This so called Bedroom Tax

lighting_up_the_chalice

Lou67 wrote: »

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

A key ethos of Social Housing is affordability. That's partly the point of it. And, of course, bedroom tax doesn't actually impact on the rent charged.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Lou67 wrote: »

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

The problem is when you receive £71.70 ESA and you now have to pay 20% towards your Council Tax and 14% of your rent and there is no smaller home to move into you will either rapidly build up rent arrears or face a choice of rent council tax food or heating.

neverdespairgirl

kafkathecat wrote: »

Even if this is an option it leaves people less money to pay for the extra expenses that disability brings. And for what? So that those on over £150,000 a year can have a tax cut. Nice.

Tax cut?

Under Labour, for well over a decade (bar a month or so right at the end) the top rate of tax was 40%.

Now it's 45%. Funny definition of "tax cut" to my mind.

nannytone_2

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

The problem is when you receive £71.70 ESA and you now have to pay 20% towards your Council Tax and 14% of your rent and there is no smaller home to move into you will either rapidly build up rent arrears or face a choice of rent council tax food or heating.

that, to me anywa, is the main issue.
people that have little opportunity to improve their income through employment and who are unable to downsize through lack of availability are, in effect, being held hostage

Dunroamin

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

The problem is when you receive £71.70 ESA and you now have to pay 20% towards your Council Tax and 14% of your rent and there is no smaller home to move into you will either rapidly build up rent arrears or face a choice of rent council tax food or heating.

That's the assessment rate of ESA which most people aren't on for long.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

that, to me anywa, is the main issue.
people that have little opportunity to improve their income through employment and who are unable to downsize through lack of availability are, in effect, being held hostage

In much the same way that those in private rent who have a shortfall to make up. Welcome to the real world.

Of course, they also have to manage without security of tenure, controlled rents, a complaints procedure with ombudsman, a 24 hour repair service, emergency re-housing if needed, adaptation where necessary, etc etc etc.

You could always join them.

clemmatis

365days wrote: »

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.

(I don't know how universal credit would affect all this) yes, if it's more expensive to do this kind of trade than to do nothing, let's pay. I can think of far worse uses of my taxes.
But that isn't the government's view.

All I really wanted to do though was alert people to the reality of the problem kafkathecat raised. It's a problem attested to by housing associations in Wales, too.

nannytone_2

trusty me ... ive lived in the real world for my whole life!

the way landlords in the private sector are allowed to charge ridiculous rents for properties, that in some cases, are no better than slums!
so why isnt the government regulating the private landlords? ih yes... because they save money by cutting even more benefits to make it 'fair'

two wrongs dont make a right, and it is always the people at the bottom of the pile paying the greatest price.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

trusty me ... ive lived in the real world for my whole life!

the way landlords in the private sector are allowed to charge ridiculous rents for properties, that in some cases, are no better than slums!
so why isnt the government regulating the private landlords? ih yes... because they save money by cutting even more benefits to make it 'fair'

two wrongs dont make a right, and it is always the people at the bottom of the pile paying the greatest price.

I was merely pointing out that, on reflection, you may come to realise that you may not be at the bottom of the pile?

nannytone_2

im not at the bottom .... just one step up.
but that doesnt mean i sneer at the people that are below me. there are many worse off... and it worries me what will happen to them