Central government funding for DHP for spare room subsidy in relation to the disabled is on going it does not look like it is just intended as a short term fix.
The whole idea of DHPs is a short term fix, DHPs were never designed for long term use, the government moved things like crisse loans over to the council, than scrapped the council loan help system. So i dont believe they would keep doing the DHP for people effected by the bedroom penalty
Many were going into arrears long before last year. What about optional spending on ****, booze and smartphones?
Well done, I think you missed a full house only because you left out "drugs" and "work-shy" and "70 inch plasma TV" from the Tory propaganda stereotypical 'benefits claimant'
Would you actually be interested in some of those 'fact' things from people who are in a far better position than you to actually know?
Or, do you prefer to stick with ignorance and prejudice?
Well, just in case you are interested, and for the benefit of anyone reading here are the actual facts,
Federation statement on six month anniversary of bedroom tax
On the six month anniversary of the implementation of the bedroom tax, National Housing Federation chief executive David Orr says:
“Six months on from the launch of the bedroom tax, there can be no doubt that it has been a cruel failure.
“We’ve seen half of families hit pushed into rent arrears. Disabled people say they will be forced to cut back on food and bills. Even the wider public can see the gross injustice of this policy, with six in ten people calling for it to be scrapped.
Almost three in five people (59%) say that the Government should abandon the bedroom tax entirely, according to ComRes polling commissioned by the National Housing Federation.
51% of households affected by the bedroom tax (32,432 households) were unable to pay their rent between April and June, according to a survey of 51 housing associations around England carried out by the National Housing Federation
Two thirds of households hit by bedroom tax are in debt as anniversary approaches
One in seven at risk of eviction despite support from housing associations
An Ipsos MORI survey of 183 housing associations carried out for the Federation found that 66% of their residents hit by the bedroom tax are in rent arrears, with more than a third (38%) reported to be in debt because they were unable to pay the bedroom tax. This is equivalent to 72,000 housing association tenants in England alone who are in rent arrears because of the policy
There has been a 60 per cent increase in the number of working people claiming housing benefit since the coalition came to power in 2010, according to new figures
But ignore all that and just trot out the standard "booze and ****" anti poor propaganda,
It's probably worth noting that the biggest block is pensioners living in much larger accommodation than they need. The reason they are not affected by the bedroom tax is that they vote and the government doesn't wish to offend them.
I think council should do more to encourage pensioners in social housing to move if they aren't going to be penalised - it worked with one of my neighbours, it took the council a year to get her to move but she did to warden controlled housing which freed up her house for a family that needed a 2 bed place, which freed up their place for someone on the either the waiting list or who needed to downsize
Well we will not know if people will not move untill that is tried, and only charge people if they refuse a smaller place, why punish people if they cannot move because of bad planing of governments and councils over the years. Trying to shift the blame onto the tenants is the wrong way forward
But, it is not about fairness it is about saving money and the changes in housing benefit for private renters are far more unfair than the much lamented bedroom tax that only affects 11% of social housing tenants and is on average only a small short-tall and has DHP available.
For Private Renters the changes short term have been far harsher and long-term unless revoked are going to cause big problems
Private sector renters
Local Housing allowance dropped to a room in a shared house rate for under 35 years olds.
A substantial drop in all those claimant's entitlement resulting in people having to move or make up substantial short-talls in rent. With the goverment advice being they should move to shared accomodation.
Private sector renters
Local Housing allowance reduced from the 50th percentile to the 30th percentile,
A substantial drop in every claimant's maximum entitlment often resulting in people having to move or make up substantial short-falls in rent. With the goverment making ludicrous suggestion of renters being able to negotiate lower rents with thier landlords.
Private sector renters
Housing benefit uprating link to rents removed.
Housing beneift uprating capped to 1% for two years then upratting by CPI inflation or 30th percentile rents which ever is lowest.
Removing the link between housing benefit and rents long-term will cause a ever increasing short-fall forcing people into ever cheaper accomodation, which in the long-term is likely to result in people living in housing unfit for human habitation or in very overcrowded conditions, as they will not be able to afford to live elsewhere and to complain will be to make themselves homeless. The government's ludicrous suggestion of renters being able to negoitate lower rent increases.
For those reliant on benefits who have mortgages life is also more unfair and the changes have been harsher. Support for Mortgage Interest SMI time limited to 2 years for those on JSA. SMI reduced from 6.08% to 3.63%, A 40% drop in benefit for people already expected to make up the capital payments. The method of calclating SMI changed, with the government making the ludicrous suggestion claimants can shop around for the best mortgage deals. Going forward the government consulting on more changes to SMI including turning SMI into a loan at interest secured on the property. While the alternatives mortgage rescue schemes involve selling a stake in your home to the state for less than market value and being prohibited from buying the stake back, and paying rent for the bit you no longer own, or being lent money by the state at interest secured on the property.
