Supply isn't the problem, we have a surplus of housing

N1AK

cepheus wrote: »

and so it will remain as long as any neo-liberal government remains in power, whatever they are called.

So you're blaming neo-liberals for the fact that people might have a spare room or home-office; if that's what them being in power means then they can have my vote

The entire article is a mess, and is based on a ridiculously stupid premise. Yes, old couples tying up 4 bed houses is inefficient and government incentivised – no stamp duty if you don't move, favourable treatment of expensive property for inheritance – but that's a comparatively minor issue.

Suggesting that the existence of spare rooms imply we have sufficient housing is idiotic. Households are getting smaller and wealthier, that means we use less rooms for permanent occupancy but can afford to have the rooms for temporary occupancy or other uses.

wotsthat

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If you want to "pay more" then you can already do so. Why not give all of the extra money you are happy to pay to a charity like shelter? No need to wait for the govt to mandate you to do so- if you are willing and able what is stopping you?

The government have decided that we all want to make charitable donations to Shelter and they make contributions on behalf of the taxpayer.

Apart from a bit to Macmillan I don't bother donating anything to charity anymore - I just leave it for the government and my local council to decide what charities are worthy.

antrobus

IronWolf wrote: »

Just have to laugh at the irony and hypocrisy for Cepheus actually calling for a bedroom tax rofl

What's even funnier is that Monbiot's suggestion this time around is to bring in a "tax on hoarding", and that a "variable council tax is the simplest way of doing it: the more spare bedrooms you possess, the more you pay. This would help families to obtain family-sized homes, and encourage the division of very large houses".

Cepheus's stated reaction to such a tax would be to pay up and keep on hoarding!

lisyloo

This would help families to obtain family-sized homes

So childless people subsidise those who have children?
I understand it's a biological imperative and not a lifestyle choice, but I think people ought to pay for their own children.