Bedroom Tax and kids living away??

tpl

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 ......'

It is a not a tax....it's reducing benefits! It's very confusing people calling it a bedroom tax....it isn't. The laughing emotican is not so funny, really, shows a lack of sincerity in a serious situation.

mysterywoman10

I think for a single person (with no serious disabiity) it is a viable option if they live in a house (2 bedroom flat is entirely different) and I'm in favour of a scheme like that to encourage these people to let their rooms i.e. they are not penalised.

Also how will it work if the person they let to is also on Housing Benefit?

But we are already aware that the majority of people affected by this are not single people living in under-occuppied 3 bed houses (except pensioners who are currently exempt) Although I think a scheme to "encourage" them to let out spare rooms could be very good. Rather than live in fear of being worse off.

The OP lost my sympathy too with the "immigrants" comment I really don't think it is helpful to go down this road.

Can I please just ask why "house owner/occuppiers" seem to think they have paid for their houses completely themselves? I'm sure some will have done but how many have never had Child Benefit for example or Child Tax Credits? Excluding people who have never had children of course.

Or receive Disability benefits when living in their own home? Is this not then if you follow the logic of it all getting money from the state to help them?

bodmil

...................

seven-day-weekend

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I think for a single person (with no serious disabiity) it is a viable option if they live in a house (2 bedroom flat is entirely different) and I'm in favour of a scheme like that to encourage these people to let their rooms i.e. they are not penalised.

Also how will it work if the person they let to is also on Housing Benefit?

But we are already aware that the majority of people affected by this are not single people living in under-occuppied 3 bed houses (except pensioners who are currently exempt) Although I think a scheme to "encourage" them to let out spare rooms could be very good. Rather than live in fear of being worse off.

The OP lost my sympathy too with the "immigrants" comment I really don't think it is helpful to go down this road.

Can I please just ask why "house owner/occuppiers" seem to think they have paid for their houses completely themselves? I'm sure some will have done but how many have never had Child Benefit for example or Child Tax Credits? Excluding people who have never had children of course.

Or receive Disability benefits when living in their own home? Is this not then if you follow the logic of it all getting money from the state to help them?

The only income we ever had whilst buying our house has been Child Benefit for one child. My husband has since claimed Incapacity Benefit, but we had finished paying for our house by than. We now both get Winter Fuel Allowance too as we are over 60.

These are the only Benefits we have ever had throughout our lives (unless you count my State Pension as a Benefit).

bodmil

............

Dunroamin

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I think for a single person (with no serious disabiity) it is a viable option if they live in a house (2 bedroom flat is entirely different) and I'm in favour of a scheme like that to encourage these people to let their rooms i.e. they are not penalised.

Also how will it work if the person they let to is also on Housing Benefit?

But we are already aware that the majority of people affected by this are not single people living in under-occuppied 3 bed houses (except pensioners who are currently exempt) Although I think a scheme to "encourage" them to let out spare rooms could be very good. Rather than live in fear of being worse off.

The OP lost my sympathy too with the "immigrants" comment I really don't think it is helpful to go down this road.

Can I please just ask why "house owner/occuppiers" seem to think they have paid for their houses completely themselves? I'm sure some will have done but how many have never had Child Benefit for example or Child Tax Credits? Excluding people who have never had children of course.

Or receive Disability benefits when living in their own home? Is this not then if you follow the logic of it all getting money from the state to help them?

Why is a 2 bed flat completely different from a 2 bed house?

Also, child related benefits are given to spend on the child, not on paying the mortgage, so I don't see how this is relevant.

tpl

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Can I please just ask why "house owner/occuppiers" seem to think they have paid for their houses completely themselves? I'm sure some will have done but how many have never had Child Benefit for example or Child Tax Credits? Excluding people who have never had children of course.
Child benefit is for the children, not for paying off people's houses. But yes, everyone, including private owners, need to be take responsibility for their lifestyle choices, and plan whether they can actually afford to have more than one child, without thinking the 'benefit' system will just step in and fund it by other people's taxes.

Or receive Disability benefits when living in their own home? Is this not then if you follow the logic of it all getting money from the state to help
them?
This has got nothing to do with reducing housing benefit. Why is there so much confusion. If someone has a disability (regardless of who they are, or where they live) they are entitled to (sometimes means tested) benefits'. That's the point of the welfare state....to help people in real need.

It's about fairness and equity, and the benefits system being used for what it was meant for....i don't even think it should be called a 'benefits' system...its about the welfare of people, a welfare state to help people in 'need'; where people who are able to earn and pay taxes, can support people in need, and be supported if they are in need. It's not about people funding other people's lifestyle choices. There is such a sense of 'entitlement' around, with lack of responsibility, and taking advantage of a failing system (because its possible), which is v. sad.

nannytone_2

regarding lodgers ....
i have friends with kids that are ready to leave home and be independant ... but they arent going to replace living with their parents to go and live with their parents friend!
as i said, the private lets here are reasonable ( for a 2/3 bed) so they houseshare.
i have no family near, but again they wouldnt want to live with a 49 year old aunt!

i have 2 friends in the same position as me. one disabled and the other working 20 hours a week ( all she can get)
the disabled friend has an adapted property (which he will have to pay the 14%) the other friend is quite happy to consider me moving in with her. but as a lodger, i would lose my security, and the same applies visa versa.

mysterywoman10

I absolutely agree with you tpl but I'm just making the point to the people who seem to think they do not receive benefits and never have.

I also find it very hypocritical that when it comes to home owners the disability benefits are for the disablity but when it comes to people receiving other benefits they are not.

Child benefit is for the child yes but without it then people would have less income and struggle to make their mortgage payments ? It is still a benefit as the word says

I'm making the general point that we have ALL (or most of us) have become reliant on the benefit system in some way or another. That the need they were created for in the first place disappeared long ago.

CB was originally to give women some assess to money to care for their children. You are talking about times when very few women worked or had assess to any money without their husbands say so.
You do need to think about historical matters in how Beneftis started.

Child tax credits was the worst system ever invented it put 50% plus of the population onto another benefit. It could have been done for the majority through the tax system at source, saved a fortune in the fiasco of child tax credits.

mazza111

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But their Benefits will not be reduced by as much as the lodger's rent, so they could still afford to pay the charge for the bedroom out of it, and make up the shortfall, couldn't they? Or would it not work like that?

In all honesty 7dw I have no idea on the non dependant rules on this. I only found out last week through reading it that disabled people could have someone staying with them that wouldn't count as an ND.