MSE News: Thousands of tenants to get bedroom tax rebate

custardy

mojos.revenge wrote: »

I am not sure that is relevant really, however only about 2 years.
I am disabled, my husband is now my carer, but originally we qualified because of a low income, and children being in education. I can assure you that it was totally above board.

Never said otherwise. 2 years is nothing
Had it been a greater period then you would wonder why you hadn't looked to move earlier.

~Chameleon~

jacques_chirac wrote: »

You're trying to sensationalise the issue, and failing miserably. The people that you claim are going to be hit hardest are either a) well taken care of by the welfare state, or b) have a want as opposed to a need.

Really? In all cases? I don't think so, somehow.

~Chameleon~

custardy wrote: »

Well you have decided having grandchildren to stay is a genuine reason for a state subsidised spare room.
So what doesnt count?

It isn't a "one size fits all" scenario. Each case shopuld be judged upon it's own merits.

You have an interesting sig there. It fits my situation/views perfectly. Funny how we have such opposing opinions!

Honesty,integrity,self sufficiency.
Seems I'm in the minority on this.

sniggings

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Those are lifestyle choices and not what the welfare state is intended for. If the parents or grandparents wish the children to have their own bedroom when they stay, then they can pay for the rent for that extra bedroom/s, themselves.

I remember my grandmother sleeping on the sofa when we stayed with her when we were ill, as she gave us children her double bed. My grandfather worked nights and would use the bed when us grandchildren got up.




Are you seroiusly saying the welfare state should pay twice to put a roof over the head of the same children ? Why can't the non resident parent give their children their bed when their chidren stay over while they themselves sleep on the sofa? Of they could get a job and pay for the extra room if they don't want to do that.




What is wrong with the floor? I remember massive London families weekend parties in 2 bedroom terraces; where the females slept on the floor in one bedroom like sardines and the males in the other. The eldest female family members (in their 70s+) had the cushions from 3 piece suite.

It's this expectation from benefiit claimants that others should pay for their lifestyle choices; an expectation that has only arrived in this country over the last 10/15 years; that has to be reversed.

in your arguments you keep missing the point, if there is no smaller property to move to, them charging someone 14% or 25% is wrong, it's as simple as that, by all means offer a smaller property and if it is refused then make the deduction but to take this money of people that can not find a smaller place is unfair, that is why people call it a tax as those that can not do anything to change the situation it becomes a tax in all but name.

The daft thing is with this also, if they were to move to a private property, the bedroom tax would not apply, they would be given an allowance, if they can find a property with more bedrooms than they need, their housing benefit would still cover the full amount, even if it were more than the cost of where they moved from, as private housing benefit allowance is more than social housing allowance.

what is also crazy is, local housing housing authorities are still to this day offering people on the waiting lists bigger properties than they need, all they do is point out the housing tax will need to be paid if you were to take up the property.
So this is not about providing more suitable properties to those that need but to make money and punish those that find themselves at the bottom of society.

princessdon

sniggings wrote: »

in your arguments you keep missing the point, if there is no smaller property to move to, them charging someone 14% or 25% is wrong, it's as simple as that, by all means offer a smaller property and if it is refused then make the deduction but to take this money of people that can not find a smaller place is unfair, that is why people call it a tax as those that can not do anything to change the situation it becomes a tax in all but name.

The daft thing is with this also, if they were to move to a private property, the bedroom tax would not apply, they would be given an allowance, if they can find a property with more bedrooms than they need, their housing benefit would still cover the full amount, even if it were more than the cost of where they moved from, as private housing benefit allowance is more than social housing allowance.

what is also crazy is, local housing housing authorities are still to this day offering people on the waiting lists bigger properties than they need, all they do is point out they housing tax will need to be paid if you were to take up the property.
So this is not about providing more suitable properties to those that need but to make money and punish those that find themselves at the bottom of society.

If they are pointing out "housing tax" needs paying I'd be asking which tax law it is based on.


I know many in private rents who wouldn't care if they needed to pay towards their rent as they are doing so anyway.

custardy

sniggings wrote: »

in your arguments you keep missing the point, if there is no smaller property to move to, them charging someone 14% or 25% is wrong, it's as simple as that, by all means offer a smaller property and if it is refused then make the deduction but to take this money of people that can not find a smaller place is unfair, that is why people call it a tax as those that can not do anything to change the situation it becomes a tax in all but name.

The daft thing is with this also, if they were to move to a private property, the bedroom tax would not apply, they would be given an allowance, if they can find a property with more bedrooms than they need, their housing benefit would still cover the full amount, even if it were more than the cost of where they moved from, as private housing benefit allowance is more than social housing allowance.

what is also crazy is, local housing housing authorities are still to this day offering people on the waiting lists bigger properties than they need, all they do is point out the housing tax will need to be paid if you were to take up the property.
So this is not about providing more suitable properties to those that need but to make money and punish those that find themselves at the bottom of society.

So why not move to a private let?
Is income checked when you apply for social housing?

jacques_chirac

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Really? In all cases? I don't think so, somehow.

So point out situations that are not provided for, rather than making silly generalisations.

jacques_chirac

mojos.revenge wrote: »

Of course, but the only places available are on troubled estates or in tower blocks, I have a disabled adapted house, but my carer is my husband but we do not qualify for him having a room of his own.
Whilst I expect people will say that I should take anything smaller to avoid living in a property that I don't need, after 30 years in a nice area with helpful and trusted neighbours, I am not about to give it all up to move to a flat with lifts smelling of urine and drug dealers patroling the area at night. I don't think anyone would.
Although I am not happy about paying the extra, I am prepared to for the security and comfort that I have.
When my husband reaches 65 we will be eligible for a bungalow with a warden living close by, these are also only two bedrooms, but I think by then we won't have to pay the extra anyway.

You are choosing to stay in your property as a lifestyle choice, you cannot expect the tax payer to fund that choice. It is understandable that you would not want to move to an area that is not so nice, but you cannot argue that no alternative is available to you when it is.

~Chameleon~

jacques_chirac wrote: »

So point out situations that are not provided for, rather than making silly generalisations.

I've already given valid examples of people that are unfairly penalised by this new legislation. In particular, those who need separate rooms due to disability that have been forced to move out of specially adapted accommodation into something completely unsuitable.

It's rather silly to make a sweeping generalisation that all vulnerable people are provided for adequately by the welfare state. We all know this certainly isn't the case.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

And we should all remember that pensioners are exempt from the Bedroom Tax - it is single pensioners in 3 or 4 bedroom houses that should be targeted so family homes can be freed up for families instead of a single pensioner.