Bedroom Tax and kids living away??

SingleSue

meerustar wrote: »

I agree, soon give the 'high and mighty' something to moan about.

Could you imagine it? If you own a house with more bedrooms than you need, then you will have to pay (money, tax, whatever you want to call it) or we'll make you move home :rotfl:

Soon shut the benefit bashers up 'why are being picked on, I work hard blah blah blah ......'

I absolutely and completely disagree, purchasing your own home gives you the choice how you live or how you occupy your home.

Just to clarify, I cannot be classed as a benefit basher as I am solely reliant on benefits myself (as a carer) but my parents own their own home, our family home where I grew up but as we have all flown the nest, they now have 2 spare bedrooms (well one when dad is snoring far too much :rotfl:). The catch there is that because they own their own home, then if one of them need to go into a home, then the house will cover those bills and quite rightly too...something I don't need to worry about (under the present rules) as I have no assets.

Swings and roundabouts really....

MissMoneypenny

plum2002 wrote: »

mmm, direct action worked with the Poll Tax, but then all were affected, this is happening by degrees and is harder to get people into action when they aren't affected, yet.

The other problem is that that was a protest about paying something to the government. It happened before in the early 1980s when Red Ken decided that every household in Greater London would receive an additional council tax bill as he wanted to make the tube train fares very cheap. Those of us who had to use the normail rail service to get to work as we didn't have any tube stations near us, also got this additional bill. Too many of us refused to pay the extra tax and they couldn't jail us all, so that was the end of Red Ken's plan. And those that had got a rebate on their annual tube ticket, had to repay that rebate (even though many had spent it).

I know I said yesterday that it is too late for social tenants' on benefits to protest this bedroom benefit reduction as they and other claimants did nothing when this happened to private renters on benefits, but benefits are about taking something from the government, or rather the taxpayer.

People can refuse to pay taxes to the government as the people control their own money, but with benefits, you are asking for money to be given to you and the government control the welfare states money. Plus the government will have a lot of support with these 'housing according to needs' benefits reductions, from those who pay taxes and don't claim income based benefits.

Fire_Fox

garyandsandra wrote: »

This Country is in an awful mess. What a pathetic Government we have. We both work, do the right thing, are honest with the authorities and we get sh*t on!.
really gets your goat when you see the foreigners coming in getting everything for doing nothing. Sometimes I think its better to not be as honest as its seems criminals and dishonest people get better treatment and human rights and good honest working people get none!.
Its about time the people of this country took a stand and did something about all this. There is no future for our kids, its just getting worse.

Rich get richer, the poor get poorer!!

Your wife has had secure social housing much larger than she requires for TEN YEARS even tho she had no children and you call that nothing and being sh1te on?? I call it fortunate and ungrateful. Maybe it's time act in the best interests of your community instead of being selfish and borderline racist, step aside and let a family in need get the same opportunity. If you moved to a house you can actually afford the rent on - live within your means - you'd pay less council tax and energy, so you'd be richer wouldn't you?

IME many immigrants work INCREDIBLY hard - I've seen it in several cities with people of Polish, Indian and Pakistani origin working as cleaners, kitchen porters, running their own small businesses twelve to sixteen hours a day six or seven days a week.

It's more often white Brits who won't work for minimum wage, won't work unsocial hours or who choose to remain on benefits long term, some are still calling JSA a 'giro'!! :eek: More often white Brits who are (often deliberately) having babies in their teens, expecting a council house and benefits never having done a days work in their life. Funny how 'accidental' pregnancies rarely happen to unmarried Asian girls isn't it? If you want to draw lines in the sand between different ethnic groups let's get our own house in order.

dktreesea

Morlock wrote: »

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

But if you have a private rental, as soon as the number of bedrooms that you need reduces, e.g. by one of your children moving out, the amount of the subsidy drops. If you don't want to make up the difference between the new subsidy and the actual rent out of your own pocket, you have to move to a smaller property. Why should the subsidy for social housing remain the same regardless of how many people occupy the property?

paddedjohn

Morlok, you dont half talk rubbish. Homeowners are already paying tax for the houses they have worked hard for, its called council tax and if we have a bigger house we pay more tax. If any sort of under occupancy tax was applied to homeowners and they were forced out of their homes then who do you think would be buying the larger houses? the council? buy to let landlords? you havnt really thought your silly arguement through have you?

seven-day-weekend

dorme wrote: »

hang on hang on, this is only for those claiming HB?! crazy, i agree it needs to happen, but what about my sister in law who lives (on her own) in a 3 bed detached house in surrey and pays £400 rent to the council? i assume she is ok to keep on living there with 2 spare rooms?

mental.

Yes. She herself is paying for those rooms. Someone on Housing Benefit is not. Why should someone else pay for them?

Whether it is morally acceptable for her to take up such a large social house is a different debate.

seven-day-weekend

garyandsandra wrote: »

Funny how people say what they say. I would guarantee probably everyone on here if they were in the same situation when they only needed 2 beds but were offered 3 how many do you think would have said no. were all human and in hindsight maybe or while your living in a private house again maybe different but until you are actually in the position I dont think you can really comment on morals and how people should respond.
Also most people who were offered these like my parents were planning a future which would have involved kids. Your hardly going to take a 1 bed house when you plan on having kids.
Would the Council be so quick to find you a bigger property when the need arises.....i dont think so!. Thats why people took what they were offered, most people who buy a house with a 25 year mortgage buy a house with more bedrooms than they need, its just what humans do.

