Will The Bedroom Tax Affect Me?

Morlock

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

And for those saying that Owner/Occupiers have more rooms than they need, that is irrelevant as they cost the taxpayer nothing.

It is not irrelevant when there is a housing shortage and owner-occupiers are hogging all of the available property because they claim to have 'paid their way'.

A huge percentage of 'owner-occupiers' are not owners at all, but pay a mortgage to the bank who still own the deeds to the property. Who bailed out the banks to stop 'their' property being repossessed to settle the banks debt? And to keep mortgage interest low?

Because you are an 'owner-occupier', it doesn't mean that you have not received taxpayers' money to enable that 'ownership'. Perhaps not as directly as housing benefit, but a taxpayer funded lifestyle nonetheless.

nannytone_2

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I can certainly understand people being upset at all this. It must be tough to think that you will be able to stay in one home all your life, with the cost being paid for by the taxpayer, then have the Government come along and say, either your HB is reduced or downsize.

I understand that the changes are difficult for people. Nevertheless, this brings people into line with those who have been receiving benefit but privately renting.

It also brings people into line with the thousands of people who privately rent, but who receive no benefits whatsoever. People like my 59-year-old friend. He shares a 4-bedroomed house with 3 other people. There is no link between them except that they all live in this house and share bathroom, kitchen, garden, etc. That is the reality for many people who get no benefits: a smallish salary for London, and house sharing with people who are initially, at least, strangers.

Why should people who are receiving taxpayer help be treated more generously than those receiving NO help whatsoever.

And for those saying that Owner/Occupiers have more rooms than they need, that is irrelevant as they cost the taxpayer nothing.

you have no idea how important security is for the disabled.
it is the one thing tht we cling onto because we have nothing else. no way of bettering our situation.
as if that isnt enough, you want us to join the transient populatiom and have to move on every 6 months or so.
my HA property rent is already £20 above the LHA rate, so i will pay dearly for my security, with no prospect of improvement..... unlesss i become deaf as well as bkind!
what a fabtastic future i have to look forward to!

skintmacflint

Morlock wrote: »

It is not irrelevant when there is a housing shortage and owner-occupiers are hogging all of the available property because they claim to have 'paid their way'.

A huge percentage of 'owner-occupiers' are not owners at all, but pay a mortgage to the bank who still own the deeds to the property. Who bailed out the banks to stop 'their' property being repossessed to settle the banks debt? And to keep mortgage interest low?

Because you are an 'owner-occupier', it doesn't mean that you have not received taxpayers' money to enable that 'ownership'. Perhaps not as directly as housing benefit, but a taxpayer funded lifestyle nonetheless.

What a skewed view point you have going on here.

sammyjammy

Dunroamin wrote: »

There may now be a shortage of smaller properties because so many people are looking to downsize at the same time. If people had done it individually, as their circumstances changed, then there wouldn't have been such a shortage.

Absolutely right. my friends mum asked to downsize from her three bed house when her children left home, moved with no issues and that house was then available for a family.

House swaps have a real part to play in all this. I know a family in two bed council properties that are entitled to a three bed and there must be lots of people that were allocated a one bed when single that now have a child.

In Sheffield there are currently over 100 one bed flats available under the social housing banner.

sammyjammy

meerustar wrote: »

But if that's the case, why are they prepared to pay higher HB rates if people move into the private sector.

It actually costs more to rent a one bed in the PS than a 2 bed in SH. Where is the saving?

princessdon wrote: »

That's simple. Family x in PR costing £200 pw (2 bed) move to SH 2 bed. Single or shared room rate in private lets say costs £100 pw. It saves them £100 pw. Multiply by lots of claimants for larger return.

As well as for the reasons Princessdon states you are not considering the full costs to the state. Under private rentals the rent is the only cost but under social housing the council or housing association has responsibility for the upkeep of that property as well as buildings insurance and other ownership costs.

Why are people so blinkered.

Lou76

Morlock wrote: »

It is not irrelevant when there is a housing shortage and owner-occupiers are hogging all of the available property because they claim to have 'paid their way'.

A huge percentage of 'owner-occupiers' are not owners at all, but pay a mortgage to the bank who still own the deeds to the property. Who bailed out the banks to stop 'their' property being repossessed to settle the banks debt? And to keep mortgage interest low?

Because you are an 'owner-occupier', it doesn't mean that you have not received taxpayers' money to enable that 'ownership'. Perhaps not as directly as housing benefit, but a taxpayer funded lifestyle nonetheless.

If the Government/Local Councils (I'm not sure how it works?) won't pay for all these 1 & 2 bed flats to be built, that I keep reading about that are needed, why would they buy up loads of vacant houses that the owner occupiers are "hogging"?

