Bedroom Tax and kids living away??

Morlock

zoominatorone wrote: »

Do you want every single thing in your life provided for free from someone else? What happened to pride?

Are you assuming that because I oppose a policy I am affected personally? A similarly assuming attitude that suggests affected claimants should give up a couple of packs of fags a week. Daily Mail politics at its finest.

nannytone_2

so the people that werent lucky enough to earn loads and be able to pay for a 5 bed house should just ne left to rot>

i worked for years before i couldnt anymore, but because of that i should just accept whatever comes my way>

many people work bloody hard, and they bever get the opportunity to better their lot.
,y parents got that opportunity.
they worked hard and cought their council house, and are doing very well.
my son couldnt even get his name on the list because he was employed.
he lives in a tiny 2 bed flay amd pays £800 o month on a mortgage for the pribilegde.

;uck id s big part of life, no matter how hard you strive.
some of us are dealt a bum hand/// does that mean we should be happu for what we are giben?

i thought a society was judged on how it treated its old and vulnerable....

as lomg as we stay in our place and dont aspire to beetter ourdelves

notanewuser

I've always had spare bedrooms. My first house, which I bought alone, had 3 bedrooms. I was taxed on the income I used to buy it (PAYE), then taxed on the value of it (council tax) and then taxed on the things I put in it (VAT) and the gas, electricity and water I used in it (VAT).

Likewise for my husband, who also bought a house with spare bedrooms.

We now own a house together which has 5 bedrooms. We paid tax on the income which saved the deposit, and tax on the interest made on the savings. We paid tax on the purchase (stamp duty) and VAT on the estate agents and solicitors fees. We pay tax on the value through council tax, and tax on the things we buy for it (VAT). We pay tax on the gas, electricity and water we use (VAT). We then paid tax on the costs of extending it a year or so back. All of these direct taxes are higher because it is a bigger house.

We are already penalised for our choices so that others, who don't work for whatever reason, can have theirs.

Dunroamin

Morlock wrote: »

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.

And yet it still isn't a tax!

Morlock

Dunroamin wrote: »

And yet it still isn't a tax!

What isn't a tax?

SandraScarlett

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.

So basically, there are too many people chasing too few homes, or homes suitable for their needs. To what would you attribute this? Is it because when so many immigrants arrived there was insufficient housing, already put in place by the government of the day, or is it because some people have bigger families than they can provide for, and rely on SH? Or is there another reason?

Your final paragraph states: 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. There isn't a bedroom tax, there is a withdrawal of some benefits, or, to quote your words, a disincentive for those occupants to have a home bigger than they need.

But they have the choice to pay for it, and keep the size of home they desire. Don't they? So why shouldn't an owner occupier have the same choices?

They're the ones meeting the higher bands of council tax, the more costly heating bills, so that is enough disincentive to stay where they are, the same as a SH tenant is welcome to stay in their bigger-than-needs-be home, as long as they pay for it.

SH tenants enjoy free, or subsidised housing. The money that funds this, be it from "the council", or "the government", is not there through chance, but through people contributing through council tax, income tax and other forms of tax.

I've heard many posters say something like "but I wouldn't want to move to a smaller property, because they're not in nice areas". The many estates, like the huge Dagenham estate, which was built to house the Eastenders, whose homes had been condemned, were, originally, beautiful, with regular prizes for "best kept garden".

Alas, it's some of the occupants who have let their areas down, and made it bad news for others, and no amount of penalising home owners, and/or taxpayers, is going to change it.

Sorry Morlock, I presume you're not an owner occupier, and perhaps you think those that are, are lucky. But show me an OO who, through careful budgeting, hard graft and many years of forking out for repairs and improvements, would be prepared to downsize, unless they wanted to, or pay a penalty, and I'll show you a Porky Pie-er!;)

xx

Morlock

SandraScarlett wrote: »

But they have the choice to pay for it, and keep the size of home they desire. Don't they? So why shouldn't an owner occupier have the same choices?

They would have the same choice to stay, pay bedroom tax for spare rooms or move to a smaller property.

SandraScarlett wrote: »

SH tenants enjoy free, or subsidised housing. The money that funds this, be it from "the council", or "the government", is not there through chance, but through people contributing through council tax, income tax and other forms of tax.

Social housing tenants do not enjoy free housing, social landlords charge rent too. Perhaps you would care to expand on how social housing is subsidised, for example, how much government subsidy is social housing receiving this year from taxpayers?

SandraScarlett

Morlock wrote: »

They would have the same choice to stay, pay bedroom tax for spare rooms or move to a smaller property.

But SH tenants are not being charged bedroom tax, they are having some of their benefits withdrawn. They can stay if they want to meet the difference themselves.

If OOs are not receiving benefit, they cannot have it withdrawn, because it doesn't exist.



Social housing tenants do not enjoy free housing, social landlords charge rent too. Perhaps you would care to expand on how social housing is subsidised, for example, how much government subsidy is social housing receiving this year from taxpayers?

Social housing is much cheaper than housing in the private sector, as you well know, and many tenants receive HB to cover part, or all of the costs. I've answered the first part, though why you've asked me, when you know the answer I don't know.

If you wish to know the second part, google should give you the information.

xx

Morlock

SandraScarlett wrote: »

Social housing is much cheaper than housing in the private sector..

Because something is cheaper, does not mean that it is subsidised, just that it is cheaper.

SandraScarlett wrote: »

If you wish to know the second part, google should give you the information.

Good get out clause from having to back-up your statements.

nannytone_2

[Bthe LHA rate for ,y area is £75 a week.
my HA property rent is £96 a week/
the only 1 bed private let is £110 a week.
its all b0llobks whichever way i trun[/B]