Government loses 'bedroom tax' cases

[Herr Tubthumper]

you do make a good point about the actual cost of building property (btw the difference is the price of land), however dont deny its a subsidy. if the state is providing support to offer a price below market rate, that is by definition a subsidy. you are also saying it should be a right, if one can choose to turn up to the council and ask for a home, thats infering a universal right to housing (rather than a welfare provision for those unable to support themselves)

I view it differently. Offering something below market value isn't subsidy as its money you don't have. If a mate in a bar can afford to sell me a pint for £4 or £5 but decides to sell to me at the lower price then the £4 pint isn't subsidised....its just a £4 pint. If he can't afford to sell me the £4 pint that's subsidy as its costing him sunk money.

 

[beorhthelm]

My question is, how does that work exactly? A loan, by definition, is something that has to be paid back, so how can it count as income?

i cant help, only agree with you it seems daft and doesnt meet any normal definition of income. i can suggest that maybe they treat it as such because of the technicality you mention, that it may not be pay back, along with no repayments and the installments its received in, so it looks a bit incomish, if you squint. i doubt they are open to debate though.

 

[1066familyman]

i cant help, only agree with you it seems daft and doesnt meet any normal definition of income. i can suggest that maybe they treat it as such because of the technicality you mention, that it may not be pay back, along with no repayments and the installments its received in, so it looks a bit incomish, if you squint. i doubt they are open to debate though.

Ok thanks. I thought you of all people would have come up with an answer for this one. So if it doesn't make any sense to you either then it's not just me being all leftie about it then.

Lots of mature students complaining about this issue because it just seems wrong, but I've yet to read of any positive challenge to it in law. The maintenance grant counts as income, and that's 100% correct to me as that's precisely what it is, as it doesn't have to be paid back...but this loan trick seems unjust.

 

[beorhthelm]

I view it differently.

its not a view, its definition. your example doesn't apply as its not the state lowing the price to effect policy aims, its called price discriminiation. and you should get mates that buy a round.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

its not a view, its definition. your example doesn't apply as its not the state lowing the price to effect policy aims, its called price discriminiation. and you should get mates that buy a round.

As I said, I view it differently.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Im no Tory but cutting any benefits ,like immigration or NHS is a no no to action or even talk about. There will always be exceptions that need to be looked at. However the principle of living in social housing with say 3 beds after children have left is wrong. Nobody is throwing them out . Just asking that they accept less accomadation or if they refuse pay higher rent. It then frees up there property to family who will use every bedroom. No brainer to me

The situation you present, everyone can agree with. I'm sure most people wouldn't disagree.

However the government have applied the rules to a rape victim who's second room is a panic room and a disabled child who's third bedroom is used by carers on the occasions they stay at the property.

That's is wrong by anyone's standards. This ruling doesn't give carte blanche for everyone to live in houses too big for them, it just sets a precedent for exceptions to the bedroom tax. Surely that isn't unreasonable?

 

[Garage_Doors]

Could you provide first-hand empirical, peer-tested data to back up your 'bollocks' and 'nothing to do with housing stock' claim?

Meanwhile...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/08/bedroom-tax-shortage-small-homes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ve-face-penalty-for-having-spare-8745597.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20403923

See you adopting your usual diversionary tactic.
You seriously not aware of of overcrowding in social housing ? or blinked or just ignoring it?
That's the reason for the bedroom tax so the bigger houses go those that most need them.

 

[drew]

I view it differently. Offering something below market value isn't subsidy as its money you don't have. If a mate in a bar can afford to sell me a pint for £4 or £5 but decides to sell to me at the lower price then the £4 pint isn't subsidised....its just a £4 pint. If he can't afford to sell me the £4 pint that's subsidy as its costing him sunk money.

Very odd analogy. Firstly, did your mate buy the pint for £5 and then sell it to you for only £4. If so, he has subsidised your night out. Alternatively, if your mate actually owns the pub and sells to you for £4 what he sells to everyone else for £5 then again he has subsidised you out of his normal profits, ie he has sacrificed £1 of profit out of friendship. It's still a subsidy.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

There is never ever going to be a far way of dealing with this situation. The problem this government has is the debt so they need to make cuts accordingly. How do you go about raising more money without taxing people more? We could cut the things that are not necessary for starters, cut the foreign aid budget, stop paying the EU millions of pounds a day, make sure companies pay their fair share in taxes. There would then be enough money to give help to the people who really need it in this case.

This has all been caused through years of giving out money to anybody and everybody and not getting enough back to pay for it. Doesn't matter if it's the Tories or Labour, they are both rubbish and both to blame. We are still giving away lots of money.

