MSE News: Thousands of tenants to get bedroom tax rebate

MissMoneypenny

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

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.

The whole access to/staying in, social housing needs a major overhaul.

rogerblack

gadgetmind wrote: »

Pensioners don't have the option of working to pay their own way rather than claiming benefits for every this, that and the other.

Of course they do.

I am in my late thirties.

If I had the choice of swapping my body for one aged 65, that worked as average of that age, I would think really, really hard about it.

I am in the fortunate position of being a home-owner, so am not affected by these particular changes.

MissMoneypenny

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.

You have answered your own problem.

EDIT. Just noticed that custarly has already pointed this out.

~Chameleon~

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You have answered your own problem.

At a vastly increased expense to the tax payer? Yeah, that makes a whole load of sense!

sniggings

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You have answered your own problem.

no I haven't, I was giving an example of why it's an unfair law.

Moving is very expensive, even if someone were able to have a suitable place, the costs involved would make it impossible for most, never mind finding a months deposit and a months rent in advance.

Many private landlords do not take housing benefit either, so yes it's a solution for some, but it does not make an unfair law fair.

gadgetmind

sniggings wrote: »

if you can't get a job, that gives you no option

You have the option of increasing your skills so as to enable you to get a job. It's not like those on benefits are typically short on free time.

sniggings

gadgetmind wrote: »

You have the option of increasing your skills so as to enable you to get a job. It's not like those on benefits are typically short on free time.

it doesn't change the fact that if someone is unable to find work, then you can not argue they have "options" if they have trained etc and can still not find work, that's the point.

Telling someone we are only giving you £71 a week because you have "options" if daft and unfair if those options don't actually lead to work, then it just because spin.

gadgetmind

nannytone wrote: »

like the severly disabled people?

Assuming you mean "severely", they also have an excuse for not going out and finding gainful employment.

Of course, this is only if it really is a serious disability because some seem to find galloping dandruff or one slightly dicky leg as plenty of excuse to withdraw from the labour market.

princessdon

sniggings wrote: »

I didn't say all pensioners were tory voters, but that the tory vote is mainly from pensioners, which is not the same thing.

Voting is mainly pensioners. They vote more than any other group, natter which party. No party will ever risk the white haired vote, it's not a Tory thing, it's any of them.

gadgetmind

sniggings wrote: »

it doesn't change the fact that if someone is unable to find work, then you can not argue they have "options" if they have trained etc and can still not find work, that's the point.

With all due respect, if your CV is written anything like the above "sentence", then you will struggle to find work.

Telling someone we are only giving you £71 a week because you have "options" if daft and unfair if those options don't actually lead to work, then it just because spin.

£71 for doing nothing sounds fairly reasonable to me. It's certainly an impressive hourly rate.

(And "if daft" and "just because" mean little to me.)