We need a land and wealth tax to replace income and transaction tax.

CLAPTON

The_Green_Man wrote: »

You seem to be changing the parameters of the discussion to whether we should have social housing or not. Getting back to the actual discussion, if single people are living in 3 bed social houses then how do they move into 1 bed social houses if they aren't available?

Of course the parameters are being changed.

That's exactly what the whole raft of policies are aimed at.

Just like the people who had £100,000 rents paid by taxpayers. Previously they could insist they needed to stay in their locality; now that doesn't wash.

Why do you think it wrong for a single person in social housing to have to move to a 1 bed in the private sector if that allows a family with children to move into the 3 bed place?

Why is that wrong?

After all, the majority of people paying taxes to subsidise the 3 bed social house, are themselves living in private accommodation.

We need to change the rules of social housing as it causing families in real need, from obtaining suitable accommodation

The_Green_Man_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

Of course the parameters are being changed.

That's exactly what the whole raft of policies are aimed at.

Just like the people who had £100,000 rents paid by taxpayers. Previously they could insist they needed to stay in their locality; now that doesn't wash.

Why do you think it wrong for a single person in social housing to have to move to a 1 bed in the private sector if that allows a family with children to move into the 3 bed place?

Why is that wrong?

After all, the majority of people paying taxes to subsidise the 3 bed social house, are themselves living in private accommodation.

We need to change the rules of social housing as it causing families in real need, from obtaining suitable accommodation

You're taking the discussion away from "how can people in social housing downsize if no smaller properties are available" to "Should we have social housing"?

Do you feel that the government is trying to drive single people out of social housing with this policy? If so, then does it not underline my orignal position that the government should stop trying to hide its real intentions with gimmicks?

CLAPTON

The_Green_Man wrote: »

You're taking the discussion away from "how can people in social housing downsize if no smaller properties are available" to "Should we have social housing"?

Do you feel that the government is trying to drive single people out of social housing with this policy? If so, then does it not underline my orignal position that the government should stop trying to hide its real intentions with gimmicks?

Single people in large social housing properties can downsize.
In many cases within the social sector and in other cases to within the private sector.
No actually figures of the size of the issues are currently available as far as I can see.

Otherwise they can choose to pay a little more and stay: personally this seems very wrong if there are families in great need of appropriate housing.

But rather than address the actual housing issues, one may want to explore a conspiracy theory in even greater detail.

Devon_Sailor

antrobus wrote: »

Presumably, as is currently the case, agricultural land would be exempt from this new-fangled-a-bit-short-on-the-actual-detail land tax that the OP has in mind.

I very much doubt the Land Tax advocates/acolytes would allow such a thing - after all, in their mind they are introducing it to nail the large aristocratic landowners. In fact, I expect in their mind pretty much anyone who could be described as a "landowner" would instantly be labelled Tory Scum and charged to the rafters.

In a moment of weakness I actually looked at their website promoting a Land Tax. with all of its to-be-expected rebuttals and FAQs. Disturbingly naïve is all I can say. Obviously dreamt up by someone who has never stepped outside of their rented city centre abode.... :rotfl:

D_S

CLAPTON

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

I very much doubt the Land Tax advocates/acolytes would allow such a thing - after all, in their mind they are introducing it to nail the large aristocratic landowners. In fact, I expect in their mind pretty much anyone who could be described as a "landowner" would instantly be labelled Tory Scum and charged to the rafters.

In a moment of weakness I actually looked at their website promoting a Land Tax. with all of its to-be-expected rebuttals and FAQs. Disturbingly naïve is all I can say. Obviously dreamt up by someone who has never stepped outside of their rented city centre abode.... :rotfl:

D_S

Best to separate the idea of land value tax and wealth taxes as they have different objectives.


Land value taxes are about encouraging the more effective use of land rather than raising revenue itself or social engineering.

Additionally it seeks to tax the 'social ' value of the land too i.e. the value the land has because of its location and social facilities like planning permission.


Basically the idea is that if e.g. there is land with planning permission but being unused, the land value tax will be the same as a similar piece of land with a house on it.

That does means there might be a council tax on the house to fund the provision of local services quite separately from the land value tax.

neverdespairgirl

The_Green_Man wrote: »

A small reduction that most can ill afford and without any option for them to downsize to a smaller place because of the lack of suitable one bedroom properties. If the government want to reduce the amount of housing benefit then it should be upfront about it, not hide behind these sorts of schemes.

That isn't the point. It's a reduction, not a tax.

