Options
The bedroom tax
wrexham103.4
Posts: 3,334 Forum Member
✭✭✭
my dad has just had a 'news letter' from the LA saying in april 2013 they will be introducing the 'bedroom tax'.
Basically if you live in a 3 bedroom house and have 2 kids say 9 and 6 years old they could share a bedroom, as only 2 bedrooms are needed and the benefit claimant will have to pay extra .
in the example it showed the rent being £72 a week and being covered fully by HB but under the new rules the claimant will have to pay £12 a week out their benefit to cover the rent.
the other example was a married couple living in a 2 bed house getting £85 per week and under the new rules they will have to pay £18.50 a week out their benefit to cover the rent
Basically if you live in a 3 bedroom house and have 2 kids say 9 and 6 years old they could share a bedroom, as only 2 bedrooms are needed and the benefit claimant will have to pay extra .
in the example it showed the rent being £72 a week and being covered fully by HB but under the new rules the claimant will have to pay £12 a week out their benefit to cover the rent.
the other example was a married couple living in a 2 bed house getting £85 per week and under the new rules they will have to pay £18.50 a week out their benefit to cover the rent
0
Comments
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1734804
what it seems to be about is, from what i understand from the thread, from next year councils have to decide how to give council tax benefit themselves. There will be no central rules instead they will be given a pot of money and have to make it meet all their responsibilities
The problem with the idea of penalizing those who are underoccupying their home in the hope they opt to downsize. Besides targeting the elderly whose children have left the family home, and especially elderly widows and widowers. Is that they may have spent time and money maintaining and improving their home, and they maybe very sentimentally attached to their home or the home maybe close to friends and family or have room for visiting relatives or in future a carer.
The major flaw in getting people to downsize is there are not enough smaller homes in social housing available to downsize to, especially since blocks of flats are not particularly well suited to the elderly.
Yep , they see an elderly widow, say, in a two bedroom house and think " house blocker" they do not see a widow who has space for guests, family etc .space to allow grandchildren to visit, space for family if relationships break down etc. It will most probably end up costing the LA more money than they are saving, in the long run. As most of these "saving" measures seem to do.
Actually, considering the Government's utter contempt for single people, I do wonder...
G4S will of course be providing the service needed to ensure security in the "resort"!
Labour used law to prod and poke it's way into peoples lives, controlling and intrusive. Was the Child Support Agency ever that interested in either children or value for the tax-payer? No, it was all about nannying.
With these Conservatives there is a real sense of abuse at the heart of public services. Hurt and humiliation is the focus. Psychological violence you might say.
I'm not saying it's a conscious thing. It's just who they are. They really cannot stop harming people, just as Labour really cannot stop controlling people.
I recently had a visit from a council official who declared that my small 2 bedroom house was underutilised. In conversation he made the point that there were a severe shortage of rented accommodation in this area and that because of that private rents were very high and that the council had a shortage of single person accomodation . If all the people on Housing benefits were forced to downsize & move out, presumably because they were on benefits they could'nt afford the removal costs which could be quite expensive who would pay. The council ? the goverment? would the tenant get a loan and have to pay it back ? and where would they go. most private landlords don't want housing benefit claimants (at least around here) and most of the private accomodation is very poor compared to the social housing. So that leaves them with nowhere to go. Unless of course they replace the under 24's who will lose thier Housing benefit completely and be forced to return home etc. I reckon this is a cynical gamble by the goverment to make the poorest tenants pay more to stay where they are. combine this with the cuts on the poor and disabled already in the pipeline and its easy to see where the goverment sympathies don't lie. if i dared to suggest that an MP downsized his grace and favour london address to that of a cupboard they would scream the place down. Incidentally along with having the lowest benefits in europe we also have the doubtful "honour" of having the smallest amount of floor space per person per home of the developed nations.
My local council has been busy modifying its single persons bungalows to accommodate a visitor/carer/guest etc because they realise single people living in single accomadation could be socially isolated & if the elderly fall ill they might need live in care.
politically they are also gambling in that they know that most people on benefits are non voters and those in social housing are mostly in labour constituencies so for them its a win win make the poor pay and screw up the labour areas even more
So once children reach their teens and families with more than one child have been downsized to live in a two bed roomed house does that mean that teenage sons or daughters have to move out because there are no spare bedrooms for them and if so where will they go considering this Government is planning on making all single people under 25 go and live with their parents.
Well that's pretty straight-forward...
If they're unable to room-share, the daughter gets the bedroom, and the son can kip on the couch, or on a mattress on the living room floor.
Nothing wrong with that, and I know there isn't because that describes my own living arrangments for an extended period of time when I was younger. It's not a problem.
Regards,
Cypher
Well considering that was a tax that affected wealthy people and with the current government we have, I'd say it's pretty unlikely - don't want to scare away the Russian wealth creators in Knightsbridge now:cool:
But then the family could rightly say to the council that they are living in overcrowded conditions, thus becoming a higher priority on the waiting list for a larger property.
The policy, like Universal Credit, sounds reasonable on paper, but reality always throws up kinks that derail even the best laid plans.
Back to the slums we go. :rolleyes:
Sum's up the Tory party to a "T", lets all go back to the glorious slums of the early 20th century. Those were happy times.
Afaik this is down to councils not central government. I fully understand that a teenage girl doesn't want to share a bedroom with her brother and vice versa but to say it unaccepable is ott unless you think most teenage brothers and sisters are liable to indulge in incest just because they share a bedroom.
Well, personally, I'd have said that the council providing a two-bedroom property was very good. That's more than many have who are not on state support.
It is, ultimately, up to the parents to control how many children they have, and living arrangements, both for immediate and in the future, should be accounted for at the family planning stage.
It seems reasonable that special circumstances should apply if you're dealing with twins, triplets etc...and also for families who have paid into the system, but now find themselves out of work through no fault of their own.
Regards,
Cypher
A two-bedroom house or flat is a slum?
Regards,
Cypher
Single people on benefits could do what I did as a single person not on benefits did until I was in my 40s. Share.
Surely what it means is that those who are paying taxes are having to subsidise you less to live in a bigger property than you need! So there is a simple answer - agree to move somewhere smaller and allow the property to be used by a larger family who actually needs the space!
I wish I could get a subsidy of up to £400 a week to rent a large house - but those who have to work and pay market prices for our housing cannot afford such luxuries!
Yes it an odd concept and must surely mean those getting no HB must be paying even higher bedroom taxes.
I wish I could afford to live in a 3 bed house in my area - even though I am on double local average earnings I couldn't afford to buy a property that big. The rent would also be huge as well each month.
So I get a little bored of the complaints from benefit claimants who expect to get everything for free including being able to live rent (or close to rent free) in properties which people on well above average earnings cannot afford anymore!
Where is the incentive to work when you end up being worse off!
There aren't enough smaller properties for people to move into.
Yup, me too before I was finally able to afford my own place - nothing wrong with it and it's totally common practice.
Regards,
Cypher
Yes, there does seem to be a split in society between those who work and would like to move into a bigger house and/or have more children but cannot afford to and those who think it's their automatic right to be provided with somewhere to live big enough for their ever-growing family.