Bedroom Tax megathread

[Mister M]

But the Coalition HAVE just created a two tier system for housing benefits. Why allow those over pension age to live in council property with two or three spare bedrooms to be exempt from this tax?

 

The same as the reason why pensioners have not been included in the review over Government spending on benefits like like free bus passes, free TV licences etc:

Pensioners are more likely to vote, and they generally vote Consevative.

[Xt500]

The same as the reason why pensioners have not been included in the review over Government spending on benefits like like free bus passes, free TV licences etc:

Pensioners are more likely to vote, and they generally vote Consevative.

 

Is that cos they are older and wiser?

[Mecky]

The same as the reason why pensioners have not been included in the review over Government spending on benefits like like free bus passes, free TV licences etc:

Pensioners are more likely to vote, and they generally vote Consevative.

 

Rubbish, it may be so if they live down south and think they're better than nobody else. The tories don't need the vote from people in social housing because it's unlikely they'll vote for them anyway. That's why they are punishing them.

[truman]

The same as the reason why pensioners have not been included in the review over Government spending on benefits like like free bus passes, free TV licences etc:

Pensioners are more likely to vote, and they generally vote Consevative.

 

You're saying that pensioners living in council houses in receipt of HB are more likely to be tory voters?

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2013 at 12:20 ----------

 

Rubbish, it may be so if they live down south and think they're better than nobody else. The tories don't need the vote from people in social housing because it's unlikely they'll vote for them anyway. That's why they are punishing them.

 

Pensioners aren't affected by the change in HB...

[Penistone999]

They are not being given special treatment. They are in the houses they were already allocated when the system was different. I don't believe that blaming individuals for a system they didn't break is the right thing to do. In practical terms it doesn't make it any easier to reallocate housing. It doesn't even save much money. It causes stress and misery. It threatens to break up communities. It targets the weakest.

 

If you were to argue that new allocations of social housing should be subject to the new rules, albeit in a modified form to protect the vulnerable and disabled, then I would agree. I can't agree that to retrospectively shoehorn it in for millions of existing tenants is a good idea and I haven't seen a single coherent justification for that.

 

 

So that means they shouldnt change the system to make it fair across the board , IE social and private renting receive the same housing benefit. ? Just because the system has favoured social tenants dosnt mean it has to continue that way . Why should people in private rental properties have to pay for spare bedrooms themselves while people in social housing continue to have their spare rooms paid for by the tax payer. ?

[WeX]

Then what's the problem

 

Its your problem as you have not proven anything yet. All I am seeing is your claims. Give us some proof and I'll believe you, but "bloke down pub said" is not proof of anything.

[I1L2T3]

Its your problem as you have not proven anything yet. All I am seeing is your claims. Give us some proof and I'll believe you, but "bloke down pub said" is not proof of anything.

 

Proof of what exactly?

[WeX]

Proof of what exactly?

 

Well you replied to my request for proof of this:

 

The council have been known to put a lot of people in property which is too big for their needs at he start of their tenancy, through no fault of their own. If people had rejected those properties, they would have gone to the back of the queue and spent more years on the waiting list. Then the government changes the goal post half way through their tenancy.

[I1L2T3]

Well you replied to my request for proof of this:

 

Ah apologies, I see where you are coming from now. I was more making the point that following allocation peoples' circumstances often change. For example they might have a much larger than anticipated family, become disabled, might lose a child or partner, divorce or separate etc... Years down the line the house might be bigger (or smaller) than was needed at the time of allocation.

 

That said, it should be clear that in practical terms placing every single tenant into accommodation sized perfectly for their needs would be completely impossible. I can think of a number of situations where a property that is too big could be allocated. You probably could too.

[Mister M]

You're saying that pensioners living in council houses in receipt of HB are more likely to be tory voters?

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2013 at 12:20 ----------

 

 

Pensioners aren't affected by the change in HB...

 

No - I'm saying that when psephologists break down the numbers pensioners are more likely than other age groups to vote Conservative. I'm not saying that they all do, or that those in council houses in reciept of HB are.