This so called Bedroom Tax

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Again, I didn't mention allocation.

do you gace statistics that sgow how man8 a8 year olds on hb actually live in 3, 4, 5, or 5 bed properties on their own?

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

do you gace statistics that sgow how man8 a8 year olds on hb actually live in 3, 4, 5, or 5 bed properties on their own?

How many would be a low enough number for you think it was OK?

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Very true, a single person COULD get all their rent on a 6 bedroom house covered by LHA.

However, prior to the bedroom tax, that same single person WOULD get all their rent on a 6 bedroom house covered by HB.

but it is extremely unlikely that the person exits isnt it?

its no different from me saying if i could fly to the moon under my own steam then benefits would pay for my accomodation whilst i was there!

kafkathecat

And yet this is the reality
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bedroom-tax-shame-devoted-mum-3316274

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

but it is extremely unlikely that the person exits isnt it?

its no different from me saying if i could fly to the moon under my own steam then benefits would pay for my accomodation whilst i was there!

How unlikely such a situation is makes no difference. Surely the issue is that such a situation exists. Unless you believe that a single person living alone in a 6 bed family house SHOULD have all their rent covered by the public purse while many larger families languish on an almost endless waiting list?

nannytone_2

kafkathecat wrote: »

And yet this is the reality
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bedroom-tax-shame-devoted-mum-3316274

the story is a bit misleading and deliberately emotive.
it gives the only options as being pay the top up or the son goes into care.

IF the overnight carer comes in refularly, they will be exmpt from the benefit reduction.
if it's infrequent then they can move to a 2 bed house.
ok, it will make respite more difficult, but seeing as the son qualifies, he could go away from home for that respite. after all that would be a lot less harmful to him than puttinng him in full time care

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

How unlikely such a situation is makes no difference. Surely the issue is that such a situation exists. Unless you believe that a single person living alone in a 6 bed family house SHOULD have all their rent covered by the public purse while many larger families languish on an almost endless waiting list?

COULS exist.
i COULD also drive a car ( i know how to) but the chances of it happening are negligable.

it doesnt matter if i think it should or shouldnt happen. it WOULDNT happen.
if you have ecidence to prove otherwise, then show it

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

COULS exist.
i COULD also drive a car ( i know how to) but the chances of it happening are negligable.

it doesnt matter if i think it should or shouldnt happen. it WOULDNT happen.
if you have ecidence to prove otherwise, then show it

I presume that your eyesight issues mean that your license has been/should have been revoked, so the government are doing nothing to enable you to drive. If, however, you were living in a 6 bedroomed social housing unit, that same government would have, pre bedroom tax, enabled you to do so by paying your entire rent via HB.

As previously asked, if you think 6 bedrooms is unrealistic, how about 5, or 4, or even 3? Would a single person in one of those houses make it acceptable to you?

nannytone_2

buy iy wouldnt occur.
there is no point stating the obvious and taking it to extremes for no reason at all.
very few people disagree in principle to this particular reform. but to use ridiculous examples to show WHY it HAD to be done just makes you look silly

bloolagoon

nannytone wrote: »

buy iy wouldnt occur.
there is no point stating the obvious and taking it to extremes for no reason at all.
very few people disagree in principle to this particular reform. but to use ridiculous examples to show WHY it HAD to be done just makes you look silly

But it does indicate why a change in policy had to occur. I agree where there are no smaller properties available in either sector then transitional protection should be in place, and that disabled should be given more consideration but the ethos of why this was implemented is sound. I firmly believe they should implement shared accommodation rate for under 35's and use under subscribed properties for this to free up what little remaining lower roomed stock as this would increase the lower bedroom housing stock for downsizing making DLA higher rates exempt for under 35's (as it should be in private rental in my opinion).