Discussion
109er said:
turbobloke said:
but aren't people over 60 the most affluent group there is at the moment? Certainly one of the most, if not the most.
As to your statement 'but aren't people over 60 the most affluent group there is at the moment - I don't think so.If you think about it, being home all day we use more electric/gas and water than a working family would, so a so called 'affluent' pensioner has higher overheads than a working family.
You should try it some time - its great fun trying to stretch money you don't have
rover 623gsi said:
there are some over-60s that are very comfortably off, but they tend not to be in social housing
Out of interest, what's the national standard means test for any form of council / social housing - is there such a thing? IIRC back in 2007 politicians retracted a proposed means-testing clause in the Housing and Regeneration Bill and I can't recall if it was ever resurrected in other legislation.rover 623gsi said:
however it is fair to say that quite a few of the older people in social housing are doing fine, even if their actual income is not that high.
Accepted, but wealth and income are different things!eccles said:
rover 623gsi said:
yes
and the main reason why private rents are so high is that we are not building enough houses to meet demand
and of course as private rents go up, so does the housing benefit bill - so if you want social rents to go up to match private rents the HB bill will be even more astronomical than it is now
We keep seeing this guff about there not being enough housing being built, rents going up etc. It's just a few hotspots around the country where more people want to live (London, South East, Manchester etc), so why shouldn't they pay a premium to live in these areas?and the main reason why private rents are so high is that we are not building enough houses to meet demand
and of course as private rents go up, so does the housing benefit bill - so if you want social rents to go up to match private rents the HB bill will be even more astronomical than it is now
This constant fixation with the South East will have to end some time as the infra structure is already overloaded and space is getting tight.
Meanwhile in the rest of country there are enough houses and rent rates have barely moved in the last 7 years I've been renting.
country live. I'm bloody sure its not in tents. That is where the bulk of the 'housing shortage' has come from.
Other, successful immigrants keep them in their garage.
Or piled high in the equivalent of squats.
One two bedroomed house in Farnborough had about 15 Chinese workers crammed into it. They were sleeping on mattresses on the floor and the house was dilapidated. The house was owned by the owner of a Chinese Restaurant - who was also Chinese, of course.
Or piled high in the equivalent of squats.
One two bedroomed house in Farnborough had about 15 Chinese workers crammed into it. They were sleeping on mattresses on the floor and the house was dilapidated. The house was owned by the owner of a Chinese Restaurant - who was also Chinese, of course.
Guam said:
OK so question for all those stating there are plenty of properties available in the Private sector, to apparently account for the shortfalls noted in the articles and Hansard I linked to.
The Hansard entries you kindly linked to referred to a shortage of 1 and 2 bed rural properties, did they not?rover 623gsi said:
sidicks said:
As mph1977 has suggested, if social housing was only subsidised up to a certain income limit this would reduce the housing benefit bill and perhaps encourage some people to seek private housing, thereby freeing up houses for those that genuinely need it...
i don't know where some people get the idea that there are loads of 'rich' tenants living in social housing.there are 4 million households living in social housing - around 60% of these households are headed by people over the age of 60
the most recent estimate suggests that 34,000 social housing households have a total income of £60,000 per year - that's about 0.8% of the total (and nearly all of them live in London). The average household income of the 7,000 properties we manage is £20,000 a year. Social housing is already for those that genuinely need it.
the question is how many of these hosueholds need Social housing at social rents rather than RSL /HA affordable rent ( on the basis of being a key worker) or the HA version of market rents ... ?
and does the household incomefigure taken note of the actual income of the the 'powerfully built company directors' (ok we know that this time they really are 'roid head tradesmen) that surely inhabit some of the your stock given the numbers of white vans with ladders on top that live on RSL estates ...
In relation to the woman living in Solihull who killed herself, the inquest decided it was suicide.
Her brother's comments about her reaction is perhaps telling.
http://news.sky.com/story/1317487/bedroom-tax-suic...