And now the government faces a costly legal battle, trying to reverse the situation.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Very odd analogy. Firstly, did your mate buy the pint for £5 and then sell it to you for only £4. If so, he has subsidised your night out. Alternatively, if your mate actually owns the pub and sells to you for £4 what he sells to everyone else for £5 then again he has subsidised you out of his normal profits, ie he has sacrificed £1 of profit out of friendship. It's still a subsidy.

Whatever

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Just another Tory crime.

The nasty party

 

[El Presidente]

How do you go about raising more money without taxing people more? .

By having a tax system that isn't full of loopholes?

 

[wellquickwoody]

You're right, some cases need an extra bedroom, common sense. So why didn't the Government apply that common sense when introducing the policy. Have to agree with others that in that I'm not against people being moved to more suitable accommadation depending on their changes of circumstance but the Government got it completely wrong with their one size fits all approach. Bit like the cock up with child benefit.

But to be fair, llocal councils can make hardship payments based upon unusual circumstances, and in at least one of these cases this appears to have happened. If this did not happen in the other case then that is the fault of the relevant local authority not the government who have legislated to provide a safety net for those in real hardship.

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

i dont suppose anyone will talk about how many families will have benefited from availability of larger social housing from this policy (it never gets covered in the press, only the edge cases of those which have problems)?

Just imagine! The press talking about nothing but the extreme cases of those that live in Council Houses. They usually present them in such a fair, balanced, manner.

 

[daveinprague]

Czech politics are bizarre at the moment. Bedroom tax is boring and mundane haha

'Most politicians denounced on Tuesday already President Zeman's statement on Monday that the use of a Kalashnikov assault rifle would be a possible non-democratic way of getting rid of the prime minister'

 

[alfredmizen]

It's about housing benefit.

If your bedroom is considered 'spare' you have 14% of your housing benefit cut. If you have two spare rooms, you get a 25% cut.

The rules that determine what is 'spare' is pretty rigid...

• Children of both sexes under 10 would be expected to share a bedroom. If they currently do not share and they remain in separate rooms, one of their rooms will be considered as a spare bedroom.

• Children of the same gender under 16 would be expected to share a bedroom.

• Couples and adults are entitled to have bedrooms of their own.

• If a bedroom (with or without furniture) is kept free for when a child comes to stay with a parent that they do not normally live with, this room will be considered as a spare bedroom.

• Bedroom Tax allowance for a child can only be claimed by one parent, even where they share access to the child.

• Extra bedrooms for medical reasons will not be allowed and will still be affected by the rules of Bedroom Tax e.g. a couple using separate bedrooms because one of them is ill or recovering from an operation.

The only point that could be deemed unfair is the last one .

 

[alfredmizen]

Social housing should not be a lifestyle choice. It should be part of the welfare state that looks out for those that need help. If you have the means but choose not to own property then it should be the private rental sector for you, not social housing.

I agree with this post and the one above, that's a first !

 

[BigGully]

I cannot fathom why those that dont work are not productive and do not contribute should not share the same dilemmas that those that work have.

We all begrudge not having access to a bigger house with more rooms, but we kind of accept an inevitability that our income might restrict our own aspirations and at times we feel unlucky, underrated or damn right angry but we continue to get up work hard and nick a few quid and hope that in the end we 'achieve' a house we are comfortable in or not.

I am not sure why you should demand an immediate house size that firstly overcooks your entitlement and ultimately rewards you above those that work.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I cannot fathom why those that dont work are not productive and do not contribute should not share the same dilemmas that those that work have.

I see your point. But I prefer to reduce people's housing "dilemmas", not raise them to the level of those you perceive as productive. Housing is quite an interesting case. Here in Germany there are rent controls, long term lets and many other mechanisms which help avoid the nonsense in the UK. There are measures to curb purchasing as well and keep prices down. It was also pointed out to me that folk spending much much less on housing is a benefit to the nation as it spreads disposable income throughout the economy and doesn't concentrate it in a single and volatile sector. A lot of these measures are probably seen as loony left to the UK. But here they are, well, quite normal.

The ever upward cycle, and over reliance to the economy, of housing in the UK is just bonkers to me.

 

[alfredmizen]

I cannot fathom why those that dont work are not productive and do not contribute should not share the same dilemmas that those that work have.

We all begrudge not having access to a bigger house with more rooms, but we kind of accept an inevitability that our income might restrict our own aspirations and at times we feel unlucky, underrated or damn right angry but we continue to get up work hard and nick a few quid and hope that in the end we 'achieve' a house we are comfortable in or not.

I am not sure why you should demand an immediate house size that firstly overcooks your entitlement and ultimately rewards you above those that work.

100% spot on .