The New Bedroom Tax

[beorhthelm]

No. Except to the extent that there is undoubtedly some sort of prejudice flying around government circles that is targeting particular perceived "problems", without any attempt to work out what the consequences might be on people who aren't being "targeted".

shirley you know this isnt about immigration and is about firstly addressing problems in allocation of housing and secondly addressing the cost of those problems?

The last-minute back-tracking is pathetic. Why the hell didn't they realise earlier, for example, that this hare-brained scheme would hit the families of serving soldiers?

thats the problem of todays politics. we arent allowed to have a suggestion raised and discussed, it has to be presented fully formed and considering all possiblities. works both ways of course, government trying to seed a new idea leak it to the press without any thought to how it will be presented. its a shame because something along these lines is desperatly needed, it needs to be thought out and cover problems. but instead of understanding the core issues and how this will adress them, we are told about the odd couple of % that will be treated harshly, only to find out that they arent going to be affected (which is then called a U-turn). people need to wake up to shitstorm coming down the way in a generation if some of these issues arent addressed, but the politicans want to play partisan oneupmanship instead. sad.

 

[wellquickwoody]

It's not a buy to let mortgage, but ok, I'm sorry me and thousands of other private landlords are letting to the DHSS.
Lets all pull out and see how that would affect the 16,000 people already on the Brighton and hove housing list

But thousands of private landlords would not pull out of social housing, market forces would come into play, and the landlords that have been having it away at the taxpayers expense would be forced to charge less, thus lowering the burden on the rest of the taxpayers.

 

[moggy]

I think you'll find it was the stupid government prior to that one who let people buy their council houses without thinking about the consequences for future generations needing social housing.

Exactly! Council housing should've remained council housing at all times, but maggie back in 79 put pay to that giving people the ability to purchase the council house they lived in.
So now the country still suffers and this will remain the same

 

[clippedgull]

The children I believe are between 3 and 7 years old. I'm not obviously privy to her dealings with the housing benefit or council. I just received a letter saying the rent was being reduced. I presumed it was because of this occupancy ruling

It only affects housing benefit claimants in social housing (bedroom tax that is), not as in your case, privately rented.

 

[skipper734]

Actually, housing benefit pay me direct, however, going by theses new rules, three young girls and the mother, in a 3-bed house, is that too big for her?

A letter from a DHSS renter. It's all good.


Hi all,
I have been successfull renting to DHSS tenants now for 3 years plus. There are really powerful reasons why you should consider this as a strategy. Consider:
1. Higher than market rent- YES it's true
2. Guaranteed rent- government backed
3. Tenancies tend to be longer
4. Less competition- most landlords dislike DHSS usually because they don't understand it properly.

 

[beorhthelm]

Exactly! Council housing should've remained council housing at all times, but maggie back in 79 put pay to that giving people the ability to purchase the council house they lived in.
So now the country still suffers and this will remain the same

yet people are now saying tenents must be allowed to stay in their council house in perpetuity. strange eh? theres nothing wrong with allowing people to buy their homes, the flaw has been to not allow the councils to spend the revenues on building new social housing. shame another government did see fit to change that. no use blaming one government for something 30 odd years ago when another could have done somthing about it 3 years ago. another area with lots of fannying around, we see the current government confused and contradicting themselves on planning while the opposition shout at them for doing nothing but not suggesting anything either.

 

[mwrpoole]

It only affects housing benefit claimants in social housing (bedroom tax that is), not as in your case, privately rented.

Housing benefit claimants renting from private landlords have been subject to similar rules for many years.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Indeed.

Case in point.

A friend of mine was in a two bedroom property receiving £91 per week housing benefit. He has just moved pending the 'bedroom tax'. He now lives in a one bedroom privately rented flat and receives £149 per week housing benefit!!

But in theory there could be a family of 3 living in a privately rented house and ready to move into that property, they would be claiming £100s more so it should even itself out.

In theory

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I would say it's that too. How many looking for social housing are not from the uk, we might get a shock if they told us truth. Not picking holes, its our stupid system, but it does not help the current situation. The sooner people accept the truth and stop seeing this as some sort of immigration bashing the better.