Only last week I was in the job center and there was a booklet entitled, how to claim benefits when coming from abroad!. and this is fair???

And pay for it themselves. People in rented property who also pay their own rent can have as big a house as they like. So can people on Housing Benefit, they just have to pay for the extra rooms themselves.

All this legislation means is that the Government (i.e the taxpayer) is no longer going to pay for people to have one, two or more spare rooms.

And as to how to claim Benefits when coming from abroad, that could also apply to returning British Citizens who have been working abroad.

Lou76

SingleSue wrote: »

I absolutely and completely disagree, purchasing your own home gives you the choice how you live or how you occupy your home.

Just to clarify, I cannot be classed as a benefit basher as I am solely reliant on benefits myself (as a carer) but my parents own their own home, our family home where I grew up but as we have all flown the nest, they now have 2 spare bedrooms (well one when dad is snoring far too much :rotfl:). The catch there is that because they own their own home, then if one of them need to go into a home, then the house will cover those bills and quite rightly too...something I don't need to worry about (under the present rules) as I have no assets.

Swings and roundabouts really....

I dread to think where I should stand on this argument seeing as I'm now a shared ownership occupier. lol

I can just see the example on the Govt website now:

Single Sue's Mum; Married Sue, and her husband 'A Boy Named Sue' bought their house back in 1972.

At the time they thought it was a "home for life", somewhere to raise a family, and when the kids had grown up, and the parent's finally got rid of them, a room each to escape from each other in - him to snore as loud as he likes/do the football pools etc, her to give the singer sewing machine pride of place for all her friends to envy (well, it was the 70s).

However, despite riding through the ridiculous interest rates storm of the 80s (and literally having to go without meals in order to feed the kids), Single Sue & A Boy Named Sue are expected to give up their home as they're a pair of selfish $%$%$ keeping this home off of a family reliant on social housing, and it saves us building suitable houses, therefore, a family in greater need (well, keeps the electorate happy ).

The Govt would like to wish the Sue's all the best in their new home, if they can find one seeing as they're pensioners now & all their money was tied up in the bricks & mortar we acquired for a song.

p.s. Don't expect any help with Care Homes etc, as we'll deem you to still have a stake in the property (craft lawyers, ehh? )

Ohh, as for social housing? Are you kidding, it's thank to [self sufficient] folk like you that we're in this state in the first place...

Aye, I can see that working... :rotfl:

ETA: Sorry Sue, I'm honestly not stereotyping your parents, your post just happened to be the last one I read that I agreed with, and backed up my feelings on the matter.

Lou76

Should add; the reason I'm in this shared ownership flat is because a) I was an owner occupier who was desperate to sell up after 10 years of heartache in a flat full of period features - namely the roof leaking/flooding everytime it rained (it's the West of Scotland, you do the maths, as they say), the wooden framed windows blowing a gale, the rotting floors with the 3' (yes foot, not inch) gap in the bathroom, the £150pm gas/elec bill in the winter, as the heat was going out quicker than it stayed in, and the place was still freezing etc etc.

Anyway, I'd been out of work a year, or so, after I bought the place, through illness (had £20,000 worth of credit card debt, just paying the bills whilst on SSP), but had fought tooth and nail to keep it, I wasn't letting it go.

Making the decision to sell was the hardest decision I've made in my life, but deep down I knew it was right.

That was home, had been for 10 years, and had become my sanctuary - as I'd been bedbound for a huge chunk of that.

Not only did I have to make the [gut wrenching] decision to sell; I had to find a buyer, and even if I did, where could I buy as I would never get a Social Housing place, and couldn't afford private?:eek:

That's when I had to get up off my !!!! & be proactive. I didn't have a housing officer to phone & demand I be upgraded/downgraded, I only had ME to rely on.

I looked into shared ownership flats, in my area, and the new ones were unnafordable to me without a mortgage - as much as I had an existing mortgage, I didn't stand a hope in Hell's chance of renewing it due to the Halifax's credit checks etc.

Anyway, thankfully I found a 25% ownership deal - I found it by contacting all the HAs in the area, as the owner hadn't advertised privately, and didn't intend to do so.

I sold my old flat off at a ridiculously cheap rate (well, what can you do when you can't afford to 'upgrade' it enough to put it on the open market ?) Hey, it was enough to pay off the old mortgage, and pay my 25% here.

Now I'm back to renting...

Long winded, I know, but my point is; if you're determined enough you'll do it.

If I was renting, I would've walked away from that flat years ago - 9 years to be precise, when the first flood happened- Ohh I was top floor, I wasn't in a flood prone area, it was the roof. lol

So, for the most part (Nannytone etc excluded) of these "I can't move because of x,y,z excuses, Mmmmmmm, try again.

SandraScarlett

Morlock wrote: »

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



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

Not at all, if you're that interested, check it out. If I'm wrong you can then show me your proof that I am.

xx