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

CLAPTON

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.

the government is being 100% upfront about wanting to reduce the benefits bill
how can anyone doubt it?

The_Green_Man_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

the government is being 100% upfront about wanting to reduce the benefits bill
how can anyone doubt it?

Then why wrap it up in such an ill-conceived scheme? Why not just reduce the payments without resorting to this gimmick?

CLAPTON

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Then why wrap it up in such an ill-conceived scheme? Why not just reduce the payments without resorting to this gimmick?

The overall aim is to reduce the benefits bill.. no reasonable person could doubt that.

Within that overall aim are specific policies.

The spare room situation is clearly a very fair objective.
It is quite wrong that a family with children might to cramped up into a small flat whilst a single person might be living in a three bed house with garden; both being subsidised by ordinary working people.

At the moment, there are no real figures for the shortage of one bed properties or indeed if it is a significant issue.

antrobus

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Then why wrap it up in such an ill-conceived scheme? Why not just reduce the payments without resorting to this gimmick?

Presumably because the application of the same 'gimmick', commonly known as 'Local Housing Allowance', seems to have worked in respect of private sector tenants. Or at least 'worked' in the sense that no one seems to have moaned about it to the same extent as they have with the application of a similar rule to social housing tenants.

The_Green_Man_2

antrobus wrote: »

Presumably because the application of the same 'gimmick', commonly known as 'Local Housing Allowance', seems to have worked in respect of private sector tenants. Or at least 'worked' in the sense that no one seems to have moaned about it to the same extent as they have with the application of a similar rule to social housing tenants.

Perhaps that's because people who rent privately can move to a different property quite easily whereas people in social housing cannot?

antrobus

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Perhaps that's because people who rent privately can move to a different property quite easily whereas people in social housing cannot?

I can't see any reason why that should be the case. Are social housing tenants in some way less capable of using a man with a van?

Mind you, I still don't see the relevance of the bedroom tax (sic) or LHA to the question of why "We need a land and wealth tax to replace income and transaction tax"?

The_Green_Man_2

antrobus wrote: »

I can't see any reason why that should be the case. Are social housing tenants in some way less capable of using a man with a van?

I don't think the problem is down to the logistics of moving, more down to the availability of properties to move to.

cepheus

Someone is making a lot of money of the land rent in the UK. A land tax might contain the escalating land prices.

It's unclear exactly how it would affect food prices. Land for Beef and Sheep farming is heavily subsidised by the EU but not for Pigs and chickens which are presumably much smaller holdings. In New South Wales Australia, smaller holdings (for them) are exempt from their land tax.

CLAPTON

The_Green_Man wrote: »

I don't think the problem is down to the logistics of moving, more down to the availability of properties to move to.

No,

it's because of the unintended consequences of social housing.

Social housing is, in general much cheaper than the going local private rented sector;
in general too, tenants have better security of tenure etc etc.

So no person in social housing willing moves out; so it leads to the situation where single people live in 3 bed houses.

So when it's said that there is a shortage of single bed flat, it actually means there is a shortage of these flats in the social sector even if there are many private sector flat available in the locality.

The_Green_Man_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

So no person in social housing willing moves out; so it leads to the situation where single people live in 3 bed houses.

So when it's said that there is a shortage of single bed flat, it actually means there is a shortage of these flats in the social sector even if there are many private sector flat available in the locality.

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?