Will The Bedroom Tax Affect Me?

Morlock

princessdon wrote: »

I do not get the animosity and hatred on here towards home owners perhaps its jealousy...

What a cop out, "People are just jealous", is the response that a teenage girl would make.

Considering that housing is a finite, national resource, what is available is what everyone has to share, why should current home owners take more than a fair share? It would not be a problem if there wasn't a housing shortage. Home owners should also be encouraged to downsize, rather than exhibit a selfish sense of entitlement, that because they 'paid' for it, they have every right to hoard that limited resource.

princessdon

Morlock wrote: »

What a cop out, "People are just jealous", is the response that a teenage girl would make.

Considering that housing is a finite, national resource, what is available is what everyone has to share, why should current home owners take more than a fair share? It would not be a problem if there wasn't a housing shortage. Home owners should also be encouraged to downsize, rather than exhibit a selfish sense of entitlement, that because they 'paid' for it, they have every right to hoard that limited resource.

So why the snider comments re homeowners? People have cars and there is a fuel crisis, you dont seem to complaining about that. And it wasn't aimed solely at you, others have made their feelings clear that if someone bought their home they should pay more. Home owners save millions each year (smi is lower, low wage workers don't get HB, and releases SH stock), we already contribute a lot due to lower financial assistance and lowering waiting lists.

And it's not because we paid for it -SMI and CTB should reflect excess rooms - it's because people are not on benefits. You can only reduce benefits if on benefits.

To flip it to another scenario. The govt decide that there are too many children for benefits to support so lower CB and CTC to 2 children. They can't then force people to pay who don't receive those benefits.


And it's not a national resource it belongs to the owners.

ILW

Morlock wrote: »

What a cop out, "People are just jealous", is the response that a teenage girl would make.

Considering that housing is a finite, national resource, what is available is what everyone has to share, why should current home owners take more than a fair share? It would not be a problem if there wasn't a housing shortage. Home owners should also be encouraged to downsize, rather than exhibit a selfish sense of entitlement, that because they 'paid' for it, they have every right to hoard that limited resource.

Homeowners are encouraged to downsize, they will generally get a pile of cash if they do. So they are paying for the priviledge of extra rooms just like social housing tenants can do if they wish. Problem is that some now seem to think that that others should pay for all sorts of things just because they are nice (but not necessary).

princessdon

ILW wrote: »

Homeowners are encouraged to downsize, they will generally get a pile of cash if they do. So they are paying for the priviledge of extra rooms just like social housing tenants can do if they wish. Problem is that some now seem to think that that others should pay for all sorts of things just because they are nice (but not necessary).

Exactly - and they aren't even campaigning for SH tenants to pay for rooms. Eg a single in a 3 bed pays the same rent as a family in a 3 bed. It shows that it is an attack on home owners, as none Hb claimants in SH should surely be a target.

Morlock

princessdon wrote: »

Exactly - and they aren't even campaigning for SH tenants to pay for rooms. Eg a single in a 3 bed pays the same rent as a family in a 3 bed. It shows that it is an attack on home owners, as none Hb claimants in SH should surely be a target.

I have mentioned numerous times that the policy is not formulated to reduce under-occupancy in social housing, as it only affects those claiming housing benefit. This is one of the main reasons that I oppose the policy, it does nothing to address the anomaly of a single person living in three-bedroom social housing, it is purely devised to cut the housing benefit bill.

princessdon

Morlock wrote: »

I have mentioned numerous times that the policy is not formulated to reduce under-occupancy in social housing, as it only affects those claiming housing benefit. This is one of the main reasons that I oppose the policy, it does nothing to address the anomaly of a single person living in three-bedroom social housing, it is purely devised to cut the housing benefit bill.

But nearly all your posts have been along the lines of selfish homeowners should pay. And you are correct, it is to reduce the housing bill, hence a benefit reduction in line with others. It was the group unaffected and should have been done at the same time as LHR.

At present it's like paying HB to surnames A - P and not the remainder as private rentals had their reduction and hardship.

Morlock

princessdon wrote: »

But nearly all your posts have been along the lines of selfish homeowners should pay.

If the housing crisis gets much worse, a logical step is to penalise home owners for under-occupying, they have the highest under-occupancy rate of all housing sectors. The other solution is to preferably build more housing, but that doesn't seem to be an urgent solution as the housing bubble would burst.

princessdon wrote: »

At present it's like paying HB to surnames A - P and not the remainder as private rentals had their reduction and hardship.

But there is no bedroom tax in private rentals, I've seen two cases on this forum alone in the last couple of days where LHA claimants have a spare room with no penalty.

ILW

Morlock wrote: »

If the housing crisis gets much worse, a logical step is to penalise home owners for under-occupying, they have the highest under-occupancy rate of all housing sectors. The other solution is to preferably build more housing, but that doesn't seem to be an urgent solution as the housing bubble would burst.



But there is no bedroom tax in private rentals, I've seen two cases on this forum alone in the last couple of days where LHA claimants have a spare room with no penalty.

LHA entitlement is based on number of bedrooms required. eg a couple get the 1 bed rate.

notanewuser

Morlock wrote: »

If the housing crisis gets much worse, a logical step is to penalise home owners for under-occupying, they have the highest under-occupancy rate of all housing sectors. The other solution is to preferably build more housing, but that doesn't seem to be an urgent solution as the housing bubble would burst.

If you seriously think that's a go-er then you need your head tested.

Morlock wrote: »

But there is no bedroom tax in private rentals, I've seen two cases on this forum alone in the last couple of days where LHA claimants have a spare room with no penalty.

Surely that just means they've found a really cheap house?!

Morlock

ILW wrote: »

LHA entitlement is based on number of bedrooms required. eg a couple get the 1 bed rate.

But it can often cover rent on a larger property than the LHA rate dictates with no bedroom tax implications. Also, the one-bedroom rate is often more than the rental cost of a two-bedroom social housing property, there should be no disparity in the amount a social or private tenant is entitled to when claiming housing benefits.