Bedroom Tax Is It Abolished

Confuseddot

nannytone wrote: »

same old argument.
the private renters have it bad ... so instead of making their lives easier, you all want the social tenant to have it just as bad!!
when did fairness mean bringing everyone DOWN to the same level?
why isnt it fair to raise those at the bottom up a bit?
just a thought ....

The problem being there not enough money in the pot to do that .... in an ideal world people would be able to live where they want and decent accommodation not 30% percentile etc etc .


The money raised from the bedroom tax should be used to either build smaller property or convert larger ones to be bedsits and the like which it isn't so its only going to get worse

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

same old argument.
the private renters have it bad ... so instead of making their lives easier, you all want the social tenant to have it just as bad!!
when did fairness mean bringing everyone DOWN to the same level?
why isnt it fair to raise those at the bottom up a bit?
just a thought ....

The bedroom tax will do ust that, by freeing up under used social housing and giving those in the private rented sector an opportunity to enjoy the security and affordable rents that social housing provides.

Better use of SH will also reduce demand on private rentals, thus reducing rents for all.

It's win-win.

lighting_up_the_chalice

rogerblack wrote: »

Because the social housing stock does not have the free properties in which people can downsize.

In most areas, it does.

nannytone_2

it should be bused to build, but we all knoow it wont be.
so take money from people that are all ready struggling to help those also struggling?
the thing that angers me the most is that the government KNOW that the people hit with this have little or no choice to improve their circumstances as there is no alternative accomodation.
its like saying ...
all cars that have 4 wheels will have to pay double fuel duty!
can you imagine ?
'but there arent enough 3 wheeled cars to go round!'
just tough isnt it?!!

and i know the resuction is housing benefit isnt a tax and fuel duty is ...
but im pointing out that either withdrawing money/making people pay more when there isnt an alternative is akin to holding people to ransom

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

the thing that angers me the most is that the government KNOW that the people hit with this have little or no choice to improve their circumstances as there is no alternative accomodation.

They could increase their income.
They could take in a lodger.
They could have moved at some point in the two and a half years since the BT was first announced.
They could look at the private sector.

Plenty of choice there to be going on with.

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

They could increase their income.
They could take in a lodger.
They could have moved at some point in the two and a half years since the BT was first announced.
They could look at the private sector.

Plenty of choice there to be going on with.

look at the many disabled people ( the bigges single affected group)
1.many unable to work and increase income
2. lodgers are not often a wise choice for vulnerable disabled people
3. moved to where? for the last 7 months i have been watching my local housing lists. not just in my immediate area but the entire large rural catchment, there are around 17 1 bed/bedsits advertised every week. apart from 1 or 2 they have ALL been sheltered/supported housing.( and just to add ... there are still the same 15 3 bed properties that NO ONE has bid on for the past 13 weeks)
4. private rental 1 beds are as rare as social lets in this area. and are all at least £25 a week ABOVE the LFA rate. where ius a disabled person living on benefits supposed to find the admin fees, deposit and advance rent. not to mention moving costs. also to be taken into consideration is lack of security. in my opinion EVERYBODY should be able to have security, but it is especially important to disabled people as they have a lack of options to be able to improve their circumstances
so again, people are being held to ransom.
lose if you move and lose if you dont!

tomtontom

nannytone wrote: »

look at the many disabled people ( the bigges single affected group)
1.many unable to work and increase income
2. lodgers are not often a wise choice for vulnerable disabled people
3. moved to where? for the last 7 months i have been watching my local housing lists. not just in my immediate area but the entire large rural catchment, there are around 17 1 bed/bedsits advertised every week. apart from 1 or 2 they have ALL been sheltered/supported housing.( and just to add ... there are still the same 15 3 bed properties that NO ONE has bid on for the past 13 weeks)
4. private rental 1 beds are as rare as social lets in this area. and are all at least £25 a week ABOVE the LFA rate. where ius a disabled person living on benefits supposed to find the admin fees, deposit and advance rent. not to mention moving costs. also to be taken into consideration is lack of security. in my opinion EVERYBODY should be able to have security, but it is especially important to disabled people as they have a lack of options to be able to improve their circumstances
so again, people are being held to ransom.
lose if you move and lose if you dont!

Any argument you make that one bed properties are scarce is completely outweighed by the fact that you got one as soon as you asked. So either they are not that scarce or you jumped the list?

nannytone_2

i got one of the 2 1 bed properties in the market town where i live.
they became available as they were reclassified 'general use' from 'supported housing for young people'
i only became aware that they had been reclassified because they are owned by the HA that also owned my previous property.
we all know that i 'went behind the councils back' to secure it.
there were over 50 bids placed on both flats, where it is common for properties to attract under 10!
you may call it jumping the list... but i wasnt on the list to begin with ( when the council changed to CBL they told me there was no point in being on the list as there were NO 1 bed properties)
my HA is very good and looks after its tenants as well as possible.
as an existing tenant, they took the decision to allow me to move into the suitable empty property ahead of new applicants

tomtontom

nannytone wrote: »

i got one of the 2 1 bed properties in the market town where i live.
they became available as they were reclassified 'general use' from 'supported housing for young people'
i only became aware that they had been reclassified because they are owned by the HA that also owned my previous property.
we all know that i 'went behind the councils back' to secure it.
there were over 50 bids placed on both flats, where it is common for properties to attract under 10!
you may call it jumping the list... but i wasnt on the list to begin with ( when the council changed to CBL they told me there was no point in being on the list as there were NO 1 bed properties)
my HA is very good and looks after its tenants as well as possible.
as an existing tenant, they took the decision to allow me to move into the suitable empty property ahead of new applicants

So actually you stuck two fingers up at everyone else affected by the SRS, including those with far less income than yourself, and jumped into one of the apparently very few one beds when you could. Can you not see the irony there? Incredibly selfish.

nannytone_2

tomtontom wrote: »

So actually you stuck two fingers up at everyone else affected by the SRS, including those with far less income than yourself, and jumped into one of the apparently very few one beds when you could. Can you not see the irony there? Incredibly selfish.

i totally understand what you are saying and to an extent i agree. but when you are in the position where you are struggling to pay the basics, you have to do what is right for you and let everyone else do the same.
just to add ....
i personally know 3 people that are all under occupying, that bid on the other flat.
the council gasve it to a 22 year old youth that was previously living with his parents.
so much for councils prioritising those needing to downsize!

chances are that my flat also wouldnt have been given to someone needing to downsize