Bedroom Tax and kids living away??

zoominatorone

Morlock wrote: »

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

Quite frankly, so what?

Why shouldn't someone contribute something towards the place they call home. Do you want every single thing in your life provided for free from someone else? What happened to pride?

SandraScarlett

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.

Hi Morlock. I'm sorry, but I'm just not following this argument at all. I used to have a large 3 bed family home, where we lived for 30 years. Then the kids grew up, left home, got married and we moved to a 2 bed bungalow.

But we moved cos it meant we spent less on council tax, or rates, and heating and there were no stairs and that helped DH who has walking difficulties. In fact, the bungalow cost more than the house. But we moved for our convenience.

Are you suggesting that people who own their own home, should down size, whether they wish or not, freeing the house for the council to buy (with tax-payers money), and then use it as SH, whether the owners want to move or not?

And if they make a profit, which we could have done if we'd moved to a mobile home, should they pay tax on that? I just don't get it, and if I've misunderstood, I apologise, but I'm trying to follow your posts.

We bought our family home with walloping 14% interest, depriving ourselves of treats, that some friends thought of as the norm , so that we could pay our mortgage. Are you suggesting we should be penalised for our mindset?

As it is, I've already been quoted £20 an hour, Alzeimers care for my DH, though were we on Pension Credits, this, like Care Home costs, would be entirely free. But, although we have 2 bedrooms now, they're both in use, and we're not moving!

xx

SandraScarlett

On second thoughts, I might have another think about this, once I've read that the public-school educated, but socialist, Tony Blair, has given up his many multi-million pound houses, and is living in a tent with Cherie.:D

xx

zoominatorone

SandraScarlett wrote: »

On second thoughts, I might have another think about this, once I've read that the public-school educated, but socialist, Tony Blair, has given up his many multi-million pound houses, and is living in a tent with Cherie.:D

xx

Best place for those pair of war-mongerers would be a shack in Iraq living with kids who have terrible birth defects because of what him and his pal Bush dropped on their parents in the war.

nannytone_2

i contribute loads to ,y local commumity.
oj it isnt monetary... but i have sod all. but gibe what i can to whoever needs it.
am i less valuable than the person that earns sh1tloads and gives nothing back but tax?

Morlock

SandraScarlett wrote: »

Hi Morlock. I'm sorry, but I'm just not following this argument at all.

There is a national housing crisis, not enough property available for the amount of people requiring housing. Even if the social and private housing sectors had no under-occupancy at all, there are still not enough homes for the people who require one.

Unless huge numbers of new properties are built, the only space available to house people is in the massively under-occupied owner-occupier sector, with an under-occupancy rate of 88%.

If owner-occupiers are encouraged to fully occupy properties through under-occupancy disincentives, like the bedroom tax on social housing, it will free up space for those who need it.

princessdon

Morlock wrote: »

There is a national housing crisis, not enough property available for the amount of people requiring housing. Even if the social and private housing sectors had no under-occupancy at all, there are still not enough homes for the people who require one.

Unless huge numbers of new properties are built, the only space available to house people is in the massively under-occupied owner-occupier sector, with an under-occupancy rate of 88%.

If owner-occupiers are encouraged to fully occupy properties through under-occupancy disincentives, like the bedroom tax on social housing, it will free up space for those who need it.

You can increase our tax but not our bedrooms. We paid our own way, nothing you can say will sound logical, relevant or have any form of reasoned argument.

You cannot force someone to give up a room in what they own.

And this isn't personal as my home is 4 beds and I'd be entitled to 4 beds so don't have an extra room, it's just logical.

poet123

What rubbish, if you have bought and paid for it you should stay there until you choose to move.

Morlock

princessdon wrote: »

You can increase our tax but not our bedrooms. We paid our own way, nothing you can say will sound logical, relevant or have any form of reasoned argument.

Not to you it wouldn't, but the original bedroom tax proposals included taxing owner-occupiers for spare rooms. Don't think that because that part of the proposal was shelved that it is not still in the pipeline.

princessdon wrote: »

You cannot force someone to give up a room in what they own.

And this isn't personal as my home is 4 beds and I'd be entitled to 4 beds so don't have an extra room, it's just logical.

Of course you can force people to give up property they own, if they can no longer afford it, they will have to move. The same principal as the Mansion tax, some would not be able to afford the extra tax so would have to move to a cheaper property with less space.

Morlock

Poppie68 wrote: »

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

I don't hold a grudge towards home owners.