Bedroom Tax megathread

[I1L2T3]

Just axe housing benefit, and give people a set amount. It's up to them to sort out where they live. This would give an incentive for young people to stay in the parental home.

 

Housing benefit does need to at least be controlled. The elephant in the room with the bedroom tax is of course that much vaster sums of HB go to private landlords. The availability of HB for private lets creates perverse incentives in the housing market, it allows employers to pay less wages, it causes property to attract investment away from more productive sectors of the economy. And the cost of it all is ballooning out of control.

 

---------- Post added 21-09-2013 at 22:16 ----------

 

So if they are never ready you are happy to continuing paying for someone to live in a large house whilst a family have to struggle in a small house.

 

---------- Post added 21-09-2013 at 22:10 ----------

 

 

Of cause they are there, but the large houses that families need are under under occupied by people that no longer need a large house.

 

Obviously people would need to be given the incentive to move. There is no incentive now because the properties aren't available.

 

In practical terms the properties are not there. The economic and social costs of shuffling 600,000 families around would result in wiping out any projected savings. Who is going to pay for hiring out 600,000 removals vans?

[angos]

Housing benefit does need to at least be controlled. The elephant in the room with the bedroom tax is of course that much vaster sums of HB go to private landlords. The availability of HB for private lets creates perverse incentives in the housing market, it allows employers to pay less wages, it causes property to attract investment away from more productive sectors of the economy. And the cost of it all is ballooning out of control.

 

So you think council tenants should live in houses that are too big at the expense of the tax payer, but you don't think that same rule should apply to people that rent in the private sector.

 

 

 

Obviously people would need to be given the incentive to move. There is no incentive now because the properties aren't available.

The incentive to move is having to pay rent for the rooms they don't need. It worked in the case of the house just down the road, it was under occupied and now it isn't all because of government policy.

 

In practical terms the properties are not there. The economic and social costs of shuffling 600,000 families around would result in wiping out any projected savings. Who is going to pay for hiring out 600,000 removals vans?

 

The people moving, off cause they can choose to stay were they are and pay towards the rent for the extra bedrooms they don't need.

[I1L2T3]

So you think council tenants should live in houses that are too big at the expense of the tax payer, but you don't think that same rule should apply to people that rent in the private sector.

 

 

 

 

The incentive to move is having to pay rent for the rooms they don't need. It worked in the case of the house just down the road, it was under occupied and now it isn't all because of government policy.

 

 

 

The people moving, off cause they can choose to stay were they are and pay towards the rent for the extra bedrooms they don't need.

 

No, I think social housing provision should be realigned and allocated more efficiently. I've already said that a few times now.

 

The private sector is the private sector. People should rent what they can afford with as many bedrooms as they need but they should do it without taxpayer support. Housing benefit needs to be brought under control and eventually scrapped for private rentals to working people. Just like it should eventually be scrapped for social rentals to working people too once we have replenished and re-aligned our social housing stock.

 

The problem is none of this will happen overnight. Introducing a draconian policy to try and beat people into moving isn't going to magically make things change. We can see clear evidence of that. The policy isn't working.

[Dentzler]

Just axe housing benefit, and give people a set amount. It's up to them to sort out where they live. This would give an incentive for young people to stay in the parental home.

 

You read the Citizens Income link posted?

[angos]

No, I think social housing provision should be realigned and allocated more efficiently. I've already said that a few times now.

In that case you shouldn't have any objections to people contributing towards the cost of living in social housing that is too big for there needs .

 

 

The private sector is the private sector. People should rent what they can afford with as many bedrooms as they need but they should do it without taxpayer support. Housing benefit needs to be brought under control and eventually scrapped for private rentals to working people. Just like it should eventually be scrapped for social rentals to working people too once we have replenished and re-aligned our social housing stock.

Some people wouldn't be able to afford anything without HB, where do you think these people will live? maybe we could kick people out of council houses when they no longer need them.

 

 

The problem is none of this will happen overnight. Introducing a draconian policy to try and beat people into moving isn't going to magically make things change. We can see clear evidence of that. The policy isn't working.

 

But it is working, an under occupied house down the road is now fully occupied because of this policy.

[Dentzler]

Even if you agree with the BT it is still nonsensical as it costs more to implement than it is what it is supposed to save.

 

---------- Post added 21-09-2013 at 22:53 ----------

 

In that case you shouldn't have any objections to people contributing towards the cost of living in social housing that is too big for there needs .

 

 

 

Some people wouldn't be able to afford anything without HB, where do you think these people will live? maybe we could kick people out of council houses when they no longer need them.

