This so called Bedroom Tax

lighting_up_the_chalice

Marches wrote: »

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?

Labour have expressed their intention to make it national policy....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/11/workers-priority-council-housing-lists

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/labour-workers-to-get-social-housing-priority/6517080.article

clemmatis

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

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.

Yes I realise younger people are less likely to have mobility problems. But are younger people in social housing representative of all younger people in that respect? And are they possibly more likely than the population as a whole to have very young children?

Of the 60% of the 7% who receive HB most appear to have children.

Not that the precise % matters, in a way. My point is that the data do not bear out your assertion that we have a culture of expectation that "when a young person leaves the family home, they are entitled to self-contained accommodation".

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

Yes I realise younger people are less likely to have mobility problems. But are younger people in social housing representative of all younger people in that respect? And are they possibly more likely than the population as a whole to have very young children?

Of the 60% of the 7% who receive HB most appear to have children.

Not that the precise % matters, in a way. My point is that the data do not bear out your assertion that we have a culture of expectation that "when a young person leaves the family home, they are entitled to self-contained accommodation".

Statistically quantifying a notion is all but impossible. However, the: Survey of English Housing 2005/6 showed that 18% of all householders lived in social housing, whereas the figure for 20-24 year old householders was 28%. Read into that what you will.

Morlock

Marches wrote: »

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?

It wasn't only introduced in Labour constituencies, I was just highlighting that it was introduced under Labour and in Labour constituencies, as well as other non-Labour constituencies.

Have a look at Manchester's housing policy, possibly the safest Labour seat in the country, workers have been given higher housing priority for a number of years.

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/84/rehousing_applicants/4458/a_summary_of_our_rehousing_rules/5

There are many other authorities that give workers extra priority for housing, look at some other local housing policies as it is now quite widespread.

clemmatis

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Statistically quantifying a notion is all but impossible.

That's one way of avoiding the data.

However, the: Survey of English Housing 2005/6 showed that 18% of all householders lived in social housing, whereas the figure for 20-24 year old householders was 28%. Read into that what you will.

Pending further research, I'll make of it that people in the 20-24 age group are less likely to own their own homes.

Did you find any people aged 16-24 living alone, on HB, in a six-bedroom social housing unit (your post 262 above)?

neverdespairgirl

Marches wrote: »

Sorry, but that just sounds awful to me. I'd rather work ridiculous overtime than share a place with strangers.
I'm 21 myself, I don't expect or want assistance from the state.

Among the people I went to school / uni with, and now work with, it was completely normal and standard to share a flat for at least a decade, although usually with friends, rather than strangers.

Even with a well-paid job in London, renting a place alone was usually too expensive.

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

That's one way of avoiding the data.



Pending further research, I'll make of it that people in the 20-24 age group are less likely to own their own homes.

Did you find any people aged 16-24 living alone, on HB, in a six-bedroom social housing unit (your post 262 above)?

You really should read post 262, above. It quite clearly states....

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Until the bedroom tax was introduced, a single 18 year old, living alone, would have been entitled to HB paying all the rent for a 6 bedroom social housing unit.

..... and is a statement of fact.

nannytone_2

bot so ridiculous to the extent of irrelevance!

there are probably only a handful of social housing properties that size, and there is no chanve that a single teenager would ever have been allocated one

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

bot so ridiculous to the extent of irrelevance!

there are probably only a handful of social housing properties that size, and there is no chanve that a single teenager would ever have been allocated one

There are certainly more than a handful, but I didn't say anything about a single person being allocated it. I just said that HB would cover their full rent.

clemmatis

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

You really should read post 262, above.

I read it -- re-read it -- before posting my comment. Indeed I cited it, #262, in my post. Perhaps you'd like to read that (post 296 above, which you quoted -- HTH).

quite clearly states....

"Until the bedroom tax was introduced, a single 18 year old, living alone, would have been entitled to HB paying all the rent for a 6 bedroom social housing unit."

..... and is a statement of fact.

It is a statement of fact about legal entitlement to a certain size of social housing IF ALLOCATED SUCH A PROPERTY, and of full HB entitlement IN THE EVENT OF SUCH AN ALLOCATION.

But unless that is actually likely, it is inflammatory and prejudicial nonsense.

I repeat my question.