This so called Bedroom Tax

365days

nottslass wrote: »

Re sharing - What about people with kids ? Would you really want a complete sleeping in a room next next to your young DC's ?

No, now I personally wouldn't. But when my DS was younger (and my ex had walked out) I had lodgers who helped me pay my mortgage in my more expensive house in a more expensive area. I then had a decision to make. 1.Carry on with lodgers so I could pay for the home that I loved 2. find a way to increase my income/cut down my outgoings or 3. move to a cheaper property.

I chose to move to a cheaper property.

What you choose to do is up to you. The choice that has been removed for you, that was never available to me was 4. Carry on in a house that is too big for me and let the taxpayer pick up the difference.

clemmatis

365days wrote: »

[/COLOR]

That doesn't make sense. If the rental is more why not stay put and pay the extra £14 a week.

If they move to a private property their HB may rise.

http://www.channel4.com/news/bedroom-tax-will-cost-taxpayers-more

nannytone_2

but you could see your lodgers and see what they were doing to your home and belongings.
security is important to everyone, but when you are disabled it holds greater significance.

365days

clemmatis wrote: »

If they move to a private property their HB may rise.

http://www.channel4.com/news/bedroom-tax-will-cost-taxpayers-more

Something people need to consider very carefully then in some areas especially in combination with the benefits cap. If I was in a 3 bed HA house, and only needed a 2 bed house I would find £14 a week rather than risk moving from it into private rented. The risk in moving to private rented in my eyes would be that sooner rather than later the government will be looking to make savings there too.

I do wonder though if the extra that has to be paid is more too though. HA 3 bed rent £100 have to pay £14 a week extra. Private 2 bed get £125 of £150 rent paid therefore having to find £25 a week.

kafkathecat

There is something everyone should consider. Poorly ventilated overcrowded properties are ideal for the spread of TB. There are already untreatable strains of TB around and scientists are warning that antibiotics are losing their effectiveness. As we keep pushing people into smaller and smaller spaces how long before this disease returns? This may sound like doom mongering but the conditions are ripe.

clemmatis

365days wrote: »

Something people need to consider very carefully then in some areas especially in combination with the benefits cap. If I was in a 3 bed HA house, and only needed a 2 bed house I would find £14 a week rather than risk moving from it into private rented. The risk in moving to private rented in my eyes would be that sooner rather than later the government will be looking to make savings there too.

I do wonder though if the extra that has to be paid is more too though. HA 3 bed rent £100 have to pay £14 a week extra. Private 2 bed get £125 of £150 rent paid therefore having to find £25 a week.

I agree a move might not be the most sensible decision in the long run.

I think the answer to your question is that in some cases there will be no "extra": the private property will attract no "bedroom tax" and the LHA will cover its rent fully.

princessdon

kafkathecat wrote: »

There is something everyone should consider. Poorly ventilated overcrowded properties are ideal for the spread of TB. There are already untreatable strains of TB around and scientists are warning that antibiotics are losing their effectiveness. As we keep pushing people into smaller and smaller spaces how long before this disease returns? This may sound like doom mongering but the conditions are ripe.

I think that is why they want to release those who are overcrowding and stop spare rooms.

Or are you saying 2 siblings sharing is overcrowding?

princessdon

365days wrote: »

Something people need to consider very carefully then in some areas especially in combination with the benefits cap. If I was in a 3 bed HA house, and only needed a 2 bed house I would find £14 a week rather than risk moving from it into private rented. The risk in moving to private rented in my eyes would be that sooner rather than later the government will be looking to make savings there too.

I do wonder though if the extra that has to be paid is more too though. HA 3 bed rent £100 have to pay £14 a week extra. Private 2 bed get £125 of £150 rent paid therefore having to find £25 a week.

To me that is the crux of this, they already hit them and SH tenants did nothing to petition or support. Once something goes through it becomes easier as there is a precedent.

I see the means testing of CB as the first of many, it will now lead to means testing of other benefits. There was a huge amount of support FOR cutting CB and it was easy to do, like cutting to the lower 30% of Private Rental as HB were high.

nannytone_2

princessdon wrote: »

I think that is why they want to release those who are overcrowding and stop spare rooms.

Or are you saying 2 siblings sharing is overcrowding?

if this was about freeing up properties for families, they would find a way to 'encourage' those that pay their rent in full to move to appropriate sized property too.
it is purely a benefit cutting exercise

365days

clemmatis wrote: »

I agree a move might not be the most sensible decision in the long run.

I think the answer to your question is that in some cases there will be no "extra": the private property will attract no "bedroom tax" and the LHA will cover its rent fully.

But will universal credit?

I see what you are saying. It is crazy that it will cost the tax payer more to house them in a 2 bed. But someone was living in that 2 bed before and it may have been the overcrowded family now getting a 3 bed.