It seems insane to me that people are getting their rents paid for extra bedrooms, while other people are crammed into places which are far too small and overcrowded.

grizzly1911

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

That isn't the point. It's a reduction, not a tax.

It seems insane to me that people are getting their rents paid for extra bedrooms, while other people are crammed into places which are far too small and overcrowded.

I agree that it does seem wrong that people occupy to their property, mismatched to their needs, providing their isn't a valid reason.

Only time will tell whether it actually meets the publicised design and whether it does anything to contain the cost.

There was a chap on 5L today who was married with three young children in a 4 bed property. He technically only needs three bedrooms at present but in two years time will need four again by the design. It did seem crazy that he should move out, potentially having to move schools only then to have to hope he can get back into a suitable property. He didn't know whether he could afford to make up the shortfall in the interim.

There seem to be a number of these anomalies being hi lighted in the media. It would be good to hear of some positive resolutions to put them to bed.

It would also have been good if they could have demonstrated that there was/would be sufficient suitable stock to accommodate down shifters.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I agree that it does seem wrong that people occupy to their property, mismatched to their needs, providing their isn't a valid reason.

Only time will tell whether it actually meets the publicised design and whether it does anything to contain the cost.

There was a chap on 5L today who was married with three young children in a 4 bed property. He technically only needs three bedrooms at present but in two years time will need four again by the design. It did seem crazy that he should move out, potentially having to move schools only then to have to hope he can get back into a suitable property. He didn't know whether he could afford to make up the shortfall in the interim.

There seem to be a number of these anomalies being hi lighted in the media. It would be good to hear of some positive resolutions to put them to bed.

It would also have been good if they could have demonstrated that there was/would be sufficient suitable stock to accommodate down shifters.

I'm sure there are many owner occupiers who have three children and manage to live very happily in a 3 bedroomed house.

Why isn't that possible for someone on benefits?

Should taxpayers fund bigger houses for owner occupiers who break these shocking rules that forbid a 16 old girl sharing with her 15 year old sister?

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm sure there are many owner occupiers who have three children and manage to live very happily in a 3 bedroomed house.

Why isn't that possible for someone on benefits?

Should taxpayers fund bigger houses for owner occupiers who break these shocking rules that forbid a 16 old girl sharing with her 15 year old sister?

I am sure you are right but, apparently, it isn't what the good social handbook says. Why were they put in a 4 bed house to start with?

It will interesting to see how these anomalies pan out.

neverdespairgirl

grizzly1911 wrote: »

There was a chap on 5L today who was married with three young children in a 4 bed property. He technically only needs three bedrooms at present but in two years time will need four again by the design. It did seem crazy that he should move out, potentially having to move schools only then to have to hope he can get back into a suitable property. He didn't know whether he could afford to make up the shortfall in the interim.

There seem to be a number of these anomalies being hi lighted in the media. It would be good to hear of some positive resolutions to put them to bed.

Not clear to me why (with 3 young children) he'd need 4 beds within 2 years. After all, with 3 children, there must be at least 2 which share a gender, and therefore can share a bedroom!

But even if they were in a 3 bed house, and in a few years' time became entitled to a 4 bed, that wouldn't mean a quick move by any means. That's because there are very many people stuck in social housing which is too small for their current circumstances, but they must wait until they are high enough up the list for larger accommodation.

I simply don't see why people should stay overhoused in a scare resource at the state's expense.

For example, this blog:

http://keepourcouncilhomes.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/victims-of-the-bedroom-tax-sheilas-story/

Our hero in the story, Sheila, lives alone in a 3 bed council house, and has lived there alone since 2009. The whole post is about the absolute unfairness of the change meaning that Sheila will not in the future be able to get her rent paid for the whole place.

Why on earth should she? Well, she says she's lived there 16 years, she brought up her children there, and she likes living there. None of which sound terribly convincing, to me.

It's not exactly unusual for people who own their homes to downsize in later life. My parents, for example, sold their house in London just before Christmas. They bought it 21 years ago, when they had 4 school-aged children living at home. Now all those children live elsewhere, they found they were, in my mother's words, rattling around like marbles in a biscuit tin. So they sold it.

Now my mother, in particular as she was a stay at home mother, had a lot of attachment to, and memories of, the house. But it's not as if those memories no longer exist, or that the house should become a permanent museum to "NDG's childhood home".

My grandmother lived in the same house, from the age of 41 until she was 74. 3 years after her husband died, she sold it, and moved to a small, one-level bungalow. It was her family house, memories of her children and husband, but that's a poor reason to stay on your own in a 3 bed house with a large garden.