Will The Bedroom Tax Affect Me?

Morlock

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

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.

The deed may be in your name, but will include a clause that a mortgage is secured against the value of your property. It is not the same lending mechanism as a credit card, default on your mortgage and you will soon discover who owns 'your' house.

bloolagoon

Morlock wrote: »

The deed may be in your name, but will include a clause that a mortgage is secured against the value of your property. It is not the same lending mechanism as a credit card, default on your mortgage and you will soon discover who owns 'your' house.

Is that not the point? Owner occupiers already pay a tax for under occupancy unless you are suggesting houses with differing rooms in the same street sell for the same value.

No owner occupier has a house for life until the bank is paid in full, very few owners have security. My mother in law is blind and has arthritis. She was on the waiting list for many years for a council property to the point her health deteriorated as a result. She paid thousands to modify the layout, yet knew at anytime she would have to move. She could not manage stairs or maintenance of her home without remodelling to live on one floor. As she was retired (she worked until retirement with a CVI certificate and help from the NHS), where was she to get this money? She rented privately a bungalow for a while but the area was away from bus routes, so long term wasn't ideal.

In the end we purchased a bungalow and topped up her mortgage as there was no suitable accommodation. However, that isn't secure either. If we were in a position to be unable to pay the proportion of the mortgage, she would be homeless or take in a lodger I suppose, not ideal.

I cannot think of anyone who has security, nor who do not pay for additional bedrooms bar council tenants, it's like a god given right and they are superior to the rest of the world.

How an educated person like yourself can argue that if council tenants pay home owners should is sheer stupidity given they do pay due to purchase price and a lot more than the £10 a week being asked of those you seem to think deserve better treatment.

Morlock

bloolagoon wrote: »

How an educated person like yourself can argue that if council tenants pay home owners should is sheer stupidity given they do pay due to purchase price and a lot more than the £10 a week being asked of those you seem to think deserve better treatment.

"While most houses are privately owned, the total housing stock is a common resource. Either we ensure that it is used wisely and fairly, or we allow its distribution to become the starkest expression of inequality.

We have allowed the market, and the market alone, to decide who gets what – which means that families in desperate need of bigger homes are crammed together in squalid conditions, while those who have more space than they know what to do with face neither economic nor social pressure to downsize.

...reverse the UK's daft fiscal incentive to under-occupy your home. If you live by yourself, regardless of the size of your property, you get a 25% council tax discount. The rest of us, in other words, subsidise wealthy single people who want to keep their spare rooms empty. Those who use more than their fair share should pay for the privilege, with a big tax penalty for under-occupation. If it prompts them either to take in a lodger or to move into a smaller home in a lower tax band, so much the better."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/04/take-housing-fight-wealthy

Is George Monbiot stupid as well?

"The underoccupation of homes...constrains the availability of larger homes to households that need them. There are 7.9 million ‘underoccupied’ homes in the UK, with the majority (88 per cent) being in the owner-occupied sector."

http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2012/12/no-place-home_Dec2012_10017.pdf

If the housing crisis continues as predicted, home owners will have to give up the luxury of having as much space as they desire. If they don't move voluntarily, other 'incentives' will need to be implemented.

bloolagoon

Morlock wrote: »

"While most houses are privately owned, the total housing stock is a common resource. Either we ensure that it is used wisely and fairly, or we allow its distribution to become the starkest expression of inequality.

We have allowed the market, and the market alone, to decide who gets what – which means that families in desperate need of bigger homes are crammed together in squalid conditions, while those who have more space than they know what to do with face neither economic nor social pressure to downsize.

...reverse the UK's daft fiscal incentive to under-occupy your home. If you live by yourself, regardless of the size of your property, you get a 25% council tax discount. The rest of us, in other words, subsidise wealthy single people who want to keep their spare rooms empty. Those who use more than their fair share should pay for the privilege, with a big tax penalty for under-occupation. If it prompts them either to take in a lodger or to move into a smaller home in a lower tax band, so much the better."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/04/take-housing-fight-wealthy

Is George Monbiot stupid as well?

"The underoccupation of homes...constrains the availability of larger homes to households that need them. There are 7.9 million ‘underoccupied’ homes in the UK, with the majority (88 per cent) being in the owner-occupied sector."

http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2012/12/no-place-home_Dec2012_10017.pdf

If the housing crisis continues as predicted, home owners will have to give up the luxury of having as much space as they desire. If they don't move voluntarily, other 'incentives' will need to be implemented.

The answer to me is simple. Housing is more plentiful than years ago, lower birth rates and drop in population combined with higher houses should mean plentiful stock.

So why a crisis? In small part immigration in large part the entilted to brigade where everyone wants their own home, even if no income to provide the means for this, people baulk at siblings sharing, people want spare rooms for all sorts of reasons.

We became a spoilt society funding wants as opposed to needs via borrowing and when the economy dropped there were no reserves or cushion. Most importantly the wants and expectations of unrealistic lifestyles have not dropped. We could end up like other countries with the poor living in tents and begging for money if this I want entitlement continues.