Why bedroom tax is cause celeb is beyond me everyone else has had far more unfair and harsher changes to their entitlments.
It's probably worth noting that the biggest block is pensioners living in much larger accommodation than they need. The reason they are not affected by the bedroom tax is that they vote and the government doesn't wish to offend them.
Does that include HRH and her wealthy buddies living in mansions?
Or are we talking communism for the undeserving poor, and sensitive capitalist liberal democracy for the wealthy?
This is the same kind of mentality that put people in high-rise concrete boxes, being more about cheap storage for human beings, than providing decent living conditions for people.
The re-homing of animals gets far more thought.
People who need some support from the State are not second-class citizens to be herded into smaller pens.
Disgusting way to treat people.
The real problem is that there aren't enough homes being built, scapegoating various members of society is to show ignorance of that basic fact.
The whole idea of DHPs is a short term fix, DHPs were never designed for long term use, the government moved things like crisse loans over to the council, than scrapped the council loan help system. So i dont believe they would keep doing the DHP for people effected by the bedroom penalty
There is no reason why DHP awards cannot be made year after year after year.
When they were taken to court over discrimination against disabled people, I thought the government used the DHP funding as part of its defense. If it did would not removing the DHP funding be likely to result in legal action.
Sorry governments and councils plan building of council housing, not the teanants. There has been no proper planing or building for years, so you now have a policy that is designed to pressure people into moving, but is flawed straight away by lack of right size housing, and even now the building of 1 bedroom places is at a 20 year all time low,
Demand from tenants determines the planning. The demand for downsizing wasn't there, so it couldn't be taken into account when planning. As I have already pointed out, even if they had planned and built smaller properties, people wouldn't have downsized anyway.
The Under-occupancy Penalty is a f*cking con! There is no such thing. It is just more Tory bullsh!t dreamt up to make the poor poorer!
Funny how this so-called "problem" was never a problem until the Tory's came up with the crackpot scheme!
If this scheme was really about freeing up large homes then there would have been the adequate system in place behind it, in order for the local housing associations to find out whether a person is "under-occupying" a property and then to be able to move them to a smaller property.
But of course none of this were put in place, the Tories just decided implement it and expect the person to deal with it. It was never intended as a scheme to get people to downsize, it was intended to make them pay more and therefore make them poorer!
They just decided having a spare room was enough for you to be punished by having to pay more.
Why should those in the Social Housing sector end up having to pay more to bring it up to the Private Housing Costs? Put a cap on the Private Housing Benefits costs. But of course this won't happen because a large portion of Tory voters and those who donate to the party are in the Private Housing Market and god forbid they reduce the amount of money they get.
Social Housing costs are not the problem, HIGH RENTS FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR ARE!
Take for instance where I live, we live in a Housing Association house that cost less than £400 per month to rent, but just a hundred meters away there is a privately rented property that costs over £100 more per month to rent. Its ridiculous.
But as usual the Tory aren't willing to tackle the cause, they just punish the victims.
So according to Newsnight its neither a tax nor a penalty.
It's a removal of the spare room subsidy.
I do love how the brainwashed keep repeating this blindly as if it is a thing. It is nothing more than an excuse made up to justify it!
There has never ever been such a thing as a spare room subsidy, and there still isn't.
What there is, is an Under-Occupancy Penalty, because now the Tories have deemed having a spare room as a crime that should be punished!
All in the quest of their ideological need to reduce benefits, and make the poor poorer, but of course they don't want to reduce the amount of money the rich get though, which is why they won't cap Housing costs, they will just cap the amount of money the tenants gets and force them to make up the shortfall somehow.
4.5% have downsized.
The other 95.5% obviously have been able to afford to stay.
4.5% have been able to move, whilst the other 95.5% have been unable to and have had find the money elsewhere to pay for the fine that is dished out in punishment for the newly created crime.
Not everyone can move, and of course there are people who won't want to move, as it would mean moving away from their friends and families.
In many cases to Private Rental properties, but this is what the Tories want, because it means their friends who own the properties can get more money!
But of course they should be expected to move, turn their lives upside down just to satisfy the idiots that actually belief this is a good thing.
Demand from tenants determines the planning. The demand for downsizing wasn't there, so it couldn't be taken into account when planning. As I have already pointed out, even if they had planned and built smaller properties, people wouldn't have downsized anyway.
The local authority or housing association not only build or buy the properties they allocates the property for new tenants, before the bedroom tax many areas were not allocating property according to DWP guidelines on number of bedrooms needed. Everything from enabling children to have their own bedrooms, that DWP guidelines say can share, to giving couples spare bedrooms for future children or children on the way pregnant.
Then there is the issue of suitability of housing stock for use as social housing. For social housing there are guidelines as to room sizes, that many one bedroom properties on the open market do not meet. And the difference in total minimum floor space requirements one bed vs two bed may mean it makes more sense to build two beds, after all they are only a bit bigger, not much if anymore expensive to build and more versatile.
