Will The Bedroom Tax Affect Me?

~Chameleon~

princessdon wrote: »

As did Private rentals when LHR covered their bills. The SH tenants didn't shout it wrong just adopted the "I'm alright jack". Now they are attempting to equalise it, it's now wrong. What makes it worse is that some SH tenants are still saying private rental is better, yet won't consider moving into private for rather obvious reasons.

This was always on the cards. Next will be none HB claimants with excess rooms.

But people in the private sector rent on a short-term assured hold tenancy basis. They don't own their homes, nor have any guarantee they can remain there beyond the end of their current agreement. Most social tenants were given a tenancy on a lifetime agreement and may have invested £1000s in their HOMES on that basis. How would you feel if the government came along and told you to get out of the home you've lovingly created over many years and expected to live the rest of your days in?

evenasus

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Most social tenants were given a tenancy on a lifetime agreement and may have invested £1000s in their HOMES on that basis.

To spend £1000's on a house you rent would be foolish.

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

How would you feel if the government came along and told you to get out of the home you've lovingly created over many years and expected to live the rest of your days in?

That could never happen, as I've bought and paid for my house - just like I did my car etc.

Now, if I rented a car, then yes that could be taken away.

~Chameleon~

evenasus wrote: »

To spend £1000's on a house you rent would be foolish.

What, even if you were told and genuinely believed you would be living in that home for the rest of your life? Not all social tenants live in a ghetto or sink estate. Some actually treat and care for their homes as they would if they did own them.

That could never happen, as I've bought and paid for my house - just like I did my car etc.

Lucky you! Some people may have ended up in the unfortunate situation of no longer being able to do that through no fault of their own.

MissMoneypenny

Morlock wrote: »

I know exactly how bedroom tax is implemented, thanks.

Clearly, you don't You still think a benefit reduction, is a tax.

Poppie68

Nobody is forcing them to give up the lifetime tennacy, just asking them to contribute to them. If people can't or refuse they stand a chance of losing their home just like homeowners would lose theirs if they can't or refuse to pay their mortgage. I'm disabled if i can't or stop paying my mortgage they will take my home so why should tennants be treated any differently.

Morlock

evenasus wrote: »

To spend £1000's on a house you rent would be foolish.

All of those £1000s wasted on disability adaptations where a tenancy has been guaranteed for an extensive amount of time, how foolish.

notanewuser

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

What, even if you were told and genuinely believed you would be living in that home for the rest of your life? Not all social tenants live in a ghetto or sink estate. Some actually treat and care for their homes as they would if they did own them.

Aren't these the same people who then get massive discounts to buy the houses and make them their own?

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Lucky you! Some people may have ended up in the unfortunate situation of no longer being able to do that through no fault of their own.

And many will have had free housing, cash in their pockets, their children educated, free healthcare and council services and then free care when they're elderly or infirm without ever lifting a finger or paying a penny of their own money into the pot.

princessdon

Morlock wrote: »

The extra benefits support disabled people receive helps to put them on a par with able bodied people, otherwise they are, more often than not, at a distinct disadvantage.

Expecting disabled people to now top-up rent out of their disability benefits destroys that parity.

Why when others are expected? If those benefits bring them to par then to treat them the same is correct. Equality is the norm and eutpoia, not discrimination.

I AM disabled (or ill as I prefer the term as I refuse to give in to it at such a young age), I hit support group and if wanted probably higher rate care DLA. I don't get extra money. Some need additional funding but others it actually does nothing except pay for day to day things that have little to do with disabilities. I honestly think if payments were tailored to need then it would be better all round. Too expensive to administer I know, but when you have alcoholics getting MRC and support group who spend 100% of those on alcohol it can't equate to someone with a stroke paying for a carer.

princessdon

evenasus wrote: »

To spend £1000's on a house you rent would be foolish.


That could never happen, as I've bought and paid for my house - just like I did my car etc.

Now, if I rented a car, then yes that could be taken away.

Exactly - people rent things, homes, cars, electrical goods. No one expects until owned it is theirs. The term rent means just that.

My parents had a council house that I grew up in, and kept it lovely. Always painted, clean, roses and well kept garden etc, but they didn't refit a kitchen or bathroom or spend tens of thousands each year on modernisation. They always knew it didn't belong to them.

MissMoneypenny

princessdon wrote: »

People say "I worked all my life, or I worked for 30 years etc", however, despite mortgages at that time being easy to gain.

Not true. We had to save for a deposit for a house and usually have a saving account with the mortgage lender we wanted to borrow from; showing substantial monthly inputs; to prove we would be able to pay a mortgage every month. Then we had to go for an interview with the lender to prove we were worth lending money too.

The interest rates were high too. No cheap furniture then and no cheap electrics from China either. Family members would route around their own stuff to donate a double bed and mattress; sofa; dinningroom table; cooker; fridge; crockery. My double bed came from my sister: who had used it when she was first married and had got it from her mother in law, who had had that bed for 10 years and had given birth in it to my sister's, sister in law!

Back then there were no lie to buys (committing fraud with false salaries); no 100% mortgages; no 125% mortgages; no interest only mortgages with no repayment vehicle; no mortgage for someone with bad credit; no mortgage for someone who couldn't prove they earned enough AND could save money.

The easiest time to buy a house seems to have been from the late 90s until about 2010 because of how easy it was to get a mortgage even if you didn't earn much or have savings (everthing in my third paragraph). Plus this era was a time of very low mortgage interest rates; cheap furniture, clothes, electrics and easy to obtain credit.