 

[rdigs24]

I see where you're coming from and say it's about time. The government are hacked off seeing immigrants moaning their house isn't big enough so get a mansion in Westminster and that what got the ball rolling. They can't single out immigrants so applied it to all. Am I right?

Unless the policy has changed in the last 4 months I dought this is the case. I rent out a 2 bed house and have recently evicted a Indian family who arrived in the Uk seeking asylum. Their rent of seven hundred was paid for by the benefits office along with the deposit. They then proceeded to sit on their arse all day whilst claiming jobseekers allowance. If they were British I dought they would have received as many benefits.(RANT OVER)

 

[looney]

I think you'll find it was the stupid government prior to that one who let people buy their council houses without thinking about the consequences for future generations needing social housing.

Buying or renting is not a change in the level of demand for housing, mass immigration is.

 

[looney]

yet people are now saying tenents must be allowed to stay in their council house in perpetuity. strange eh? theres nothing wrong with allowing people to buy their homes, the flaw has been to not allow the councils to spend the revenues on building new social housing. shame another government did see fit to change that. no use blaming one government for something 30 odd years ago when another could have done somthing about it 3 years ago. another area with lots of fannying around, we see the current government confused and contradicting themselves on planning while the opposition shout at them for doing nothing but not suggesting anything either.

This is not true. "the flaw has been to not allow the councils to spend the revenues on building new social housing" The assumption in your statement is that we will need more social housing because as a nation we willl have more poor people. This is false, as a nation we have been getting wealthier and given a static population would need less social housing. Guess whats scuppered yours, and thatchers, argument?

 

[beorhthelm]

This is not true. "the flaw has been to not allow the councils to spend the revenues on building new social housing" The assumption in your statement is that we will need more social housing because as a nation we willl have more poor people. This is false, as a nation we have been getting wealthier and given a static population would need less social housing. Guess whats scuppered yours, and thatchers, argument?

firstly, you assume that only the poor live in social housing. secondly, you assume wealth isnt relative and there would be no lower (or non) earning groups with need of social housing. thirdly, what exactly is your point?

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

I never had a problem with the Poll Tax. Much fairer than this bedroom tax thing.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Buying or renting is not a change in the level of demand for housing, mass immigration is.

It's because people are still walking around thinking that immigrants only take a small amount of social housing. Actually a hell of a lot of social housing has gone to immigrants.
However I would like to get some proper figures from somewhere.

 

[pasty]

So an old couple who have retired, living in a council house having their rent paid are then asked to pay more as they live in a two bed house or move out, is that fair and just?

Even if that two bed house could be given to a family while the old couple move to a one bedroom property ?

But why should they go into a 1 bedroom place? Okay, so many years ago now before this new tax was even thought of, but the principle is the same.

I grew up with my parents, brother and sister in a three bedroom council house in Haywards Heath. One by one us kids all moved out, and after mum died, dad was living there on his own. He contacted the council about moving, but wanted a 2 bedroom flat/house as he wanted the spare room for his office as he did a lot for the R.A.F.A., and also for when his grandchildren went to stay. The council however, refused point blank to give him a 2 bed, and only offered a 1 bed. So he said, balls to you then, I'll stay where I am. And he did, till the day he died.

So due to the councils inflexibility, a lovely three bedroom family home with a big garden was lived in by a single man in his 70's for nigh on 10 years.

 

[Leighgull]

Oh my days. This government is thinking of ways to boot the poor up the arse faster than they're able to organise the details.

"Quick Royston old chap, there's another one of the blighters hiding in his spare bedroom...damn, he's wriggled through into disability living allowance...curses, he doesn't want to work at pound land for free..."

 

[SeagullinExile]

Go ahead Cameron - I love a good riot.....do you?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

But thousands of private landlords would not pull out of social housing, market forces would come into play, and the landlords that have been having it away at the taxpayers expense would be forced to charge less, thus lowering the burden on the rest of the taxpayers.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that landlords get over the market rate from councils - they don't. Most of the time they get less than they could if they rented privately.

 

[jakarta]

My (unemployed and unemployable) older brother lives on his own in a 2 bedroom flat, one of which he has converted into a workshop /garage for his motorbike. He is very upset about losing his benefit but when I asked him why he can't downsize and rent a lockup for his stuff he told me he had lived there for years and the government were infringing his human rights. Very happy for this to apply to scumbags like him!