The mind boggles on that logic...

ETA: Will David Cameron be appearing on Homes Under the Hammer, buying up all these houses after the modern day Highland Clearances happen? I dread to think what song they'll use for him. :eek:

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

you have no idea how important security is for the disabled.
it is the one thing tht we cling onto because we have nothing else. no way of bettering our situation.
as if that isnt enough, you want us to join the transient populatiom and have to move on every 6 months or so.
my HA property rent is already £20 above the LHA rate, so i will pay dearly for my security, with no prospect of improvement..... unlesss i become deaf as well as bkind!
what a fabtastic future i have to look forward to!

But you're assuming that you'll be on benefits for the rest of your life and I don't think that's a healthy viewpoint at your age.

notanewuser

Dunroamin wrote: »

But you're assuming that you'll be on benefits for the rest of your life and I don't think that's a healthy viewpoint at your age.

Not to mention that landlords love long term renters. They don't want tenants moving every six months any more than you do, nannytone!!

Lou76

nannytone wrote: »

you have no idea how important security is for the disabled.
it is the one thing tht we cling onto because we have nothing else. no way of bettering our situation.
as if that isnt enough, you want us to join the transient populatiom and have to move on every 6 months or so.
my HA property rent is already £20 above the LHA rate, so i will pay dearly for my security, with no prospect of improvement..... unlesss i become deaf as well as bkind!
what a fabtastic future i have to look forward to!

For yourself, I have every idea; I do voluntary transcription work for the RNIB. I have also been reliant on benefits myself due to illness/disability (not sure what you'd call it, I don't like either, I just call it "down time").

I campaigned for blind people (that sounds so crass, people who are blind?) to get lower rate DLA, via the RNIB.

If truth be known, I was horrified at the time that blindness didn't = automatic DLA (I hadn't even thought about the levels, but surely high mobility?).

You can imagine how gasted my flabber was when I was told we were campainging for an automatic right to LOWER DLA for the registered blind. :eek:

Don't even start me...

Jennifer_Jane

Morlock wrote: »

It is not irrelevant when there is a housing shortage and owner-occupiers are hogging all of the available property because they claim to have 'paid their way'.

A huge percentage of 'owner-occupiers' are not owners at all, but pay a mortgage to the bank who still own the deeds to the property. Who bailed out the banks to stop 'their' property being repossessed to settle the banks debt? And to keep mortgage interest low?

Because you are an 'owner-occupier', it doesn't mean that you have not received taxpayers' money to enable that 'ownership'. Perhaps not as directly as housing benefit, but a taxpayer funded lifestyle nonetheless.

I think you know in your heart of hearts that this is nonsense.

My deeds have always had my name on as owner, not the bank's name. If I buy something, anything (a jumper, a holiday, a washing machine, say) on credit, is it mine or the bank's? It's mine of course.

The amount of money I owe (the mortgage) is the asset for the bank, not the house. It's always in your name, not in the bank's.

Do you have a percentage of how many owner-occupiers received some kind of tax-funding to help them keep their houses when they got into difficulties compared to the majority of owners? I really do not think it's "huge".

I bought my first house in the UK and, through some extreme prudence (cheap food, charity shop clothes, no holidays) managed to pay off the mortgage 9 years later. I still am responsible for all the house maintenance, which is very expensive.

I think you'll find that no tax-payer benefits were involved in the majority of properties. Saving the banks was to keep the system going. It didn't help people with mortgages per se.

No-one is asking anyone to move at all actually, let alone every 6 months - where did that come from?

If you are receiving housing benefits from the taxpayer you can either stay in your home if you have a spare bedroom and receive slightly less benefit. Or you can use the swap mechanisms to downsize, so that a larger family, who are obviously struggling with accommodation which is too small for them can have the right size for them.

Doesn't the complaining seem a little selfish to you? These people don't own their homes, the taxpayers do. But all this time they have had better rights of possession than people who are owner-occupiers (who often have to downsize for economic reasons) or people, like my friend, who is in rented (and shared with strangers) accommodation which he pays for, and for which his landlord can decide to sell at any time. There are no guarantees in the entirely private sector.

Seems unfair to me. The taxpayer has been generous, indeed.

Finally, I put my house on the market some years ago. Not one person from the Council came along to try to buy it from me. Had they, I might very well have considered selling it to them cheaper than the market value, as it would have been a less stressful exchange than with private people.

As I say - no-one from the Council asked to buy my house, even though it was publicly on the market. So your point about owner-occupiers taking space from social housing is spurious.

I do feel for people in tough circumstances, but it seems that people should be kind enough to make room for other people in even tougher circumstances - or have their housing benefit reduced.