A two bed can be used to house one person, or a couple or a couple with one or two children or two adults house sharing. And three bedroom homes are also common again due to versatility. And before the bedroom tax there was no problem with having the property underoccupied.
For disable adapted properties the issue of room size is also going to significant, as many properties have not been purposefully built for disabled use, but adapted. How many one beds are going to have sufficient floor space in things like kitchen, bathroom, etc; for adapation for someone in a wheel chair.
The government is also setting up a situation where now local authorities and housing associations are increasing their stock of one bed properties. But, where in the private sector rental the government has reduced Local Housing Allowance for under 35 year olds to a room in a shared house rate, and has suggested scrapping housing benefit for those under 25. If these things are at some point implemented in the social rented sector, then local authorities and housing associations could end up with excess one bed properties.
Many were going into arrears long before last year. What about optional spending on ****, booze and smartphones?
I wondered when one of you right wing losers would trot out this pathetic line...
Woops I forgot, the poor are not allowed to live or have any form of luxury in their lives, they should do without while all of their money should go to people that already have money...
And yet they still have more than 30% of the vote, so where is their support coming from?
By the delusional idiots that actually believe the Tory's stand for the same things as them.
It is pretty much guaranteed that most of the Tory supporters are far less wealthy than the people the Tories actually care about, and one day they will realise this when they are targeted...
It's easy to support evil when it doesn't affect you, not so much when you are a victim of it yourself.
And then you get the NIMBY's who start complaining whenever anyone suggest building any new houses close to them or not
These people are usually the same f*ckwh!ts that Vote for the Tory scum and complain about the benefits costs!
Even though I hate the Tories with a passion, I have to admire the way they can use people in their ideological attacks without the people themselves realising they are being used. You only have to look at the number of pensioners complaining about the 'benefits' costs to prove this. The pensioners themselves are the ones that make up most of the Welfare costs, not that they realise this.
Perhaps the reasons for not building are that they money raised through council house sales couldn't be used to do so and that the right to buy meant than any new builds might never return the money invested in them. The reason for so few single bed houses, rather than flats, is due to the price of land and the actual aim of a council to house as many as possible at the most economic rate.
The Under-occupancy Penalty is a f*cking con! There is no such thing. It is just more Tory bullsh!t dreamt up to make the poor poorer!
Funny how this so-called "problem" was never a problem until the Tory's came up with the crackpot scheme!
An excellent point and one I myself have often made, I have been a 'tenant' my entire life, I was brought up in a council house/houses in the 50s 60s and 70s, and I moved into my first 2 bedroomed council flat at the age of 26 in 1979, after the death of my mother,
from 1979 until 1999 I lived in three different 2 bedroomed council flats, for some of those years I was unemployed (well it was the 80s) and claiming the equivalent of housing benefit, the longest continuous period being around 2 years, I was single, and for the vast majority of those years I lived alone, and during that time and under the worst of the Thatcher years never once was having a "spare" bedroom raised as an issue,
in fact it only became an issue after this lot ran of out ideas for reducing the welfare bill even further, Then suddenly like the good little disciples they are, it became a major issue for many Tory supporters who spotter yet another reason to attack the poorest and weakest members of society.
If this scheme was really about freeing up large homes then there would have been the adequate system in place behind it, in order for the local housing associations to find out whether a person is "under-occupying" a property and then to be able to move them to a smaller property.
It was always only ever about saving a 'relatively' small amount of money while massively increasing the stress and hardship on almost a million of the countries poor and disabled in order to appear "tough" on those nasty poor people, (an estimated 600,000 plus HOUSEHOLDS, not people, as the Tories like to pretend, are being penalised for the crime of having a room that someone else has decided you suddenly no longer 'need')
their own estimates on the savings from this are actually based on the vast majority staying put and taking the hit, they knew damn well that people wouldn't be able to move a long time before they imposed this punishment on them.
I love the way the media uses quotes to say something that is blatantly false but get away with it because "critics say."
"What critics call the bedroom tax"
Further application of this journalistic approach:
"In evolution, the discovery of fossil remains in old rock, millions of years old. But critics* claim was put there by God as a test for people's belief."
It was always only ever about saving a 'relatively' small amount of money while massively increasing the stress and hardship on almost a million of the countries poor and disabled
Relatively small amount of money?
The estimated savings in each year for the removal of the spare room subsidy measure are £490 million in 2013-14, £525 million in 2014-15 and £560 million in 2015-16
Almost a million?
Originally 660,000 households would have been affected.
Affected now are less than 500,000 households
Most likely reason for the massive fall in households affected, a huge number of working age non working housholds getting a job and coming off housing benefit.
