Discussion
I am happy if the government reduces the price of the benefits bill, but i'm also happy if it reforms the system to make it fairer and less attractive compared to actually working for everything you have, even if that costs no less. I'm happy to subsidise essentials but I don't want to be paying for other people's luxuries.
RealSquirrels said:
I am happy if the government reduces the price of the benefits bill, but i'm also happy if it reforms the system to make it fairer and less attractive compared to actually working for everything you have, even if that costs no less. I'm happy to subsidise essentials but I don't want to be paying for other people's luxuries.
Exactly. Sometimes how things appear is as important as how they are.Oakey said:
My ex's Aunt lives in a three bedroom council house. Both her kids have moved out at least 5-6 years ago. She's a workshy alcoholic deadbeat (her kids aren't, thankfully) who does absolutely nothing. She's 46.
The problem here, is that parasites like the above think they should be entitled to live in that property for life. Personally I don't think she should have another 30years taking up a three bedroom house whilst others go without.
The usual chant from idiots like the above is "It's my home!", except of course when it needs any work doing to it, in which case their attitude suddenly becomes "Why should I pay and increase the value of the councils property?" whilst they hold out indefinitely waiting for the council to put their hand in their pocket and moaning how hard they have it.
workshy deadbeat alcoholics are certainly annoying - however, the biggest problem with trying to re-house people into smaller properties is that they don't exist. Even if people want to move to a smaller property the vast majority of them wont be able to. Councils and housing associations simply do not own that many one-bed places. I know, I work for a HA. The problem here, is that parasites like the above think they should be entitled to live in that property for life. Personally I don't think she should have another 30years taking up a three bedroom house whilst others go without.
The usual chant from idiots like the above is "It's my home!", except of course when it needs any work doing to it, in which case their attitude suddenly becomes "Why should I pay and increase the value of the councils property?" whilst they hold out indefinitely waiting for the council to put their hand in their pocket and moaning how hard they have it.
What will happen is stuff like this: Couple living in a HA 3-bed house costing £80 a week to rent paid for by HB. As a result of the bedroom tax their HB will go down by 25% - so it is reduced to £60. Couple asks HA if they can move to a one-bed flat. HA replies, "sorry, we don't have any." So, couple move out of their house and rent a one-bed flat in the private sector for £120 a week, paid for by HB. Cost to taxpayer goes up by £40 a week.
Hoofy said:
rover 623gsi said:
the bedroom tax (or under-occupancy charge if you prefer)
It's not a tax or a charge. It's a reduction in benefits. If someone is adamant that they will stay in their family home (that isn't actually owned by them so it isn't theirs!) then they will receive less money so they have to find the money (perhaps by getting a job 
) to pay the landlord - or get kicked out. If they stay, then money is saved. So will they move or will they stay? Only time will tell.
rover 623gsi said:
the bedroom tax (or under-occupancy charge if you prefer) will not release any capacity
Household 1: Older couple in 3-bed house. Two grown up child now fled the nest.
Household 2: Couple with two children in two-bed house.
Household 3: Couple with one child in one-bed house.
Household 4: family of four registered as homeless – currently living in a B&B
Household 1 moves into house 3. Household 2 moves into house 1. Household 3 moves into house 2. Household 4 is still living in B&B.
The housing benefit bill has remained exactly the same and the rent being received by the landlord (council or housing association has remained exactly the same. So, no money saved anywhere and no extra capacity released.
Of course, household 2 and 3 are now living in more suitable accommodation. But, this presumes that the locations and conditions of the properties were acceptable to all parties and that they all have money to be able to move.
Not necessarily, depends on the age of the children.Household 1: Older couple in 3-bed house. Two grown up child now fled the nest.
Household 2: Couple with two children in two-bed house.
Household 3: Couple with one child in one-bed house.
Household 4: family of four registered as homeless – currently living in a B&B
Household 1 moves into house 3. Household 2 moves into house 1. Household 3 moves into house 2. Household 4 is still living in B&B.
The housing benefit bill has remained exactly the same and the rent being received by the landlord (council or housing association has remained exactly the same. So, no money saved anywhere and no extra capacity released.
Of course, household 2 and 3 are now living in more suitable accommodation. But, this presumes that the locations and conditions of the properties were acceptable to all parties and that they all have money to be able to move.
rover 623gsi said:
So, couple move out of their house and rent a one-bed flat in the private sector for £120 a week, paid for by HB. Cost to taxpayer goes up by £40 a week.
Do you think that will actually happen in practice?Providing even more customers for private landlords is something to be avoided at all costs, in my view.
rover 623gsi said:
workshy deadbeat alcoholics are certainly annoying - however, the biggest problem with trying to re-house people into smaller properties is that they don't exist. Even if people want to move to a smaller property the vast majority of them wont be able to. Councils and housing associations simply do not own that many one-bed places. I know, I work for a HA.
What will happen is stuff like this: Couple living in a HA 3-bed house costing £80 a week to rent paid for by HB. As a result of the bedroom tax their HB will go down by 25% - so it is reduced to £60. Couple asks HA if they can move to a one-bed flat. HA replies, "sorry, we don't have any." So, couple move out of their house and rent a one-bed flat in the private sector for £120 a week, paid for by HB. Cost to taxpayer goes up by £40 a week.
Yes, but a 3-bed house has become available for people who merit 3 bedrooms.What will happen is stuff like this: Couple living in a HA 3-bed house costing £80 a week to rent paid for by HB. As a result of the bedroom tax their HB will go down by 25% - so it is reduced to £60. Couple asks HA if they can move to a one-bed flat. HA replies, "sorry, we don't have any." So, couple move out of their house and rent a one-bed flat in the private sector for £120 a week, paid for by HB. Cost to taxpayer goes up by £40 a week.
The Black Flash said:
That's making rather a lot of assumptions about the relative numbers of houses, bedrooms, and the current occupancy of them, don't you think?
the point is that the bedrom tax can only work if there is a match between the numbers of houses, the type of houses and the make-up of families, couples and single people. Of course, all of those things are dynamic. People are single. Then they are in relationships. Then they have kids. They couples split up. Or the kids grow up and leave home. There are all sorts of things that happen and housing need does not remain static. I work for a housing association. We own and manage approx 6,000 properties. The mix is approx 5% 1-bed, 30% 2-bed, 60% 3-bed, 5% 4-bed. We don't own any 5-bed places. This is a pretty tpyical mix for councils and HAs. Where are we supposed to put people who want to downsize?
rover 623gsi said:
Oakey said:
My ex's Aunt lives in a three bedroom council house. Both her kids have moved out at least 5-6 years ago. She's a workshy alcoholic deadbeat (her kids aren't, thankfully) who does absolutely nothing. She's 46.
The problem here, is that parasites like the above think they should be entitled to live in that property for life. Personally I don't think she should have another 30years taking up a three bedroom house whilst others go without.
The usual chant from idiots like the above is "It's my home!", except of course when it needs any work doing to it, in which case their attitude suddenly becomes "Why should I pay and increase the value of the councils property?" whilst they hold out indefinitely waiting for the council to put their hand in their pocket and moaning how hard they have it.
workshy deadbeat alcoholics are certainly annoying - however, the biggest problem with trying to re-house people into smaller properties is that they don't exist. Even if people want to move to a smaller property the vast majority of them wont be able to. Councils and housing associations simply do not own that many one-bed places. I know, I work for a HA. The problem here, is that parasites like the above think they should be entitled to live in that property for life. Personally I don't think she should have another 30years taking up a three bedroom house whilst others go without.
The usual chant from idiots like the above is "It's my home!", except of course when it needs any work doing to it, in which case their attitude suddenly becomes "Why should I pay and increase the value of the councils property?" whilst they hold out indefinitely waiting for the council to put their hand in their pocket and moaning how hard they have it.
What will happen is stuff like this: Couple living in a HA 3-bed house costing £80 a week to rent paid for by HB. As a result of the bedroom tax their HB will go down by 25% - so it is reduced to £60. Couple asks HA if they can move to a one-bed flat. HA replies, "sorry, we don't have any." So, couple move out of their house and rent a one-bed flat in the private sector for £120 a week, paid for by HB. Cost to taxpayer goes up by £40 a week.
Im also guessing that there are quite a few people in council owned property that are paying it themselves so even if it was 33% that is 60,000 properties that people are happily paying for themselves.
Leaving 50,000 properties that need to be sorted and I hear no mention of studio flats, which can also take people under utilising those last 50,000 people.
Now there are at least 70,000 2 bed properties available for people that are living in bed sits/B&B or even god forbid they are in a one bed flat and they can exchange properties with one that it being under utilised, thus releasing more one bed properties.
So even using basic logic I can still see how this works out better.
Deva Link said:
rover 623gsi said:
So, couple move out of their house and rent a one-bed flat in the private sector for £120 a week, paid for by HB. Cost to taxpayer goes up by £40 a week.
Do you think that will actually happen in practice?Providing even more customers for private landlords is something to be avoided at all costs, in my view.
tom2019 said:
So poeple with a spare room who are living in council houses will get taxed if they have a spare bedroom.
What do you think?
I think the media are blowing up a storm where non existsWhat do you think?
My understanding is that if you are claiming housing benefit for a 5 bedroom house but only need 2 bedrooms then you get money removed from the handout for the extra bedrooms
It isn't a tax in any shape nor form
The bedroom tax is b
ks invented by idiots who want to bash the government
rover 623gsi said:
workshy deadbeat alcoholics are certainly annoying - however, the biggest problem with trying to re-house people into smaller properties is that they don't exist. Even if people want to move to a smaller property the vast majority of them wont be able to. Councils and housing associations simply do not own that many one-bed places. I know, I work for a HA.
What will happen is stuff like this: Couple living in a HA 3-bed house costing £80 a week to rent paid for by HB. As a result of the bedroom tax their HB will go down by 25% - so it is reduced to £60. Couple asks HA if they can move to a one-bed flat. HA replies, "sorry, we don't have any." So, couple move out of their house and rent a one-bed flat in the private sector for £120 a week, paid for by HB. Cost to taxpayer goes up by £40 a week.
Maybe renting rooms out is a soloution then - shared accomodation, people who carnt afford to rent thier place do this all the time..What will happen is stuff like this: Couple living in a HA 3-bed house costing £80 a week to rent paid for by HB. As a result of the bedroom tax their HB will go down by 25% - so it is reduced to £60. Couple asks HA if they can move to a one-bed flat. HA replies, "sorry, we don't have any." So, couple move out of their house and rent a one-bed flat in the private sector for £120 a week, paid for by HB. Cost to taxpayer goes up by £40 a week.
I can hear the moans already why should they have to share ? Becasue they carn't afford anything else simple.
rover 623gsi said:
I work for a housing association. We own and manage approx 6,000 properties. The mix is approx 5% 1-bed, 30% 2-bed, 60% 3-bed, 5% 4-bed. We don't own any 5-bed places. This is a pretty tpyical mix for councils and HAs. Where are we supposed to put people who want to downsize?
Is that mix decided by demand or supply?If demand, surely over time the demand for smaller places will drive the associations towards a different mix? Is this what the policy is supposed to be doing, driving the demand for smaller places in groups that can be housed in them?
I have no doubt it'll be badly implemented, poorly run and end up costing the country far more than the current system in the short term, but couldn't it work in the longer term?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff