Bedroom Tax megathread

[angos]

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.

There would be thousands of houses with no bedrooms if that was the case,

because that is considered a double bedroom in many houses.

[Dentzler]

It is the case.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/68/section/326

[angos]

It is the case.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/68/section/326

 

No account shall be taken of a child under the age of one and a child aged one or over but under ten shall be reckoned as one-half of a unit.

 

Which would mean a bedroom of 50 sq. ft. or more but less than 70 sq. ft.is a child's bedroom.

 

And a 50 sq. ft just over 8ft by 6ft is still a good sized bedroom when compared to thousands of private sector houses.

[Dentzler]

No account shall be taken of a child under the age of one and a child aged one or over but under ten shall be reckoned as one-half of a unit.

 

Which would mean a bedroom of 50 sq. ft. or more but less than 70 sq. ft.is a child's bedroom.

 

And a 50 sq. ft just over 8ft by 6ft is still a good sized bedroom when compared to thousands of private sector houses.

 

But as far as I know these rooms were not stipulated on council tenancies just as childs bedrooms. You see all this nonsense and confusion becomes all very subjective and only adds to the administrative workload and nonsensical bureaucracy.

 

Scrap the whole benefits system and replace it with a Citizens Income.

 

 

[I1L2T3]

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

If the private properties were there in sufficient numbers people would be moving to them, notwithstanding the barriers to private rental like upfront bonds, months of rent in advance, many landlords refusing to take people on HB and intense competition for rentals in certain parts of the country. Besides private properties are generally more expensive, rents are escalating too so HB payments are going to increase. It's a nonsense.

 

In terms of who is responsible all the parties now have their hands dirty, but yes it was Labour who let the situation spiral out of control with the private housing sector in the 00s. The conditions for depletion of the social housing stock were created earlier.

 

You're going to have to do better than anecdotes.

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2013 at 08:27 ----------

 

But as far as I know these rooms were not stipulated on council tenancies just as childs bedrooms. You see all this nonsense and confusion becomes all very subjective and only adds to the administrative workload and nonsensical bureaucracy.

 

Scrap the whole benefits system and replace it with a Citizens Income.

 

 

 

You should vote Green. They propose citizens income, land value tax and fully capitalised banks.

[sheff1johnny]

How many 1 bed properties are above shops doing nothing, maybe the council could make the landlords rent these properties out to tenants, who want to downsize. As for the bedroom tax not being a tax, it is, as it affects people who want to move. If there was a solution, then it would not be a tax, it's very hard to get a 1 bed property, not impossible, but not far off. The council would find it hard to house a person who already has a property, when they are paying extra rent for a person to live in a B and B.

DHP's are meant to help disabled people, but the council doesn't give the money to people on DLA as they feel they get too much money, as in calculating a person's need, they illegally take into account a person's dla as income. So the people who are supposedly meant to receive the help, miss out.

[Dentzler]

If the private properties were there in sufficient numbers people would be moving to them, notwithstanding the barriers to private rental like upfront bonds, months of rent in advance, many landlords refusing to take people on HB and intense competition for rentals in certain parts of the country. Besides private properties are generally more expensive, rents are escalating too so HB payments are going to increase. It's a nonsense.

 

In terms of who is responsible all the parties now have their hands dirty, but yes it was Labour who let the situation spiral out of control with the private housing sector in the 00s. The conditions for depletion of the social housing stock were created earlier.

 

You're going to have to do better than anecdotes.

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2013 at 08:27 ----------

 

 

You should vote Green. They propose citizens income, land value tax and fully capitalised banks.

 

I would vote for the Greens but they're are too anti-car. The Greens treat motorists worse than convicted paedophiles in Brighton.

 

The thought of Kevan Butt and his cronies been able to swindle motorists out of even more money is not something I could ever endorse, such a shame because I agree with almost everything else the Greens stand for.

[I1L2T3]

I would vote for the Greens but they're are too anti-car. The Greens treat motorists worse than convicted paedophiles in Brighton.

 

The thought of Kevan Butt and his cronies been able to swindle motorists out of even more money is not something I could ever endorse, such a shame because I agree with almost everything else the Greens stand for.

 

It's one of those chicken and egg things. Years ago few people really needed a car. Now so much economic activity is driven by people being mobile, even just for basic tasks like shopping, getting to work caused by outlying housing estates, poor transport links etc... Many people have an absolute need for a car even without those factors. Like the situation with housing once things have developed too far in a certain direction it's hard to unravel it overnight. There are no easy solutions and a long-term pragmatic approach is best. The Greens do need to recognise this you're right.

[sheff1johnny]

It's one of those chicken and egg things. Years ago few people really needed a car. Now so much economic activity is driven by people being mobile, even just for basic tasks like shopping, getting to work caused by outlying housing estates, poor transport links etc... Many people have an absolute need for a car even without those factors. Like the situation with housing once things have developed too far in a certain direction it's hard to unravel it overnight. There are no easy solutions and a long-term pragmatic approach is best. The Greens do need to recognise this you're right.

 

Maybe an easier way, is to make insurance companies give a discount, to families who only own one car, or lower the mot. but is there any chance we could get back to the bedroom tax issue

[geared]

MOT is low enough, only 30 quid at halfords.

 

Fuel tax is the main killer, when that go's up every single product in your supermarket increases in price.

 

Drop the tax on fuel and every single person in the country will benefit, even if they do not drive.