Perhaps the reasons for not building are that they money raised through council house sales couldn't be used to do so and that the right to buy meant than any new builds might never return the money invested in them. The reason for so few single bed houses, rather than flats, is due to the price of land and the actual aim of a council to house as many as possible at the most economic rate.
It's most likely pre-election maneuvering rather than a sign of moral outrage - the Lib Dems are back-peddling on the 'bedroom tax':
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said it was clear the policy was unfair and was not working, saying: "I think when something isn't working, you fix it."
Mr Clegg said a Government report, which was published on Tuesday, showed people being penalised for living in homes deemed too big were unable to move to smaller properties. He said it was wrong they should have their benefits cut.
Speaking on his LBC Call Clegg radio programme, he denied the call for three significant changes to the policy amounted to a u-turn and said "sometimes things, in practice, don't work quite in the way you expect".
However, the hypocrisy of the Lib Dems has no limits.
Shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves said Mr Clegg was guilty of "unbelievable hypocrisy".
She said: "The Lib Dems voted for the bedroom tax. There wouldn't be a bedroom tax if it wasn't for the Lib Dems. And in February, when Labour tabled a bill to scrap the bedroom tax, the Lib Dems were nowhere to be seen."
Chalk it up as another own goal for Nick Clegg and his party! ;-) I suspect the real reason Clegg is disowning the 'bedroom tax' is to do with trying to distance himself and his party from the Conservatives. The more he can distance himself from their policies the more chance he has of retaining some Lib Dem seats in May 2015! Political survival is his prime concern.
Relatively small amount of money?
The estimated savings in each year for the removal of the spare room subsidy measure are £490 million in 2013-14, £525 million in 2014-15 and £560 million in 2015-16
Almost a million?
Originally 660,000 households would have been affected.
Affected now are less than 500,000 households
Most likely reason for the massive fall in households affected, a huge number of working age non working housholds getting a job and coming off housing benefit.
you seem to have no understanding of the issues, lets address my use of the term "relatively small amount of money" firstly,
We 'apparently' can't afford to let disabled and poor people including many thousands of poor people who are IN work (remember Dave' lie that he "supports those who work hard"?) have a so called 'spare' room in their house, and this only became a major issue when this lot came to power,
I certainly wouldn't mind finding £560 million in MY bank account tomorrow morning that's for sure, but you seem to have skipped over my use of the word relatively
had I said that its a "small amount of money" you might have had a point, but I didn't did I?
perspective,
We can't afford to let these people 'get away' with having a 'spare bedroom' however, we CAN afford, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/18/trident-replacement-hidden-cost-revealed
The combined cost of replacing the Trident nuclear missile system and building, equipping and running two large aircraft carriers will be as much as £130bn, far more than the government has admitted, an in-depth study of the huge defence projects reveals today.
Croydon Council spends £272 on one tap in £140m new HQ
Croydon Council, which has managed to rack up debts of more than £1 billion, has paid £272.69 to fit a replacement tap in its new headquarters office building which opened just four months ago. And the cost of furnishing Fisher’s Folly on Cost A Mint Walk has risen by almost £1 million from estimates provided at council meetings less than a year ago.
As Inside Croydon first revealed last year, the Tory-run council decided to spend more than £3.1 million on brand new fixtures and fittings for their luxury new offices, rather than try to save more than £1 million by utilising existing furnishings from Taberner House and other council buildings.
Obviously there is money to burn in the Tory coffers, but not enough to allow sick and disabled people to have a 'spare' bedroom my word no,
BISCUITS, soap and drinking glasses are just some of the expenses claimed by a Fylde coast MP.
Paul Maynard, MP for Blackpool North and the Cleveleys, has claimed for biscuits, mugs, handwash, glasses and coasters since he was elected in May.
In total, the newly elected MP claimed 10,007.77 over the five months since the General Election.
NOT a parasite leaching off the tax payers of course, I really wish I could claim for biscuits in my workshop,
claiming thousands of pounds in expenses for things you or I would be expected to buy from our own pockets is OK,
having a 'spare' room that you never even asked for, is worthy of a punishment,
Tories eh? living down to expectations.
OOPS almost forgot,
I will take your half a million households if you like, now, in order for that to have a affect on a million human beings, have a stab at guessing how many people on average would need to be living in each household?
and as for,
Most likely reason for the massive fall in households affected, a huge number of working age non working housholds getting a job and coming off housing benefit.
You DO realise that having a job is no guarantee that you won't depend on housing benefit? scores of thousands of spare room criminals are WORKING in low paid jobs, I know Dave tends to gloss over that bit when he boasts about the fall in unemployment,
The fact that you bring this up seems to indicate that like many of the governments supporters you believe that "those on benefit" are a permanent unmoving mass of people who have always been on benefits and always will be,
it's OK, you are supposed to think that way, makes it easier to attack them.
