Bedroom Tax megathread

[Ms Macbeth]

Yes it does, you have to be in social housing, in receipt of housing benefit and to be considered by some to have more bedrooms than you need. Either way it is discrimination.

 

The principle is now the same as for people in private rented housing. A single person or couple who need their rent paid by benefits, will get it paid, up to a maximum, based on a locally adjusted amount for a one bedroomed property. Why was no one saying it was unfair that they couldn't have a three bedroomed house, and wasn't that discrimination?

 

I understand the principle of the so called 'bedroom tax' but the implementation has left a lot to be desired. For instance, if someone has a home that has had adaptions to suit their needs, they should be allowed, at no extra cost, to live there until the adaptations are no longer needed. In most cases that will be for life. I think most folk who work in social housing would recognise that would be the most cost effective and realistic outcome.

 

I think more effort should have been made to encourage the elderly who may only be using one or two rooms in a large family home to downsize too. That has worked very well in some parts of the UK, where there is more choice of small properties, and in some cases incentives were part of the deal.

[Epic Fail]

Yes it does, you have to be in social housing, in receipt of housing benefit and to be considered by some to have more bedrooms than you need. Either way it is discrimination.

 

"And to be considered by some to have more bedrooms than you need..."

 

This is the part where you would expect them to look into individual circumstances such as disabilities, childcare arrangements and house adaptations, but it doesn't. You either have to pay it or you don't.

[Anna B]

According to the BBC news, homelessness has risen by 58% which is quite a shocking figure.

 

I don't think that is acceptable in a relatively rich western country. (It's not acceptable anywhere, but we have no excuse.)

[truman]

According to the BBC news, homelessness has risen by 58% which is quite a shocking figure.

 

I don't think that is acceptable in a relatively rich western country. (It's not acceptable anywhere, but we have no excuse.)

 

Could you define homeless and over what period?

[Anna B]

Could you define homeless and over what period?

 

Not really. It was on the news a few days ago and I can't remember the details, sorry.

 

Homelessness is still homelessness whether you're living in a shop doorway, in a shelter, temporary accommodation, or sofa surfing.

 

I would imagine the period is last year's figures. The trend is upwards and increasing whichever way you look at it.

[chem1st]

The principle is now the same as for people in private rented housing. A single person or couple who need their rent paid by benefits, will get it paid, up to a maximum, based on a locally adjusted amount for a one bedroomed property. Why was no one saying it was unfair that they couldn't have a three bedroomed house, and wasn't that discrimination?

 

LHA is not liable to bedroom tax.

 

If you get the SRR/1 bed rate/2 bed rate you can use it to rent a property with 3 bedrooms if you can find one.

 

In social housing, with rents set by government, bedroom costs set by government and bedroom tax set by government. You get your HB worked out very differently.

 

You get a proportion of the rent.

 

In the private sector, you get a fixed amount and use it in the market, a market with mechanisms to keep rents high.

 

In the social sector, you get a variable amount based upon various factors, for properties with rents set by government, and rents rise above inflation without fail.

 

HB and LHA need to be abolished completely. The dole should in turn be doubled/tripled, and the money can be spent as people wish, instead of forced into inflating rents and house prices, subsidising the idle rentiers that are landlords.

[Cyclone]

So for the lucky unemployed (luckier than some anyway) who have a room with mum and dad, or own a home, they get double or triple unemployment benefit and can spend it as they wish?

 

Doesn't seem very sensible.

[chem1st]

So for the lucky unemployed (luckier than some anyway) who have a room with mum and dad, or own a home, they get double or triple unemployment benefit and can spend it as they wish?

 

Doesn't seem very sensible.

 

I fail to see why an unemployed person should get less based upon housing tenure.

 

They have more money if working, as they do not have to pay rent.

 

Perhaps you think that workers should get lower wages if they live at home?

 

As it stands at the minute, the housing benefit system funnels money into rents and pushes them up.

 

We need to change the way the system works. Pay people the money, and let them spend it as they wish. Rather than using them as pawns to set and inflate rents via housing benefit.

 

People could save up dole and invest in housing improvement/construction, instead of be forced to spend money on housing, inflating rents which aren't reinvested in building or improving housing.

[Ms Macbeth]

So for the lucky unemployed (luckier than some anyway) who have a room with mum and dad, or own a home, they get double or triple unemployment benefit and can spend it as they wish?

 

Doesn't seem very sensible.

 

No, they don't get money for rent in the same way as someone living independently, they'd just get the flat rate benefit. You have to be responsible for rent and council tax to get benefits to cover the costs. However, a single person on JSA living with parents who have a decent income may not have to contribute to any living expenses unlike those who live independently, or with parents who themselves are on benefits or on a low wage.

 

Although people may get the same flat rate benefit, circumstances can be vastly different, often depending if their family is able (and willing) to be supportive, and of course on people's previous circumstances. If someone already has a nicely furnished home, and a decent supply of clothing, and a well stocked larder then managing on benefits may be less difficult, at least in the short term.

 

Its also worth knowing that housing benefit/LHA usually kicks in immediately someone claims benefit for people who rent, but those with mortgages normally have to wait 13 weeks.

[chem1st]

 

Its also worth knowing that housing benefit/LHA usually kicks in immediately someone claims benefit for people who rent, but those with mortgages normally have to wait 13 weeks.

 

But those with mortgages, are having an 'asset' (should really be a liability, but we live in a land economy where property is king) protected and their equity protected, and it does not affect other benefits, whereas somebody with savings could be disqualified.

 

Also those with mortgages can have interest paid on houses with 5 bedrooms, there is no bedroom tax for debt incumbent people with mortgages.