Bedroom Tax and kids living away??

princessdon

They begrudge anyone (who isn't in SH) a home. They beleive that SH tenants are to be given security, homes for life and no cost to them ever, depsite everyone else in the real world not having that.

As you know if you lost your employment or had an illness you'd lose your home or have to pay more out of a lower income, but they don't see that.

princessdon

Morlock wrote: »

Because there is a housing shortage and an 88% rate of under-occupancy in the owner-occupier sector, the biggest under-occupancy rate of all housing sectors. Having that high a number of spare rooms in one sector limits availability for those who are homeless or over-occupied in other sectors. Taxing those spare rooms in the owner-occupier sector would encourage home owners to downsize, freeing up space for those in need of housing.

The social housing sector is the most efficient sector in regard to under-occupancy at a rate of just 5%.

How can you quote 5% like it's small when on this same thread in Manchester alone someone quoted 140,000 need to move to a 1 bed?

If that is only 1 bed (and not 3 to 2 etc) or 1 bed to shared room rate and only 1 major city then there is huge under occupancy in SH.

zoominatorone

I don't like the use of the phrase "bedroom tax". It's more a case of people contributing something towards their own living expenses, like the people in the world of work do. People have become so used to being mollycoddled and being handed stuff on a plate that they have forgotten how to pay their own way in life.

Apart from single people on JSA of course, because £15 a week out of £70+ will def be a hardship.

Morlock

princessdon wrote: »

How can you quote 5% like it's small when on this same thread in Manchester alone someone quoted 140,000 need to move to a 1 bed?

Wasn't it 14,000 that was mentioned? I don't know the specific figures for Manchester, but I doubt it is anywhere near 140,000.

princessdon wrote: »

If that is only 1 bed (and not 3 to 2 etc) or 1 bed to shared room rate and only 1 major city then there is huge under occupancy in SH.

A 5% under-occupancy rate is not huge compared to 88% in the owner-occupier sector, nor any other sector, not forgetting that 81% of those 5% have only one spare room, and the majority of those are two-bedroom properties.

Morlock

zoominatorone wrote: »

I don't like the use of the phrase "bedroom tax". It's more a case of people contributing something towards their own living expenses, like the people in the world of work do.

People work and claim housing benefit too, they will also have to pay bedroom tax.

Tottyshouse

Morlock wrote: »

Because there is a housing shortage and an 88% rate of under-occupancy in the owner-occupier sector, the biggest under-occupancy rate of all housing sectors. Having that high a number of spare rooms in one sector limits availability for those who are homeless or over-occupied in other sectors. Taxing those spare rooms in the owner-occupier sector would encourage home owners to downsize, freeing up space for those in need of housing.

The social housing sector is the most efficient sector in regard to under-occupancy at a rate of just 5%.

Yes and they can be under occupied because they have bought and paid for them! I'm either really tired (getting up at 530am to go to work does that to you) or your argument makes no sense at all. I live in a private house on a private estate. My house would never be available to anyone in social housing, unless the local housing association has come into a windfall! As it is I have 2 spare bedrooms - however if I so chose I could go out and buy a 5 bedroom house tomorrow and again it would not affect anyone in social housing. Whether I live in a 2 bedroom flat (I actually own one as well) or a 5 bedroom house will never affect John Smith sitting in his council house. In fact the current tenant in my flat left social housing to live in my property!

Tottyshouse

Morlock wrote: »

People work and claim housing benefit too, they will also have to pay bedroom tax.

No matter how many times you say it - it still isn't a tax. It is a reduction in benefits.

princessdon

Morlock wrote: »

Wasn't it 14,000 that was mentioned? I don't know the specific figures for Manchester, but I doubt it is anywhere near 140,000.



A 5% under-occupancy rate is not huge compared to 88% in the owner-occupier sector, nor any other sector, not forgetting that 81% of those 5% have only one spare room, and the majority of those are two-bedroom properties.

could be an errant 0 there, do aplogise.

owner occupiers who claim BENEFITS like SMI should be affected. But you can't tell people to downsize when they paid for it.

you can increase tax in other forms to distribute wealth but not this

To give you an example I personally beleive in.

I don't think those on benefits should pay a lot in CTB. I petitioned for £1 pw in my area and that was accepted, it was fair. I also said that home owners such as myslef whose home is valued at double the band rate should pay more.

I am always objective and fair - increasing CT bands to a true value would have given LA more money so they didn't do the so called tax.

But at the same time I think that HB claimants are treat far better than PR claimants and that is very very unfair.

nannytone_2

so money is the key?
As long as you have no disability and do everything as orescibedm then yiu will get the benefit you deserve>

vkineym u gace a debetic isorder,,, matbe u should sue my oarents

Poppie68

Morlock why do you hold such a big grudge towards home owners?