Government loses 'bedroom tax' cases

[BigGully]

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.

I am not sure Germany is currently the place to look for policies ............

We are not talking about making people homeless, it seems more of a policy for those on housing benefit to live for free within an appropriately sized house ??

 

[The Albion Roar]

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.

Nothing diversionary - in fact, I've answered your question head on. I can't help it if you haven't understood that.

The notion of giving larger housing stock to those who need them is obvious. However, you need to get the now-smaller families out of those larger houses and into smaller houses. The point is - which you've wrongly called as 'bollocks' - is that there isn't the small housing stock available to downsize those now-smaller families. You might think there is, but you haven't provided any evidence to back that up.

I've provided links to articles with direct quotes from the relevant sources.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Nothing diversionary - in fact, I've answered your question head on. I can't help it if you haven't understood that.

The notion of giving larger housing stock to those who need them is obvious. However, you need to get the now-smaller families out of those larger houses and into smaller houses. The point is - which you've wrongly called as 'bollocks' - is that there isn't the small housing stock available to downsize those now-smaller families. You might think there is, but you haven't provided any evidence to back that up.

I've provided links to articles with direct quotes from the relevant sources.

What are the 1/2 bed properties that the families are living in now called? Is this what you referring to as housing stock ?
the word stock to me means a product or item held for future use, and not in current use.

 

[The Albion Roar]

What are the 1/2 bed properties that the families are living in now called? Is this what you referring to as housing stock ?
the word stock to me means a product or item held for future use, and not in current use.

Quite. And in this instance, housing stock refers to what will be (rather than currently is) available for any given circumstance. The circumstance here is the pressure being applied for people to move to a smaller house. However, as has been stated time and time again, there isn't the amount of smaller housing available for people to downsize to.

Don't take my word for it - read what the industry professionals have said. You have read those links, haven't you?