 

 

 

But it is working, an under occupied house down the road is now fully occupied because of this policy.

 

You should be asking why single folk were offered 2-beds in the first place.

 

My friends spare room is so small it doesn't qualify as a bedroom under the 1985 housing act. But according to Capita and Salford Council its now a bedroom.

 

So do we make folk homeless instead of offering HB?

 

For the majority of tenants and councils it is a massive expensive bureaucratic administrational nonsensical illogical nightmare policy.

[angos]

Even if you agree with the BT it is still nonsensical as it costs more to implement than it is what it is supposed to save.

I think it is more about encouraging tenants in bigger houses than they need to move to smaller houses so the bigger houses can be occupied by larger families and it seams to be working.

 

 

 

My friends spare room is so small it doesn't qualify as a bedroom under the 1985 housing act. But according to Capita and Salford Council its now a bedroom.

How big is it because many private houses have very small bedrooms, council houses tend to be much bigger.

 

So do we make folk homeless instead of offering HB?

I take it that must be aimed at I1L2T3

 

For the majority of tenants and councils it is a massive expensive bureaucratic administrational nonsensical illogical nightmare policy.

 

Everything the public sector is asked to do is a bureaucratic administrational nightmare because they are generally incompetent and stuck in their ways.

[I1L2T3]

In that case you shouldn't have any objections to people contributing towards the cost of living in social housing that is too big for there needs .

 

 

 

Some people wouldn't be able to afford anything without HB, where do you think these people will live? maybe we could kick people out of council houses when they no longer need them.

 

 

 

But it is working, an under occupied house down the road is now fully occupied because of this policy.

 

I have no objections if they accept a house that is too big for their needs. If they want extra rooms and can pay for them why not? But, I have got a massive objection to the retrospective application of this law to existing allocations, especially where there is no realistic option to move to a smaller property and also where people were allocated properties through no fault of their own. I also have a problem with the way it has disproportionately targeted the vulnerable and the disabled.

 

Right now a lot of people would not be able to survive without HB, that is absolutely right. But that needs to change because the HB cost is spiralling out of control. And it is also diverting tens of billions of pounds into non-productive property investments held by private landlords.

 

As I said it can't change over night but it does have to change. We can't afford it.

 

One anecdote from you does not prove it is working, especially as those kinds of swaps were commonplace anyway before the bedroom tax was introduced. Even on SF there were regular posts about exchanges before the tax came in.

[angos]

I have no objections if they accept a house that is too big for their needs. If they want extra rooms and can pay for them why not? But, I have got a massive objection to the retrospective application of this law to existing allocations, especially where there is no realistic option to move to a smaller property and also where people were allocated properties through no fault of their own. I also have a problem with the way it has disproportionately targeted the vulnerable and the disabled.

There are plenty of smaller properties in the private sector ready and waiting to be rented, and plenty of families waiting for the under occupied council houses to become empty. I do how ever have a problem with people renting councils houses at a subsidised rate if they don't actually need that subsidy, and I also think it is completely unfair for the tax payer to pay for houses that are too big for the tenants needs.

 

 

Right now a lot of people would not be able to survive without HB, that is absolutely right. But that needs to change because the HB cost is spiralling out of control. And it is also diverting tens of billions of pounds into non-productive property investments held by private landlords.

I agree, but what labour did is done and it is very difficult to reverse.

 

 

One anecdote from you does not prove it is working, especially as those kinds of swaps were commonplace anyway before the bedroom tax was introduced. Even on SF there were regular posts about exchanges before the tax came in.

 

It wasn't a swap, it was a tenant that move because she could no longer afford to live in an house that was to big for her needs. If the policy hadn't been introduced she would still be under occupying a large house and the family now living in it would still be waiting for a large house.

[Dentzler]

I think it is more about encouraging tenants in bigger houses than they need to move to smaller houses so the bigger houses can be occupied by larger families and it seams to be working.

 

 

 

How big is it because many private houses have very small bedrooms, council houses tend to be much bigger.

 

 

I take it that must be aimed at I1L2T3

 

 

 

Everything the public sector is asked to do is a bureaucratic administrational nightmare because they are generally incompetent and stuck in their ways.

 

Under 70 square feet so therefore it shouldn't be deemed a bedroom according to the 1985 Housing Act. An army of bureaucrats are on the case costing you the tax payer even more money.

 

 

It is the stupid BT policy and sheer lack of housing that is the problem, not Capita. The whole system is at breaking point, it is so overstretched and under resourced and illogical nobody knows where they stand, everything is continually under review, appealed and mistakes are so commonplace they've become the accepted norm.