I certainly wouldn't mind finding £560 million in MY bank account tomorrow morning that's for sure, but you seem to have skipped over my use of the word relatively had I said that its a "small amount of money" you might have had a point, but I didn't did I?
£560 million is the saving for one year of the bedroom tax on spare bedrooms.
£130 billion is the total cost over the entire operational lifetime 50 years of the needed new aircraft carriers and trident submarine replacements to ensure national defense.
You DO realise that having a job is no guarantee that you won't depend on housing benefit? scores of thousands of spare room criminals are WORKING in low paid jobs, I know Dave tends to gloss over that bit when he boasts about the fall in unemployment,
The fact that you bring this up seems to indicate that like many of the governments supporters you believe that "those on benefit" are a permanent unmoving mass of people who have always been on benefits and always will be,
it's OK, you are supposed to think that way, makes it easier to attack them.
Well what do you think happened to cause the fall from 660,000 to under 500,000. Only 4.5% downsized, extremely few got a lodger, and very few have been evicted as yet.
The most common reaction to the bedroom tax was now going to get a job or increase efforts to find a job, and for those in work it was going to increase my hours.
Like it or not the most common affect of the bedroom tax on those who are work capable who have been affected appears to have been to motivate them to get a job.
You used the word relative so you could use the word small when it is not a small amount of money.
Yes it is not a small amount of money.
£560 million is the saving for one year of the bedroom tax on spare bedrooms.
£130 billion is the total cost over the entire operational lifetime 50 years of the needed new aircraft carriers and trident submarine replacements to ensure national defense.
That according to the tabloids there are other arrears of excessive spending is not justification for not cutting excessive spending.
Well what do you think happened to cause the fall from 660,000 to under 500,000. Only 4.5% downsized, extremely few got a lodger, and very few have been evicted as yet.
The most common reaction to the bedroom tax was now going to get a job or increase efforts to find a job, and for those in work it was going to increase my hours.
Like it or not the most common affect of the bedroom tax on those who are work capable who have been affected appears to have been to motivate them to get a job.
IDS used to say things like that, but was pulled up for doing so when when he could offer no evidence to back these things up, Same as other day it was pointed out that a lot of unemployment figures dont add up, as thousands just vanish dont show up on unemployement figures dont show up on claimant count and dont show up as starting work, just vanish. The one thing i have learnt over the years is people can use figures to any advantage they like and can get figures to say the things you want them to say, but figures on there own are meaningless, ask any good accounant. But if everyone lived in the right size house there would be no saving to the HB bill anyway. Daft policies that are lied about never win in the end, we should have no empty houses in any area because a empty house is costing money. I wonder how hard the MPs would fight to keep thier Booze prices in the Commons have been frozen again - even though MPs' food and drink is subsidised by millions of pounds a year.
Taxpayers are forced to stump up £7million a year to keep restaurant and bar bills down in Parliament.
Strange we cannot afford to subsidiy for housing but we can afford a subidiy for MPs to eat and get pissed. Not a bad subidy for each MP Last year it was revealed that the bars, restaurants and cafes in the House of Commons cost taxpayers £4.9million in 2012/13 - a subsidy of £7,500 per MP.. Bedroom penalty subidy at £14 per week = £728 per year
IDS used to say things like that, but was pulled up for doing so when when he could offer no evidence to back these things up, Same as other day it was pointed out that a lot of unemployment figures dont add up, as thousands just vanish dont show up on unemployement figures dont show up on claimant count and dont show up as starting work, just vanish. The one thing i have learnt over the years is people can use figures to any advantage they like and can get figures to say the things you want them to say, but figures on there own are meaningless, ask any good accounant. But if everyone lived in the right size house there would be no saving to the HB bill anyway. Daft policies that are lied about never win in the end, we should have no empty houses in any area because a empty house is costing money
IDS said those things based on what those in the DWP were telling was happening.
They have ceased to be affected by the bedroom tax.
We know the increase in who is exempt to include foster carer's, rooms for over night carer, room for disabled child, armed forces, does not account for the vast and continuing fall in numbers of those affected by the bedroom tax.
We know only 4.5% have down sized within soical housing
We know that only 0.1% of properties have been redefined as having fewer bedrooms
We know that very very few have taken in a lodger or adult family member.
That leaves possible answers like
Huge numbers have got a job or increased their working hours and are no longer eligible for housing benefit (seems most likely as this is what the claimants stated they would try to do, and what those who are work capable and still affected say they are trying to do)
Huge numbers have moved out and gone to live in private rented.
Huge numbers have increased the size of their families by having babies (unlikely considering the time frame).
Huge numbers have died (unlikely since they are working age)
Comments
The whole idea of DHPs is a short term fix, DHPs were never designed for long term use, the government moved things like crisse loans over to the council, than scrapped the council loan help system. So i dont believe they would keep doing the DHP for people effected by the bedroom penalty
Well done, I think you missed a full house only because you left out "drugs" and "work-shy" and "70 inch plasma TV" from the Tory propaganda stereotypical 'benefits claimant'
Would you actually be interested in some of those 'fact' things from people who are in a far better position than you to actually know?
