This so called Bedroom Tax

lighting_up_the_chalice

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

It's not such a ridiculous example. Or do you not agree that it is simply wrong for the public purse to pay the entire rent for a single person living alone in a public resource as rare and valuable as a 6 bedroom house?

nannytone_2

that question isnt about housing benefit. it would be wrong for any single person to live in a 6 bed social housing property on their own. regardless of who pays the rent

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

that question isnt about housing benefit. it would be wrong for any single person to live in a 6 bed social housing property on their own. regardless of who pays the rent

Agreed. And it seems quite reasonable that the government should take steps to ensure that they are not enabling it via the HB system. I'm sure you would agree with that?

bloolagoon

nannytone wrote: »

that question isnt about housing benefit. it would be wrong for any single person to live in a 6 bed social housing property on their own. regardless of who pays the rent

It regards policy, the policy made it feasible whether that was 2 or 1 or 6 bedrooms over, the allocation methods are questionable but that does not distract that the policy was flawed and favoured social housing over private rentals, discriminating a lot people.

nannytone_2

it would be a lot more platavle if they were also taking steps to encourage those that pay their rent in full to only occupy the houses they need.
i am not a long time benefit claimant, as ive said previously, i worked for 30 years and paid my own rent.
i do see the need for the cuts and agree that people should only occupy the space that they NEED.
but no thought was put into where people were supposed to go. that is the point really. the benefits could only be reduced if people couldnt/wouldnt move.
a private let would cost more in benefit than most people claim in HB for their social housing property. so if everyone that under occupied moved to the privaye sector, the benefit bill would actually rise.
sont say that those people already in private rentals would then move into the vacated properties because that isnt what would happen.
those in private lets are already housed and so would be a low priority. they would still be claiming their LFA and the people forced to move would be claiming more.

so as i said.... they dont actually want anyone to move... they just wanyt to make them suffer

bloolagoon

nannytone wrote: »

it would be a lot more platavle if they were also taking steps to encourage those that pay their rent in full to only occupy the houses they need.
i am not a long time benefit claimant, as ive said previously, i worked for 30 years and paid my own rent.
i do see the need for the cuts and agree that people should only occupy the space that they NEED.
but no thought was put into where people were supposed to go. that is the point really. the benefits could only be reduced if people couldnt/wouldnt move.
a private let would cost more in benefit than most people claim in HB for their social housing property. so if everyone that under occupied moved to the privaye sector, the benefit bill would actually rise.
sont say that those people already in private rentals would then move into the vacated properties because that isnt what would happen.
those in private lets are already housed and so would be a low priority. they would still be claiming their LFA and the people forced to move would be claiming more.

so as i said.... they dont actually want anyone to move... they just wanyt to make them suffer

No they want them to move to save money over a national geographic and swap payments. I agree with transitional protection but not with discrimination or overcrowding to the degree it occurs in private rental where to be frank the 30% limits can be questionable. There are many councils where it is over generous or quite frankly out of this world. You have families of 6 in a 2 bedroom on the waiting list for a 3 bedroom social rent for long periods.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

it would be a lot more platavle if they were also taking steps to encourage those that pay their rent in full to only occupy the houses they need.

They already do. Rent levels, even in social housing, tend to be higher for bigger properties. Those who pay their own rent have had a form of "bedroom tax" for many, many years now. The rest are just catching up!

nannytone wrote: »

but no thought was put into where people were supposed to go. that is the point really. the benefits could only be reduced if people couldnt/wouldnt move.

An interesting thought. There's already been a link to one of these stories, but as they are from the same paper......

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bedroom-tax-shame-devoted-mum-3316274

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/shattering-fall-out-cruel-tax-hits-3316312

... In summary, family in a 4 bed, need a 3 bed. Family in a 3 bed, need a 2 bed, single man in a 2 bed, needs a 1 bed. I think I can see a way to make that work..... can you? Of course, they all have their reasons for keeping the property which is bigger, but I don't think availability is the issue.

nannytone wrote: »

a private let would cost more in benefit than most people claim in HB for their social housing property. so if everyone that under occupied moved to the privaye sector, the benefit bill would actually rise.
sont say that those people already in private rentals would then move into the vacated properties because that isnt what would happen.
those in private lets are already housed and so would be a low priority. they would still be claiming their LFA and the people forced to move would be claiming more.

You don't have to be homeless to qualify for social housing. These changes will, ultimately, provide the opportunity of social housing to larger families who, in private rents, will be claiming larger amounts of LHA. It may even push some families out of housing benefits altogether. Added to that, more efficient occupation of social housing will reduce demand on the private sector, leading to a reduction in rent levels which, in turn, will further reduce the LHA bill. A reduction in rental demand will also reduce house prices, bringing the option to purchase within the reach of many who are currently forced to rent.

nannytone wrote: »

so as i said.... they dont actually want anyone to move... they just wanyt to make them suffer

With 1.8 MILLION on the waiting list for social housing, I think suffering was already well covered.

nannytone_2

but to be fair ... ( and i know several families personally) people in 2 bed accomodation are allowed to CHOOSE to continue having children, that they cant afford to support or house, and the state picks up the tab. that is considered OK.
but people that are disabled, arent disdsabled through choice. and dont always under iccupy by choice ( usually they don't)

so in this case people that HAVE choice are being treated prefrebly to those that DON@T.

i know not all families that are overcrowded have put themselves into the position they are in. redundancy/reposession etc. but a good number dont have that excuse. they live in a 2 bed home and CHOOSE to go on and have 4 or however many children.

if the smaller properties were available ( and in the case of disabled people especiall...social housing, as disabled people need security and in many cases are unable to provide that security for themselves) then there would be no issue at all, it would be perfectly fair to expect everyone that under occupies to move.

what you said about transitional protection.... renters in the private sector got transitional protection when thre LHA rates were lowered ( wrongly in my opinion.... more should have been done to stop landlords making such vast profits)
social tenants not only didnt get any transition protection, we also had the changes in council tax benefit to contend with at the same time!
DHP is available, but DLA is being considered when making decisions as to who can receive it, which is wrong and many people are having to cut back on necessary care to pay for a room they dont want/need, all because they have no alternative housing available to them
i never even considered applying ( not that i would have been awarded anyway) but there are people FAR worse off than i am.

nannytone_2

moving the family from the 4 bed to the 3 bed/ from the 3 bed to the 2 bed would be ideal.... if there was a 1 bed for the single person to movve to.
or doesnt it matter what happens to them?

Dunroamin

kafkathecat wrote: »

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

If someone with this sort of household income is having to live on toast (and already has rent arrears) then that sounds to me like a budgeting issue rather than anything else.