Jump to content

Homeowners and bedroom/window "tax/charge"


Recommended Posts

that's called Support for Mortgage

Interest, not housing benefit

 

Yes you're right.

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 12:56 ----------

 

I thought the reduction in housing benefits was going to apply whether underoccupying claimants rented or bought their home?

 

As I understand it, it will only affect people under a certain age on housing benefit if they rent either council or private properties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it isn't costing the government anything when a homeowner has extra bedrooms is it?

 

There is an economic cost. If a single person lives in a 3 or 4 bedroom house that's one less house that a family with children could be using. To house the family another house has to be supplied. And that costs money.

 

It's part of the problem we have now with an aging population. There isn't necessarily a problem with older people remaining in houses that are way too big for their needs as long as a replacement supply of houses is brought on stream to meet the needs of younger generations. The replacement supply of houses isn't happening.

 

A window/under-utilisation tax could be enough to increase the numbers of older people downsizing into smaller housing units, freeing houses designed to be used by families for use by families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the condems in their wisdom think its ok to reduce benefit for people underoccupying:suspect:.should they also bring in a policy of charging homeowners who underoccupy a spare bedroom window tax just to even the score ? what do others think

 

Not unless the home owner is having their house purchase subsidised by the state.

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 13:15 ----------

 

There is an economic cost. If a single person lives in a 3 or 4 bedroom house that's one less house that a family with children could be using. To house the family another house has to be supplied. And that costs money.

 

It's part of the problem we have now with an aging population. There isn't necessarily a problem with older people remaining in houses that are way too big for their needs as long as a replacement supply of houses is brought on stream to meet the needs of younger generations. The replacement supply of houses isn't happening.

 

A window/under-utilisation tax could be enough to increase the numbers of older people downsizing into smaller housing units, freeing houses designed to be used by families for use by families.

 

The argument for it is less strong than the argument for charging people who live in social housing extra for spare capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will be interesting if its implemented, in theory people in these properties have not broke any of the conditional contract rules they would have originally signed on renting the property.

I could see it happening with new tenancies with it written into the original contract, or if someone defaults on their rent then a new contract could be signed with new conditions etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how many homeowners receive benefits :huh:

 

Quite a lot of them actually.

 

But an specific example of a benefit a homeowner can get is to be totally exempt from council tax for half a year on any 2nd home they own that is unoccupied. According to Shelter there are currently 279,000 privately owned homes lying empty.

 

http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/building_more_homes/empty_homes

 

So if council house tenents are to be punished for the crime of not having every room of their home filled with people 365 days of the year then shouldn't at the very least private homeowners not receive this benefit when there are hundreds of thousands of people who need housing?

 

Or better yet the government could just stop farting about and start building more social housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the condems in their wisdom think its ok to reduce benefit for people underoccupying:suspect:.should they also bring in a policy of charging homeowners who underoccupy a spare bedroom window tax just to even the score ? what do others think

 

We already do according to Yorkshire water. When we moved from Walkley to Parson

Cross our water rates went up. when we queried this we were told it was because properties in Parson Cross on average had more windows.

 

No I still don't understand it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument for it is less strong than the argument for charging people who live in social housing extra for spare capacity.

 

I'm just making the point that there is an obvious economic cost if any economic asset is not utilised efficiently or not utilised as originally intended. And that if a certain type of housing unit is increasingly in short supply then in the face of sustained demand the price will increase.

 

Would be interesting to know how many houses are under-utilised in this way. I don't expect there's any research on it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.