Or, do you prefer to stick with ignorance and prejudice?
Well, just in case you are interested, and for the benefit of anyone reading here are the actual facts,
30 September 2013
http://www.housing.org.uk/media/press-releases/federation-statement-on-six-month-anniversary-of-bedroom-tax/
12 February 2014
http://www.housing.org.uk/media/press-releases/two-thirds-of-households-hit-by-bedroom-tax-are-in-debt-as-anniversary-appr/
May 9, 2014
http://leftfootforward.org/2014/05/jump-in-working-housing-benefit-claimants-makes-mockery-of-coalition-welfare-claims/
But ignore all that and just trot out the standard "booze and ****" anti poor propaganda,
I think council should do more to encourage pensioners in social housing to move if they aren't going to be penalised - it worked with one of my neighbours, it took the council a year to get her to move but she did to warden controlled housing which freed up her house for a family that needed a 2 bed place, which freed up their place for someone on the either the waiting list or who needed to downsize
For Private Renters the changes short term have been far harsher and long-term unless revoked are going to cause big problems
Private sector renters
Local Housing allowance dropped to a room in a shared house rate for under 35 years olds.
A substantial drop in all those claimant's entitlement resulting in people having to move or make up substantial short-talls in rent. With the goverment advice being they should move to shared accomodation.
Private sector renters
Local Housing allowance reduced from the 50th percentile to the 30th percentile,
A substantial drop in every claimant's maximum entitlment often resulting in people having to move or make up substantial short-falls in rent. With the goverment making ludicrous suggestion of renters being able to negotiate lower rents with thier landlords.
Private sector renters
Housing benefit uprating link to rents removed.
Housing beneift uprating capped to 1% for two years then upratting by CPI inflation or 30th percentile rents which ever is lowest.
Removing the link between housing benefit and rents long-term will cause a ever increasing short-fall forcing people into ever cheaper accomodation, which in the long-term is likely to result in people living in housing unfit for human habitation or in very overcrowded conditions, as they will not be able to afford to live elsewhere and to complain will be to make themselves homeless. The government's ludicrous suggestion of renters being able to negoitate lower rent increases.
For those reliant on benefits who have mortgages life is also more unfair and the changes have been harsher. Support for Mortgage Interest SMI time limited to 2 years for those on JSA. SMI reduced from 6.08% to 3.63%, A 40% drop in benefit for people already expected to make up the capital payments. The method of calclating SMI changed, with the government making the ludicrous suggestion claimants can shop around for the best mortgage deals. Going forward the government consulting on more changes to SMI including turning SMI into a loan at interest secured on the property. While the alternatives mortgage rescue schemes involve selling a stake in your home to the state for less than market value and being prohibited from buying the stake back, and paying rent for the bit you no longer own, or being lent money by the state at interest secured on the property.
Why bedroom tax is cause celeb is beyond me everyone else has had far more unfair and harsher changes to their entitlments.
Does that include HRH and her wealthy buddies living in mansions?
Or are we talking communism for the undeserving poor, and sensitive capitalist liberal democracy for the wealthy?
This is the same kind of mentality that put people in high-rise concrete boxes, being more about cheap storage for human beings, than providing decent living conditions for people.
The re-homing of animals gets far more thought.
People who need some support from the State are not second-class citizens to be herded into smaller pens.
Disgusting way to treat people.
The real problem is that there aren't enough homes being built, scapegoating various members of society is to show ignorance of that basic fact.
When they were taken to court over discrimination against disabled people, I thought the government used the DHP funding as part of its defense. If it did would not removing the DHP funding be likely to result in legal action.
Funny how this so-called "problem" was never a problem until the Tory's came up with the crackpot scheme!
If this scheme was really about freeing up large homes then there would have been the adequate system in place behind it, in order for the local housing associations to find out whether a person is "under-occupying" a property and then to be able to move them to a smaller property.
But of course none of this were put in place, the Tories just decided implement it and expect the person to deal with it. It was never intended as a scheme to get people to downsize, it was intended to make them pay more and therefore make them poorer!
They just decided having a spare room was enough for you to be punished by having to pay more.
Why should those in the Social Housing sector end up having to pay more to bring it up to the Private Housing Costs? Put a cap on the Private Housing Benefits costs. But of course this won't happen because a large portion of Tory voters and those who donate to the party are in the Private Housing Market and god forbid they reduce the amount of money they get.
Social Housing costs are not the problem, HIGH RENTS FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR ARE!
Take for instance where I live, we live in a Housing Association house that cost less than £400 per month to rent, but just a hundred meters away there is a privately rented property that costs over £100 more per month to rent. Its ridiculous.
But as usual the Tory aren't willing to tackle the cause, they just punish the victims.
There has never ever been such a thing as a spare room subsidy, and there still isn't.
What there is, is an Under-Occupancy Penalty, because now the Tories have deemed having a spare room as a crime that should be punished!
All in the quest of their ideological need to reduce benefits, and make the poor poorer, but of course they don't want to reduce the amount of money the rich get though, which is why they won't cap Housing costs, they will just cap the amount of money the tenants gets and force them to make up the shortfall somehow.
Not everyone can move, and of course there are people who won't want to move, as it would mean moving away from their friends and families.
In many cases to Private Rental properties, but this is what the Tories want, because it means their friends who own the properties can get more money!
But of course they should be expected to move, turn their lives upside down just to satisfy the idiots that actually belief this is a good thing.
Then there is the issue of suitability of housing stock for use as social housing. For social housing there are guidelines as to room sizes, that many one bedroom properties on the open market do not meet. And the difference in total minimum floor space requirements one bed vs two bed may mean it makes more sense to build two beds, after all they are only a bit bigger, not much if anymore expensive to build and more versatile.
A two bed can be used to house one person, or a couple or a couple with one or two children or two adults house sharing. And three bedroom homes are also common again due to versatility. And before the bedroom tax there was no problem with having the property underoccupied.
For disable adapted properties the issue of room size is also going to significant, as many properties have not been purposefully built for disabled use, but adapted. How many one beds are going to have sufficient floor space in things like kitchen, bathroom, etc; for adapation for someone in a wheel chair.
The government is also setting up a situation where now local authorities and housing associations are increasing their stock of one bed properties. But, where in the private sector rental the government has reduced Local Housing Allowance for under 35 year olds to a room in a shared house rate, and has suggested scrapping housing benefit for those under 25. If these things are at some point implemented in the social rented sector, then local authorities and housing associations could end up with excess one bed properties.
Woops I forgot, the poor are not allowed to live or have any form of luxury in their lives, they should do without while all of their money should go to people that already have money...
By the delusional idiots that actually believe the Tory's stand for the same things as them.
It is pretty much guaranteed that most of the Tory supporters are far less wealthy than the people the Tories actually care about, and one day they will realise this when they are targeted...
It's easy to support evil when it doesn't affect you, not so much when you are a victim of it yourself.
These people are usually the same f*ckwh!ts that Vote for the Tory scum and complain about the benefits costs!
Even though I hate the Tories with a passion, I have to admire the way they can use people in their ideological attacks without the people themselves realising they are being used. You only have to look at the number of pensioners complaining about the 'benefits' costs to prove this. The pensioners themselves are the ones that make up most of the Welfare costs, not that they realise this.
from 1979 until 1999 I lived in three different 2 bedroomed council flats, for some of those years I was unemployed (well it was the 80s) and claiming the equivalent of housing benefit, the longest continuous period being around 2 years, I was single, and for the vast majority of those years I lived alone, and during that time and under the worst of the Thatcher years never once was having a "spare" bedroom raised as an issue,
in fact it only became an issue after this lot ran of out ideas for reducing the welfare bill even further, Then suddenly like the good little disciples they are, it became a major issue for many Tory supporters who spotter yet another reason to attack the poorest and weakest members of society.
It was always only ever about saving a 'relatively' small amount of money while massively increasing the stress and hardship on almost a million of the countries poor and disabled in order to appear "tough" on those nasty poor people, (an estimated 600,000 plus HOUSEHOLDS, not people, as the Tories like to pretend, are being penalised for the crime of having a room that someone else has decided you suddenly no longer 'need')
their own estimates on the savings from this are actually based on the vast majority staying put and taking the hit, they knew damn well that people wouldn't be able to move a long time before they imposed this punishment on them.
Excellent post by the way.
"What critics call the bedroom tax"
Further application of this journalistic approach:
"In evolution, the discovery of fossil remains in old rock, millions of years old. But critics* claim was put there by God as a test for people's belief."
*critics being Bible bashers.
The estimated savings in each year for the removal of the spare room subsidy measure are £490 million in 2013-14, £525 million in 2014-15 and £560 million in 2015-16
Almost a million?
Originally 660,000 households would have been affected.
Affected now are less than 500,000 households
Most likely reason for the massive fall in households affected, a huge number of working age non working housholds getting a job and coming off housing benefit.