Her brother's comments about her reaction is perhaps telling.
http://news.sky.com/story/1317487/bedroom-tax-suic...
Grandad Gaz said:
We have just sold our 4 bed house to downsize, as we cannot justify the extra expense anymore.
Why should social housing be any different?
Been said a zillion times - no reason, apart from the fact that the occupants of the larger property will probably not be able to be offered a suitable smaller property to move into.Why should social housing be any different?
Eric Mc said:
Been said a zillion times - no reason, apart from the fact that the occupants of the larger property will probably not be able to be offered a suitable smaller property to move into.
How tricky would it have been to put a conditional statement into the legislation that says "if you are offered an actual smaller property" then pay the fine, otherwise carry on?More than happy with the theory that "to each according to need", but a little pragmatism doesn't hurt.
In this case the woman lived alone in a three bedroomed house. She had been offered another home and was considering instead she wrote a suicide letter stating it was the governments fault as she would lose £20 per week.
Her brother said this may have been what she focused on in the letter but she had tried to kill herself before and her mental health was the reason.
The brother clearly did not want her tragic death to be used by those who would paint a good idea to release homes for families, as the reason. A brave decision when it would have been easy for them to do otherwise.
The true victim here is the truck driver who had no choice in what unfolded that day.
Her brother said this may have been what she focused on in the letter but she had tried to kill herself before and her mental health was the reason.
The brother clearly did not want her tragic death to be used by those who would paint a good idea to release homes for families, as the reason. A brave decision when it would have been easy for them to do otherwise.
The true victim here is the truck driver who had no choice in what unfolded that day.
spaximus said:
In this case the woman lived alone in a three bedroomed house. She had been offered another home and was considering instead she wrote a suicide letter stating it was the governments fault as she would lose £20 per week.
Her brother said this may have been what she focused on in the letter but she had tried to kill herself before and her mental health was the reason.
The brother clearly did not want her tragic death to be used by those who would paint a good idea to release homes for families, as the reason. A brave decision when it would have been easy for them to do otherwise.
The true victim here is the truck driver who had no choice in what unfolded that day.
Yes - rational people can make rational decisions. I would expect she had mental health issues already and the pressure of having to move was just too much.Her brother said this may have been what she focused on in the letter but she had tried to kill herself before and her mental health was the reason.
The brother clearly did not want her tragic death to be used by those who would paint a good idea to release homes for families, as the reason. A brave decision when it would have been easy for them to do otherwise.
The true victim here is the truck driver who had no choice in what unfolded that day.
I have seen a very similar scenario playing out VERY close to home. Luckily, the individual I know has a huge amount of support from his sister who has fought tooth and nail to keep in his "home" and, so far, has succeeded.
Grandad Gaz said:
We have just sold our 4 bed house to downsize, as we cannot justify the extra expense anymore.
Why should social housing be any different?
Simply because there are not enough 1 - 2 Bed houses/Flats etc to accomodate all these families.Why should social housing be any different?
As you say Grandad you had to downsize due to cost etc but in most cases when there is a 1 -2 bedroom residence avaiable it is the same, if not higher (private sector) rent!? As you say why should it be any different for hese people ?
Edited by RAFsmoggy on Wednesday 13th August 13:26
The council should have just given this lady the 11.65 a week. Surely that's exactly what the government's discretionary housing payment fund is for. Instead we have a lengthy legal case (I assume the lady in question isn't paying for the lawyers) which will end up costing the state a lot more than 11 quid a week.
guardian said:
A victim of domestic violence who faces losing her council home which has a secure "panic room" is to challenge the government's so-called bedroom tax.
Lawyers for the woman have issued a claim against Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, after council officials told her she would be charged for having a spare bedroom.
The woman, who is in her forties and lives in the East Midlands, has had her bedroom door and the surrounding frame strengthened to provide protection against an ex-partner who has threatened to kill her.
