This so called Bedroom Tax

kloana

paulineb wrote: »

And I will pay the bedroom tax. But if Cameron and the like are waxing lyrical about downsizing, they should realise that for some people, thats not an option due to shortage of housing in the areas they live in.

I thought of a half-baked scheme (not even half-baked, more like still frozen) whereby those who would move (downsize) could join some kind of register, whereby they pay their 'tax' as normal, yet have some, or part, refunded upon acceptance of the first reasonable offer of downsized accommodation.

Obviously there'd have to be safeguards in place for the tenant, so that they aren't shoved in awful and inappropriate properties solely because of its number of bedrooms. And safeguards for the powers that be, to ensure that tenants don't simply intend to downsize, but do actually take the plunge.

I, too, know of many people who would gladly downsize, but downsizing from a 3 bed to a 2 bed is particularly problematic.

clemmatis

princessdon wrote: »

That is EXACTLY what you don't really get. Mortgagees don't own their home, the bank does. If they ever need benefits they WILL NOT get the full amount that their payments should be.

Might that just be because mortgagees can normally expect to.own a house/flat and make a profit in the process?

Yes I know. Negative equity. But I have never been anywhere near that because not being !!!!less, I was always undermortgaged; and knowing the housing bubble would burst, did not, in the boom's last years, trade up

No one really has security (even owners with deeds don't) as all it takes is for the Govt to decide that those with deeds need to pay 1000% Council Tax - they'd then need to move.

Epic trolling -- well done.

princessdon

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

But they cannot change the terms of the existing tenancy.




But it is the definition of a secure tenancy..... and that's what they signed.

agreed, but the terms can change, they could decide to "tax" rooms of those who pay and include a surcharge, or they could "persuade" them to move by increasing rental over LHR or any number of things.

The tenancy remains, however, the benefit of lower rental and affordability may not always be so.

People on here are already crying out for SH tenants under occupying to pay a tax, whose to say they won't do just that?

No one has security IF they cannot afford to live where they are.

princessdon

clemmatis wrote: »

Might that just be because mortgagees can normally expect to.own a house/flat and make a profit in the process?

Yes I know. Negative equity. But I have never been anywhere near that because not being !!!!less, I was always undermortgaged; and knowing the housing bubble would burst, did not, in the boom's last years, trade up



Epic trolling -- well done.

No it's true and I don't have the issue of Neg Equity, but many do. More importantly in today's economy the interest rate rises and it forces them out. Some HAD to trade up (over crowded).


It's not trolling, it's pointing out that even home owners (especially newer ones) certainly don't feel secure or that they will always be able to stay in their home.

Even with huge equity if you can't pay you have to sell and move. Under UC they are saying they only pay 2 years SMI - What happens at the end for those?

lighting_up_the_chalice

princessdon wrote: »

agreed, but the terms can change, they could decide to "tax" rooms of those who pay and include a surcharge, or they could "persuade" them to move by increasing rental over LHR or any number of things.

No... Because these are terms of the tenancy, a legally binding agreement they made when they signed.... remember?

princessdon

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

No... Because these are terms of the tenancy, a legally binding agreement they made when they signed.... remember?

They can increase rental as an incentive, just like the so called tax - they still have a secure tenancy but have an incentive to move/downsize.

lighting_up_the_chalice

princessdon wrote: »

They can increase rental as an incentive, just like the so called tax - they still have a secure tenancy but have an incentive to move/downsize.

The terms of the tenancy dictate the rent rises. The tenancy they signed..... remember?

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

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

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

But the larger family moving FROM a private let INTO their SH unit will see a bigger reduction in their housing costs.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

At my local authority I have received relatively few bedroom tax appeals. I deal with all the appeals - what we have received is hundreds and hundreds of Discretionary Housing Payment claims.

People only have until Wednesday to appeal against the Bedroom Tax - those that get turned down for DHP and then try and appeal the original decision will now be too late.

Lou67

Even with the 'bedroom tax' most social housing rents are still lower than private let!