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

The_Green_Man_2

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 never said it was a tax, I said it was a reduction. I just want the government to be upfront rather than hide behind this ridiculous bedroom scheme.

It's plain why they have done it, it allows them to get an unpopular measure through with the support of the majority of voters. Who wouldn't agree that single people living in a 2 bed house should move into a 1 bed, who wouldn't agree that a couple with 1 kid should only have a 2 bed house in order to help aleviate overcrowded families? It makes total sense.

Except, this isn't the problem that the government is trying to address because if it was, they would initiate a building program to develop these smaller homes if there was a shortage and then they could change the law to allow them to compulsarily move people into these smaller homes. While they were at it, they could also implement a facility to income check people so that anyone who could afford to live in private accomodation could be moved out to make way for those who can't. Simples.

This isn't happening, they are simply reducing housing benefit payments. That's why I feel they should be up front and do it, instead of hiding behind a devisive and cowardly policy. I'm surprised sensible people are falling for it to be honest, but in a recession nothing gets people on board quicker than a bit of benefit bashing.

CLAPTON

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I never said it was a tax, I said it was a reduction. I just want the government to be upfront rather than hide behind this ridiculous bedroom scheme.

It's plain why they have done it, it allows them to get an unpopular measure through with the support of the majority of voters. Who wouldn't agree that single people living in a 2 bed house should move into a 1 bed, who wouldn't agree that a couple with 1 kid should only have a 2 bed house in order to help aleviate overcrowded families? It makes total sense.

Except, this isn't the problem that the government is trying to address because if it was, they would initiate a building program to develop these smaller homes if there was a shortage and then they could change the law to allow them to compulsarily move people into these smaller homes. While they were at it, they could also implement a facility to income check people so that anyone who could afford to live in private accomodation could be moved out to make way for those who can't. Simples.

This isn't happening, they are simply reducing housing benefit payments. That's why I feel they should be up front and do it, instead of hiding behind a devisive and cowardly policy. I'm surprised sensible people are falling for it to be honest, but in a recession nothing gets people on board quicker than a bit of benefit bashing.

basically you support the policy
in fact you would prefer far more draconic actions too

your only complaint seems to about the way the policy is presented.

The_Green_Man_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

basically you support the policy
in fact you would prefer far more draconic actions too

your only complaint seems to about the way the policy is presented.

Basically, no I don't. On both accounts. I suggest you re-read my post.

CLAPTON

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Basically, no I don't. On both accounts. I suggest you re-read my post.

and

Who wouldn't agree that single people living in a 2 bed house should move into a 1 bed, who wouldn't agree that a couple with 1 kid should only have a 2 bed house in order to help aleviate overcrowded families? It makes total sense.

and

Except, this isn't the problem that the government is trying to address because if it was, they would initiate a building program to develop these smaller homes if there was a shortage and then they could change the law to allow them to compulsarily move people into these smaller homes. While they were at it, they could also implement a facility to income check people so that anyone who could afford to live in private accomodation could be moved out to make way for those who can't. Simples.

and

This isn't happening, they are simply reducing housing benefit payments. That's why I feel they should be up front and do it, instead of hiding behind a devisive and cowardly policy.

Jennifer_Jane

Why are people suggesting that there are insufficient one bedroom flats/houses or whatever. My partner, as an example, gets no benefits at all, and lives in a house with 4 bedrooms. There are 5 people living there. These people are different races and personalities, and there is no particular choice of who moves in as the leaving person makes that choice. Only that they can ask someone to move out, if absolutely necessary. He's no youngster (as I was when I shared with 5-6 people in 3 bedrooms in the late 60's in London).

So why should single people receiving the tax-payers' "shilling" not do the same?

Social housing is a scarce resource, families are (apparently - too lazy to try to find figures) breaking up because of a lack of bedrooms; and the country needs to save money. If you have a spare bedroom and don't want or can't afford the reduction in housing subsidy, then get a lodger. You have more choices than people struggling with low paid jobs who don't get benefits.

robmatic

It's interesting that this isn't questioned. When did it become a human right to have a 1 bedroom flat of your own? Every student I have known and pretty much every young professional I know has flatshared.

angrypirate

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Why are people suggesting that there are insufficient one bedroom flats/houses or whatever. My partner, as an example, gets no benefits at all, and lives in a house with 4 bedrooms. There are 5 people living there. These people are different races and personalities, and there is no particular choice of who moves in as the leaving person makes that choice. Only that they can ask someone to move out, if absolutely necessary. He's no youngster (as I was when I shared with 5-6 people in 3 bedrooms in the late 60's in London).

So why should single people receiving the tax-payers' "shilling" not do the same?

Social housing is a scarce resource, families are (apparently - too lazy to try to find figures) breaking up because of a lack of bedrooms; and the country needs to save money. If you have a spare bedroom and don't want or can't afford the reduction in housing subsidy, then get a lodger. You have more choices than people struggling with low paid jobs who don't get benefits.

Because that ruins the socialists / Labours argument.

The_Green_Man_2

Why not wind your neck back in CLAPTON and debate in a reasonable manner?

If you read my post, you'd see that I was disputing whether the government's policy really was to help alleviate overcrowing as they state or whether it was simply a vehicle to reduce the housing benefit bill.

If it really is to help alleviate overcrowding then using a financial incentive to move people to smaller homes is completely pointless if those smaller homes aren't available.

If the policy is a vehicle to reduce the housing benefit bill then the government should say so and reduce benefit across the board, instead of hiding behing 'overcrowding'.

So in answer to your questions:

basically you support the policy - Which policy? Reducing the housing benefit bill but hiding it behind 'overcrowding' or trying to solve overcrowding without actually making smaller homes available?


in fact you would prefer far more draconic actions too - No idea what you are talking about here. I'm still at the stage of determining what the policy actually is. I haven't provided alternatives.

your only complaint seems to about the way the policy is presented. - Nope, please see points above.

cepheus

You'd think that landowners, with their hegemonic grip on the countryside and their tremendous lobbying power - exercised through bodies like the Countryside Alliance, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the House of Lords - were powerful enough already. But David Cameron evidently didn't think so. He appointed one of his richest aristocratic chums, the hereditary owner of two vast estates and a good deal of property elsewhere, as minister for the natural environment, water and rural affairs.

The result is that Richard Benyon, the minister in question, is so enmeshed in potential conflicts of interest that were he to recuse himself from all the issues in which he has a personal stake, he would have nothing to do but order the departmental paperclips.....

The landowners seem to be asserting a power to exclude that they do not possess. [but]
there appears to be a general right of navigation on all rivers.... this right was tested in the high court in 2002. But because landowners and their tenants do not recognise this right...canoeists, kayakers, swimmers and the rest of the public are barred by threatening signs, barbed wire and intimidating men insisting that they are trespassing.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/60394239#Comment_60394239

cepheus

Key think-tank paper calls for Land Value Tax

A paper published today by the think-tank CLASS makes the case for a Land Value Tax in the UK to challenge the housing and debt crisis.

It is the first time a key think-tank has called for a LVT. The paper is authored by Andy Hull, a Labour councillor and a former senior research fellow at the IPPR think-tank.

The paper proposes that a Land Value Tax, targeted at unproductive wealth and speculation, could help deliver the house-building revolution – and the economic revival – our country desperately needs.

Author Andy Hull says that introducing a LVT would “take political courage”.

It will mean facing down vested interests, not least the big land-banking ‘developers’ who deliberately drip-feed properties onto the market, making large profits on small volumes of output, even though they have the land and the country desperately needs more homes.
It will take a manifesto commitment, a real mandate, and no doubt a battle in parliament. But, at least in some sense, this land is ours. And our tax system should reflect that fact.

The paper – ‘In Land Value: The Case for a Land Value Tax in the UK’ is available from here.

The Centre for Labour and Social Studies (Class) was established in 2012 by Unite the Union, GMB and the Institute of Employment Rights to act as a centre for left debate and discussion.