Thousands of pounds have been spent by a women's refuge charity reinforcing window frames and the front door and making the back garden more secure. The loft has been fortified as an additional safe retreat.
The local council has inspected the three-bedroom property, where the woman and her young son live, and told her she will lose £11.65 a week from her benefits on the grounds that she has a spare room.
Ministers argue that the bedroom tax, which David Cameron calls the "spare room subsidy", will encourage people to move to smaller properties and save around £480m a year from the government's housing benefit bill.
Critics warn that as well as causing social disruption, the initiative risks increasing the cost for taxpayers because there is a shortage of smaller social housing properties and people may be forced to downsize into the more expensive private rented sector.
The woman, who can be identified only as Julia, says that if she is forced to move she will also lose her neighbours who are aware of her vulnerability and keep a lookout. Her case is being supported by the charity Women's Aid.
Julia told the Guardian: "The council have been out to measure the box room and are saying it is a third bedroom. I suffer from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress. When I'm sick, my grownup daughter comes over to stay with me.
"I receive £380 a fortnight for myself and my son. My outgoings already exceed my income. If I lose £11.65 a week, I will get into debt and be forced to leave. I've lived here for 25 years.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/24/domestic-violence-bedroom-taxLawyers for the woman have issued a claim against Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, after council officials told her she would be charged for having a spare bedroom.
The woman, who is in her forties and lives in the East Midlands, has had her bedroom door and the surrounding frame strengthened to provide protection against an ex-partner who has threatened to kill her.
Thousands of pounds have been spent by a women's refuge charity reinforcing window frames and the front door and making the back garden more secure. The loft has been fortified as an additional safe retreat.
The local council has inspected the three-bedroom property, where the woman and her young son live, and told her she will lose £11.65 a week from her benefits on the grounds that she has a spare room.
Ministers argue that the bedroom tax, which David Cameron calls the "spare room subsidy", will encourage people to move to smaller properties and save around £480m a year from the government's housing benefit bill.
Critics warn that as well as causing social disruption, the initiative risks increasing the cost for taxpayers because there is a shortage of smaller social housing properties and people may be forced to downsize into the more expensive private rented sector.
The woman, who can be identified only as Julia, says that if she is forced to move she will also lose her neighbours who are aware of her vulnerability and keep a lookout. Her case is being supported by the charity Women's Aid.
Julia told the Guardian: "The council have been out to measure the box room and are saying it is a third bedroom. I suffer from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress. When I'm sick, my grownup daughter comes over to stay with me.
"I receive £380 a fortnight for myself and my son. My outgoings already exceed my income. If I lose £11.65 a week, I will get into debt and be forced to leave. I've lived here for 25 years.
guardian said:
A woman whose council home has been fitted with a secure panic room to protect her from a violent ex-partner is going to court on Wednesday to challenge the government’s so-called bedroom tax.
The work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, has refused to withdraw the demand despite losing an earlier attempt to have the test case dismissed.
The woman, who lives in a three-bedroom property with her 11-year-old son, has been the victim of rape, assault, harassment, stalking and threats to kill at the hands of her former partner. She is not being identified.
The local council has told her she will lose £11.65 a week from her benefits on the grounds that she has a spare room, which is the panic room.
Ministers argue that the bedroom tax, which the DWP calls the spare room subsidy, will encourage people to move to smaller properties, saving around £480m a year from the government’s housing benefit bill.
The woman, referred in the case as A, is one of a small number of victims of domestic violence who will be affected by the policy. According to figures obtained through freedom of information inquiries from 79 local authorities, almost one in 20 households benefiting from similar sanctuary schemes for people at risk of severe domestic violence have been affected by the under-occupancy penalty. Across the country, 281 such households are facing bedroom tax demands.
The high court in London will hear her lawyers argue in a judicial review challenge that the tax is discriminatory and will have a devastating impact on A and her son. They will claim that it has a disproportionate effect on victims of domestic violence, most of whom are women.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/18/panic-room-woman-challenges-bedroom-taxThe work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, has refused to withdraw the demand despite losing an earlier attempt to have the test case dismissed.