It can now
However, the hypocrisy of the Lib Dems has no limits.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/bedroom-tax-lib-dems-withdraw-support-93939
Chalk it up as another own goal for Nick Clegg and his party! ;-) I suspect the real reason Clegg is disowning the 'bedroom tax' is to do with trying to distance himself and his party from the Conservatives. The more he can distance himself from their policies the more chance he has of retaining some Lib Dem seats in May 2015! Political survival is his prime concern.
you seem to have no understanding of the issues, lets address my use of the term "relatively small amount of money" firstly,
We 'apparently' can't afford to let disabled and poor people including many thousands of poor people who are IN work (remember Dave' lie that he "supports those who work hard"?) have a so called 'spare' room in their house, and this only became a major issue when this lot came to power,
I certainly wouldn't mind finding £560 million in MY bank account tomorrow morning that's for sure, but you seem to have skipped over my use of the word relatively
had I said that its a "small amount of money" you might have had a point, but I didn't did I?
perspective,
We can't afford to let these people 'get away' with having a 'spare bedroom' however, we CAN afford,
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/18/trident-replacement-hidden-cost-revealed
So, is £560 million a relatively small amount of cash when compared to £130bn,?
and we CAN afford,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342045/120billion-money-drain-EVERY-year-The-astonishing-Whitehall-waste-send-British-family-annual-luxury-holiday.html
perhaps this may be of interest?
http://insidecroydon.com/2014/02/25/croydon-council-spends-272-on-one-tap-in-140m-new-hq/
Obviously there is money to burn in the Tory coffers, but not enough to allow sick and disabled people to have a 'spare' bedroom my word no,
then we have,
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/mp-s-biscuit-claim-among-expenses-1-2997388
NOT a parasite leaching off the tax payers of course, I really wish I could claim for biscuits in my workshop,
claiming thousands of pounds in expenses for things you or I would be expected to buy from our own pockets is OK,
having a 'spare' room that you never even asked for, is worthy of a punishment,
Tories eh? living down to expectations.
OOPS almost forgot,
I will take your half a million households if you like, now, in order for that to have a affect on a million human beings, have a stab at guessing how many people on average would need to be living in each household?
and as for, You DO realise that having a job is no guarantee that you won't depend on housing benefit? scores of thousands of spare room criminals are WORKING in low paid jobs, I know Dave tends to gloss over that bit when he boasts about the fall in unemployment,
The fact that you bring this up seems to indicate that like many of the governments supporters you believe that "those on benefit" are a permanent unmoving mass of people who have always been on benefits and always will be,
it's OK, you are supposed to think that way, makes it easier to attack them.
£130 billion is the total cost over the entire operational lifetime 50 years of the needed new aircraft carriers and trident submarine replacements to ensure national defense. That according to the tabloids there are other arrears of excessive spending is not justification for not cutting excessive spending. Well what do you think happened to cause the fall from 660,000 to under 500,000. Only 4.5% downsized, extremely few got a lodger, and very few have been evicted as yet.
The most common reaction to the bedroom tax was now going to get a job or increase efforts to find a job, and for those in work it was going to increase my hours.
Like it or not the most common affect of the bedroom tax on those who are work capable who have been affected appears to have been to motivate them to get a job.
IDS used to say things like that, but was pulled up for doing so when when he could offer no evidence to back these things up, Same as other day it was pointed out that a lot of unemployment figures dont add up, as thousands just vanish dont show up on unemployement figures dont show up on claimant count and dont show up as starting work, just vanish. The one thing i have learnt over the years is people can use figures to any advantage they like and can get figures to say the things you want them to say, but figures on there own are meaningless, ask any good accounant. But if everyone lived in the right size house there would be no saving to the HB bill anyway. Daft policies that are lied about never win in the end, we should have no empty houses in any area because a empty house is costing money. I wonder how hard the MPs would fight to keep thier Booze prices in the Commons have been frozen again - even though MPs' food and drink is subsidised by millions of pounds a year.
Taxpayers are forced to stump up £7million a year to keep restaurant and bar bills down in Parliament.
Strange we cannot afford to subsidiy for housing but we can afford a subidiy for MPs to eat and get pissed. Not a bad subidy for each MP Last year it was revealed that the bars, restaurants and cafes in the House of Commons cost taxpayers £4.9million in 2012/13 - a subsidy of £7,500 per MP.. Bedroom penalty subidy at £14 per week = £728 per year
is RENT the same as HOUSING BENEFIT?
They have ceased to be affected by the bedroom tax.
We know the increase in who is exempt to include foster carer's, rooms for over night carer, room for disabled child, armed forces, does not account for the vast and continuing fall in numbers of those affected by the bedroom tax.
We know only 4.5% have down sized within soical housing
We know that only 0.1% of properties have been redefined as having fewer bedrooms
We know that very very few have taken in a lodger or adult family member.
That leaves possible answers like
Huge numbers have got a job or increased their working hours and are no longer eligible for housing benefit (seems most likely as this is what the claimants stated they would try to do, and what those who are work capable and still affected say they are trying to do)
Huge numbers have moved out and gone to live in private rented.
Huge numbers have increased the size of their families by having babies (unlikely considering the time frame).
Huge numbers have died (unlikely since they are working age)