Will The Bedroom Tax Affect Me?

princessdon

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

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?

No one I know expected a home for life. Tenancy yes, home no.

As said, I paid for my home, but I don't expect to live my days in it. I expect to move and downsize when my children leave home. In fact I hope to move overseas. I could not afford maintenance on this house on a lower income.

princessdon

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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.

I bought 1990 - but house prices were low, that was my point. We had 5% deposits not 20%, and yes much higher interest rates.

But those who are saying now "I worked etc" had the same choice you and other home owners did. They opted to rent, risk free and lower cost. It was a choice that was best for them, so to now throw things like "it's ok for you in the home you own, you are being selfish" remarks is unfair. People had choices back then, if you selected another path don't berate those who took a different one.

MissMoneypenny

Fire_Fox wrote: »

IME white Brits are more likely to breed first, worry about where they are going to live and how they can possibly afford it later.

Now why would you want to believe that when the facts show otherwise? You're wrong, according to this report this article on this from the Joseph Rowntee Foundation on the £500 per week benefit cap. It's 3rd world immigrants and their decendants who "are more likely to breed first, worry about where they are going to live and how they can possibly afford it later" as you call it.

"The benefit cap: What do we know about large families?"

"The Department for Work and Pensions says 90,000 adults and 220,000 children will be affected. They're likely to be large families. But what do we actually know about large families in the UK?I used the Labour Force Survey to answer our top three questions about large families in the UK.

Who are they?

Asian or Asian British and black or black British families are most likely to be large: 16-17% of families in these groups have three or more dependent children. Some 9% of mixed-heritage families are large households whereas only 6-7% of white or Chinese households have three or more dependent children."

<SNIP - of the charts showing how the families with these high numbers of children are mainly low skilled workers or unemployed>

"Tower Hamlets stands out as having the highest proportion of large families. Tamworth, Newham, Luton, Blackburn (with Darwen), Bradford, Daventry, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, Barking and Dagenham, Westminster, Stevenage, East Northamptonshire and Birmingham all have at least 12% of families with three or more dependent children.

None of this solves the argument about the merits or problems of the benefit cap. But it does help us to understand exactly who we’re talking about when we're discussing it."
http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2012/02/benefit-cap-what-do-we-know-about-large-families

If you don't want to believe Labour's figures used in that report, then there are boards just for advice on how to claim UK benefits, on immigration to the UK forums i.e.
http://immigrationboards.com/viewforum.php?f=38&sid=348227729d364aaac7d7e03496c53850
Why would they needs those boards if they were skilled enough to provide for their own familes?

This government has already shut non-EU visa routes to the UK, for the low skilled (those who will need welfare) to protect the tax payers. The government is also locked in battle/getting EU rules changed, over low skilled immigrants using the EU route to get to the UK and claim benefits from the British as soon as they arrive. They wouldn't need to spend UK taxpayers money doing that and defending our new immigration laws in court, if these people weren't a huge financial burden UK as so many are doing it.

SandraScarlett

princessdon wrote: »

I bought 1990 - but house prices were low, that was my point. We had 5% deposits not 20%, and yes much higher interest rates.

But those who are saying now "I worked etc" had the same choice you and other home owners did. They opted to rent, risk free and lower cost. It was a choice that was best for them, so to now throw things like "it's ok for you in the home you own, you are being selfish" remarks is unfair. People had choices back then, if you selected another path don't berate those who took a different one.

When I married, my Mum told me to have Married Woman's Stamp, as she did, as I would save 10 shillings (50p) a week. I didn't understand the long term implications, so that's what I did, which is why I claim 60% on DH's pension. Even though I changed when I was 50, to full stamp, and bought extra years.

Several of my friends had employers that explained the difference, or took the trouble to find out themselves, and now get full pension.

I don't sit here moaning that It's Not Fair, and they should give more of their pension to me! I had a choice, like them and, in retrospect, I made the wrong choice. So I don't have the same income, and that's that.

xx

~Chameleon~

Poppie68 wrote: »

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.

And some people have already been in that position and lost homes due to repossession and may well face going through it all again. Don't you think once in a lifetime is enough? Just how far do you think this government should push people? To the edge and beyond? That would certainly solve the housing crisis when they're all dead, now wouldn't it!

princessdon

meerustar wrote: »

It's a shame though that so many people can't find that money. They are going to go into arrears as soon as the new charge is added. There are not enough properties to move into, so what are these people supposed to do? They'll end up evicted and homeless as they can't pay, and then what?

Most can and will Pay - that's the point saves nearly £2b per year not a small amount

nannytone_2

but i thought i was about freeing up bedrooms not raising money?

princessdon

nannytone wrote: »

but i thought i was about freeing up bedrooms not raising money?

The two are not exclusive - both are the aim

princessdon

SandraScarlett wrote: »

When I married, my Mum told me to have Married Woman's Stamp, as she did, as I would save 10 shillings (50p) a week. I didn't understand the long term implications, so that's what I did, which is why I claim 60% on DH's pension. Even though I changed when I was 50, to full stamp, and bought extra years.

Several of my friends had employers that explained the difference, or took the trouble to find out themselves, and now get full pension.

I don't sit here moaning that It's Not Fair, and they should give more of their pension to me! I had a choice, like them and, in retrospect, I made the wrong choice. So I don't have the same income, and that's that.

xx

Exactly - choices are made better or worse. My Spanish home cost me £90k - hindsight is a biatch - but I Made it.

adouglasmhor

My mum and dad are in a four bedroom with only my brother still at home, this won't affect them in the slightest as my dad pays full rent from his pension and is not elligble for housing benefit anyway. My dad has enough capital to buy a smaller home but mum want's to stay there.