The woman, who lives in a three-bedroom property with her 11-year-old son, has been the victim of rape, assault, harassment, stalking and threats to kill at the hands of her former partner. She is not being identified.
The local council has told her she will lose £11.65 a week from her benefits on the grounds that she has a spare room, which is the panic room.
Ministers argue that the bedroom tax, which the DWP calls the spare room subsidy, will encourage people to move to smaller properties, saving around £480m a year from the government’s housing benefit bill.
The woman, referred in the case as A, is one of a small number of victims of domestic violence who will be affected by the policy. According to figures obtained through freedom of information inquiries from 79 local authorities, almost one in 20 households benefiting from similar sanctuary schemes for people at risk of severe domestic violence have been affected by the under-occupancy penalty. Across the country, 281 such households are facing bedroom tax demands.
The high court in London will hear her lawyers argue in a judicial review challenge that the tax is discriminatory and will have a devastating impact on A and her son. They will claim that it has a disproportionate effect on victims of domestic violence, most of whom are women.
randlemarcus said:
How tricky would it have been to put a conditional statement into the legislation that says "if you are offered an actual smaller property" then pay the fine, otherwise carry on?
More than happy with the theory that "to each according to need", but a little pragmatism doesn't hurt.
Because that would have been too easy, and un-Tory like.More than happy with the theory that "to each according to need", but a little pragmatism doesn't hurt.
Still not getting this sense of entitlement...
Against their human rights BS and all that.
But same people when asked if the rich should be taxed more (mansion/top rate tax, etc), say f
k em they deserve it... wonder what would happen if they started spouting off about human rights not to pay when the money is being wasted on people that demand to stay in a larger free house then they need.
Answer... Its unfair they don't contribute more as they can afford it... yet same people don't want to help the system out too by moving to a smaller property when its their turn to do so.
Against their human rights BS and all that.
But same people when asked if the rich should be taxed more (mansion/top rate tax, etc), say f
k em they deserve it... wonder what would happen if they started spouting off about human rights not to pay when the money is being wasted on people that demand to stay in a larger free house then they need.Answer... Its unfair they don't contribute more as they can afford it... yet same people don't want to help the system out too by moving to a smaller property when its their turn to do so.
Loved this section of the article:
"Ministers argue that the bedroom tax, which David Cameron calls the "spare room subsidy","
I like how a) the labelling should actually be the other way round as it's official name IS the "spare room subsidy", and "bedroom tax" is a colloquial emotive nickname for it, and b) they single out David Cameron as the person who chooses to refer to it by its official name. Quality journalism there.
"Ministers argue that the bedroom tax, which David Cameron calls the "spare room subsidy","
I like how a) the labelling should actually be the other way round as it's official name IS the "spare room subsidy", and "bedroom tax" is a colloquial emotive nickname for it, and b) they single out David Cameron as the person who chooses to refer to it by its official name. Quality journalism there.
KingNothing said:
Loved this section of the article:
"Ministers argue that the bedroom tax, which David Cameron calls the "spare room subsidy","
I like how a) the labelling should actually be the other way round as it's official name IS the "spare room subsidy", and "bedroom tax" is a colloquial emotive nickname for it, and b) they single out David Cameron as the person who chooses to refer to it by its official name. Quality journalism there.
Same thing as Ed having to say, every time 'Mansion tax, to pay for the NHS'."Ministers argue that the bedroom tax, which David Cameron calls the "spare room subsidy","
I like how a) the labelling should actually be the other way round as it's official name IS the "spare room subsidy", and "bedroom tax" is a colloquial emotive nickname for it, and b) they single out David Cameron as the person who chooses to refer to it by its official name. Quality journalism there.
It won't. Of course it won't. It's about 4 days worth.
It's branding, if they say it enough, idiots believe it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff