Labour to get rid of Bedroom Tax if elected

[I1L2T3]

as said here-

 

 

Then lots of people would not have been forced out of homes they'd taken on totally within the rules at the time.

 

Forcing people out their homes achieves nothing. It took 30 years to break the public housing sector to the the extent it is broken now. It could take 30 years to fix it.

 

Trying to do it in a year is self-defeating because the fundamentals that underpinned the policy were never in place, e.g. there was a lack of affordable homes for people to downsize to. The costs in terms of ill-health caused by stress and the removal of income could also make a considerable dent in any savings.

[Dyke]

No it wasn't. I wont rewrite what WiseOwl182 said in another thread so here it is:

 

I have a open mind .. even if it says its lawful on google, in my opinion, it was'nt .. Bedroom Tax should never have come around in the first place.

 

The Tory's attack poor people for the fun of it .

 

---------- Post added 30-04-2015 at 20:49 ----------

 

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/austerity-is-con.html

[apelike]

I have a open mind .. even if it says its lawful on google, in my opinion, it was'nt .. Bedroom Tax should never have come around in the first place.

 

Unfortunately it was lawful and something I disagree with but despite the quote originally posted by WiseOwl182 there was never a subsidy. He seems to imply that there was one when clearly there was not.

[Dyke]

I know they passed it as lawful, but at the same time the Government is corrupt and so in my eyes it was not lawful,

[Titanic99]

No it wasn't. I wont rewrite what WiseOwl182 said in another thread so here it is:

 

I'm afraid the wise owl isn't that wise on this point as the two are different.

 

LHA is paid up to a maximum depending on your household size and irresepctive of rent levels, whereas your rent will be reduced by either 14 or 25% if your household size doesn't meet the size criteria in Social housing.

 

What this means in real terms is people can move out of Council houses due to this tax and move straight into the Private Sector at higher rents.

 

Some of us fail to see the logic of this and would prefer HB was used to subsidise Council properties (the ones we own) than to give money to private landlords.

[the_bloke]

Would you support the removal of the restrictions of housing benefit paid to people in private rented accommodation as well? (The Local Housing Allowance).

 

People don't like answering this question when they give their support to the 'bedroom tax'. Normally because they don't know it exists, or if they do, they don't like to admit that it was a Labour policy so pretend it doesn't exist.

 

---------- Post added 30-04-2015 at 21:50 ----------

 

I'm afraid the wise owl isn't that wise on this point as the two are different.

 

LHA is paid up to a maximum depending on your household size and irresepctive of rent levels, whereas your rent will be reduced by either 14 or 25% if your household size doesn't meet the size criteria in Social housing.

 

Housing benefit is paid according to the same criteria for both; someone reads a checklist and says 'you need X bedrooms, we'll only pay for X bedrooms. You want Y? Pay for the extra rent yourself.'

 

They aren't different at all. The only difference is the system wasn't prepared to wait for people to move in/out of council houses to apply the changes, unlike private rent where tenants move around more.

[loraward]

I'm afraid the wise owl isn't that wise on this point as the two are different.

 

LHA is paid up to a maximum depending on your household size and irresepctive of rent levels, whereas your rent will be reduced by either 14 or 25% if your household size doesn't meet the size criteria in Social housing.

 

What this means in real terms is people can move out of Council houses due to this tax and move straight into the Private Sector at higher rents.

 

Some of us fail to see the logic of this and would prefer HB was used to subsidise Council properties (the ones we own) than to give money to private landlords.

 

But that will free up the larger house for a larger family that is probably in a private rented house and in receipt of HB, so it will save money.

Edited April 30, 2015 by loraward

[Titanic99]

People don't like answering this question when they give their support to the 'bedroom tax'. Normally because they don't know it exists, or if they do, they don't like to admit that it was a Labour policy so pretend it doesn't exist.

 

---------- Post added 30-04-2015 at 21:50 ----------

 

 

Housing benefit is paid according to the same criteria for both; someone reads a checklist and says 'you need X bedrooms, we'll only pay for X bedrooms. You want Y? Pay for the extra rent yourself.'

 

They aren't different at all. The only difference is the system wasn't prepared to wait for people to move in/out of council houses to apply the changes, unlike private rent where tenants move around more.

 

I'm afraid it's not and the following link will explain this for you.

 

Put simply if Mrs C lives in a 3-room COuncil House with a child and a rent of £90 per week she will get a 14% reduction in her Housing BEnefit giving her around £77-78 per week.

 

If she moves out into the PRivate Sector she can claiup to £107.11 per week without losing Housing Benefit. She can choose as may rooms as she wants but will only get that amount.

 

Why anyone thinks it logical to force people into more expensive Housing costs is beyond me.

[loraward]

I'm afraid it's not and the following link will explain this for you.

 

Put simply if Mrs C lives in a 3-room COuncil House with a child and a rent of £90 per week she will get a 14% reduction in her Housing BEnefit giving her around £77-78 per week.

 

If she moves out into the PRivate Sector she can claiup to £107.11 per week without losing Housing Benefit. She can choose as may rooms as she wants but will only get that amount.

 

Why anyone thinks it logical to force people into more expensive Housing costs is beyond me.

 

Because it means that someone else that is living in an expensive private rents house can now move into the cheaper and larger council house, and that will save the tax payer some money.

[Titanic99]

Because it means that someone else that is living in an expensive private rents house can now move into the cheaper and larger council house, and that will save the tax payer some money.

 

I'm sorry but it isn't working out like that as the Housing Benefit bill continues to rise. In some areas there's a large surplus of 3 bedroom Council houses.