This so called Bedroom Tax

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

i lived in east london, and due to the problems in yugoslavia, we had a massive influx of asylum seekers, and the result was the list being closed to anyone that had a place to live ( with me) and worked,
my daughter in law went to night school and has since qualified as an accountant and is on an extrememly good income, but at the time it was frustrating because they didnt earn enough for a mortgage when the price of a 2 bed flat was 180k

No point in expending resource in adding to a list if their is no prospect of the application being successful. That's just efficient use of public money. Public money which could be spent on social housing.

Dunroamin

Marches wrote: »

Yes, of course this will be reversed whenever Labour next come to power though.
There is very little help to working people unless you count income support, but still far less than for people on job seekers.

Income Suport isn't generally a benefit for working people.

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

Actually I meant, did you have any data that contradicted mine and/or suggested single people under 24 with no dependent children were over-occupying social housing to any significant extent. Obviously anyone who can apply for social housing can be allocated it. But have you any comments on the data I presented?

No. I have no specific data. I'm sure the stats are there somewhere, but I haven't looked. 7% under 25 sounds about right. SH is over represented by those with greater housing needs not usually addressed in the private sector. Sheltered, elderly, vulnerable, wheelchair accessible, adapted, supported etc etc. Take those groups out of the equation and 7% sounds a bit higher than it did.

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

No point in expending resource in adding to a list if their is no prospect of the application being successful. That's just efficient use of public money. Public money which could be spent on social housing.

i understood the reasons, but surely when there is a large influx of people, they should be du=isoersed to where they can be accomodated, rather than allowing people to all settle in one area.uts was criminal that the councils werent allowed to build social housing to replace the properties that were sold off... but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
but i still cant agree to these changes if people have no alternatives. it was, on paper, a good idea but poorly thought out as the worst affected are those who have the least choice

lighting_up_the_chalice

Marches wrote: »

Yes, of course this will be reversed whenever Labour next come to power though.
There is very little help to working people unless you count income support, but still far less than for people on job seekers.

Working people can claim tax credits, childcare costs, housing benefit/LHA, council tax support, free healthcare and education, tax relief on pension contributions, paid holidays etc... enough to be going on with, surely?

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

i understood the reasons, but surely when there is a large influx of people, they should be du=isoersed to where they can be accomodated, rather than allowing people to all settle in one area.uts was criminal that the councils werent allowed to build social housing to replace the properties that were sold off... but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
but i still cant agree to these changes if people have no alternatives. it was, on paper, a good idea but poorly thought out as the worst affected are those who have the least choice

Those with the least choice are, surely, those stuck in unaffordable, poor quality private rentals, desperate to reach the security of social housing while effectively subsidising its under-occupancy.... funding the very thing preventing their own choice from being realised.

Morlock

Marches wrote: »

Yes, of course this will be reversed whenever Labour next come to power though.

Funnily enough, working people (even voluntary workers) already get priority for social housing in many local authorities, introduced under Labour in Labour run local authorities.

clemmatis

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

No. I have no specific data. I'm sure the stats are there somewhere, but I haven't looked. 7% under 25 sounds about right. SH is over represented by those with greater housing needs not usually addressed in the private sector. Sheltered, elderly, vulnerable, wheelchair accessible, adapted, supported etc etc. Take those groups out of the equation and 7% sounds a bit higher than it did.

As I said, 40% of the 7% receive no HB.

I realise the people aged 16-24 aren't elderly. Is there reason to suppose no person in that age group falls into another group you've taken out of the equation? If not, 7% might not sound any higher... .

Marches

Morlock wrote: »

Funnily enough, working people (even voluntary workers) already get priority for social housing in many local authorities, introduced under Labour in Labour run local authorities.

I have never heard of this. Why if it was introduced under Labour is it only in their constituencies and not nationwide if that is the case? I have a hard time believing that a party that panders so blatantly to people on benefits would take such measures, do you have any sources?

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

As I said, 40% of the 7% receive no HB.

I realise the people aged 16-24 aren't elderly. Is there reason to suppose no person in that age group falls into another group you've taken out of the equation? If not, 7% might not sound any higher... .

If you are younger, you are also less likely to be mobility impaired (or have any other physical impairment), need sheltered housing, an adapted property etc, all things for which SH is over-represented. So, although the headline figure may be 7%, it will be higher once you remove those specific housing needs groups from the overall equation, regardless of their age group.