why the hell should tax payers pay for others housing costs?

I pay for my own why can't anyone else pay for their own?

seven-day-weekend

How can owner-occupiers who receive no Benefits to pay for their homes be given less Benefits? Or renters who pay their own rent with no Benefits?

We bought our house in 1976 and it was paid for by 1996. We have two spare rooms (three if you count the dining room). We receive no means-tested benefits so how can they take anything from us?

Surely if you pay your own mortgage or rent, YOU are paying for the rooms you have, the taxpayer is not and that is why only people receiving Housing Benefit/LHA are affected. If you pay your own way you can have as many rooms as you like, surely?

Gentile

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Then mutiply this by all the times they can do that; and it's a huge saving for the welfare state.

People living in social houses that have too many bedrooms for their needs, is a big problem. Just as those who earn a high income and still live in social housing and those claimants that churn out child after child, is a big problem too for the welfare state.

In Italy, social tenants are assessed every year to ensure these properties go to families who need the most help. Young girls who get pregnant, do not get these houses as this is seen as that young girl's parents' problem and not the states. Other EU countries also take this view on young single mothers and perhaps we too need to take this stance.

Netherlands have recently bought in a flat rate for housing benefits (unlike LHA rates in the UK which are based on the area) which means that their housing claimants have had to move to cheap areas if they wish to claim housing benefits in the Netherlands.

Perhaps the politicians in those countries have other ways of winning elections. The tried and trusted means of winning elections in this country is to fill the pockets of poor with lots of dosh and free housing and in return get their votes. Its a no brainer. At the end of the day the politicians who make the decisions to pay hundreds of pounds every week as benefits do not have any responsibility of paying it back, if it wins them elections then why not ?

Gentile

iluvmarmite wrote: »

We lived in a 3 bed house, when the kids grew up and left home we as if we could move to a 1 bed place as that's all we needed, freeing up the 3 bed for a family, we were told there were NO 1 bed places so were given a 2 bed. We DID NOT WANT a 2 bed but that's all that was on offer.

It's unfair to state that those who want more rooms than they need should pay for them out of their meagre benefits when a lot of them are more than willing to downsize but there are no suitable properties available, it's not their fault.

And why the hell should they be made to leave a secure home to go private where there will be a huge risk that they will be evicted in the future due to landlords wanting their homes back, or greedy landlords deciding to put the rent up and the tenant not being able to cover the shortfall.

There are plenty of one bedroom flats/houses if you look for them and be prepared to search a wider area.

Fact is, the hard working tax payer is forced to spend all his take home money on expensive small house and has no possible way of upsizing even when they have kids where as the sitting at home and watching SKY TV single mums are popping out kids and moving into expensive 5 bed detached houses for free.