What you desire is greater wealth distribution, which is not unmerited, penalising someone twice (once at purchase and once at under occupancy) is not achievable. To do so means council house tenants have to buy their residency then pay again.

Morlock

bloolagoon wrote: »

So why a crisis? In small part immigration in large part the entilted to brigade where everyone wants their own home, even if no income to provide the means for this, people baulk at siblings sharing, people want spare rooms for all sorts of reasons.

Now you are sounding stupid. The 'entitled to' brigade are the largest cause of the housing crisis? By that, I assume you mean those in social housing, which has the lowest under-occupancy rate of any housing sector. If a model existed to represent an efficient use of housing stock with minimal rates of under-occupancy, that is it, or the 'entitled to brigade' as you refer to it.

kevelesopnic

bloolagoon wrote: »

The answer to me is simple. Housing is more plentiful than years ago, lower birth rates and drop in population combined with higher houses should mean plentiful stock.

So why a crisis? In small part immigration in large part the entilted to brigade where everyone wants their own home, even if no income to provide the means for this, people baulk at siblings sharing, people want spare rooms for all sorts of reasons.

We became a spoilt society funding wants as opposed to needs via borrowing and when the economy dropped there were no reserves or cushion. Most importantly the wants and expectations of unrealistic lifestyles have not dropped. We could end up like other countries with the poor living in tents and begging for money if this I want entitlement continues.

What you desire is greater wealth distribution, which is not unmerited, penalising someone twice (once at purchase and once at under occupancy) is not achievable. To do so means council house tenants have to buy their residency then pay again.

Thatcher and her gerrymandering, selling the countries assets for knock down prices to buy votes. Of course she did not only sell off the housing stock at massive discounts but also all of the public utilities to companies who think it's perfectly normal to raise prices by 20% at a time, we used to own these companies!!, however,I digress, my apologies.

Jennifer_Jane

Morlock wrote: »

"While most houses are privately owned, the total housing stock is a common resource. Either we ensure that it is used wisely and fairly, or we allow its distribution to become the starkest expression of inequality.

We have allowed the market, and the market alone, to decide who gets what – which means that families in desperate need of bigger homes are crammed together in squalid conditions, while those who have more space than they know what to do with face neither economic nor social pressure to downsize.

...reverse the UK's daft fiscal incentive to under-occupy your home. If you live by yourself, regardless of the size of your property, you get a 25% council tax discount. The rest of us, in other words, subsidise wealthy single people who want to keep their spare rooms empty. Those who use more than their fair share should pay for the privilege, with a big tax penalty for under-occupation. If it prompts them either to take in a lodger or to move into a smaller home in a lower tax band, so much the better."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/04/take-housing-fight-wealthy

Is George Monbiot stupid as well?

"The underoccupation of homes...constrains the availability of larger homes to households that need them. There are 7.9 million ‘underoccupied’ homes in the UK, with the majority (88 per cent) being in the owner-occupied sector."

http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2012/12/no-place-home_Dec2012_10017.pdf

If the housing crisis continues as predicted, home owners will have to give up the luxury of having as much space as they desire. If they don't move voluntarily, other 'incentives' will need to be implemented.

To answer your question: "Is George Monbiot stupid as well?" - yes, he is. I don't need to add any more comment to that as the comments from Guardian readers to the article have done a pretty good job.

I've just been out swimming, and whilst I was doing that, it occurred to me that in essence your politics and mine are just at opposite ends. I believe in a mixed capitalist economy, such as the one we currently have, where there is an opportunity to buy an asset and hope that it improves in value, and to treasure and keep it safe, to insure it's safety, and to maintain it.

Having another person in the house would bring in an unwelcome intrusion. Everyone has differing standards of cleanliness, noise, what programmes to watch on TV etc.

If this balmy idea came into force, my solution would be to sell my house and rent. If others did this, then house prices would reduce, and rents would increase. For myself, the small amount of capital released by selling my house would fairly soon run out and I would then fall on the State for help. I am sure many others would do this rather than share their hard-worked-for possession.

George Monbiot's idea verges on marxist communism, and I think this is where your and my political beliefs differ. I like the mixed economy, and you want a more socialist/communist one.

Heaven help us.

Morlock

I am all for people owning a house as big as they can afford, even when most of it is under-occupied, if the housing stock is available to do so without causing a housing crisis. That is not the case in the UK, and the fact that home owners under-occupy by 88% is causing problems due to a housing shortage.

Dunroamin

The housing crisis will be solved by building more social housing and more affordable homes for private rent and sale (which will do wonders for kick starting economic recovery as well), not by threatening owner occupiers with punitive tax measures.

notanewuser

Morlock wrote: »

I am all for people owning a house as big as they can afford, even when most of it is under-occupied, if the housing stock is available to do so without causing a housing crisis. That is not the case in the UK, and the fact that home owners under-occupy by 88% is causing problems due to a housing shortage.

Find me a council that wants to pay £500k for a 5 bedroom house in South East Wales and I'll gladly downsize.