Discussion
chrisw666 said:
It's a good idea, but flawed IMO.
The idea is to save money, but I know a guy who is currently in a 3 bed council property that he rented when he was working but is now being paid for by HB. His monthly rent if/when he is working was £400 a month this was the full price not a subsidised one.
He now has to move to a one bed, they have told him he can go to private rented as they can't accommodate him. His new flat would be £475 per month if he was paying.
But the maintenance of the property falls out of the public domain.The idea is to save money, but I know a guy who is currently in a 3 bed council property that he rented when he was working but is now being paid for by HB. His monthly rent if/when he is working was £400 a month this was the full price not a subsidised one.
He now has to move to a one bed, they have told him he can go to private rented as they can't accommodate him. His new flat would be £475 per month if he was paying.
DonnyMac said:
To be fair, it is an option to everyone who this new legislation affects, whether they like it is another matter.
There is a housing shortage, you (Mr/Mrs social housing) can help in one of two ways, either we pay you a little less toward your highly subsidised rent so we can give it to someone else who needs a hand, or you can take in someone that needs a hand and we'll let you keep any money (without reducing your housing benefit) that you make from helping us to alleviate the housing shortage.
These are your options, we need your help.
Allow both the private and public sector to build more homesThere is a housing shortage, you (Mr/Mrs social housing) can help in one of two ways, either we pay you a little less toward your highly subsidised rent so we can give it to someone else who needs a hand, or you can take in someone that needs a hand and we'll let you keep any money (without reducing your housing benefit) that you make from helping us to alleviate the housing shortage.
These are your options, we need your help.
Introduce rent controls in the private sector
Stop forcing social lanlords to increase their rents way in excess of inflation
muffinmenace said:
Stop calling it a tax, it is not a tax, it's a change in benefit payment to reflect excess resources. To call it a tax is disingenuous or you're illiterate.
Or gets his news from the BBC, who call it a tax repeatedly. Ari said:
Everyone else has to pay if they want an extra room.
I think I'll ask my bank if I can have a bigger house and the same size mortgage, presumably that's as fair as me paying people to live in bigger houses than they need.chrisw666 said:
It's a good idea, but flawed IMO.
The idea is to save money, but I know a guy who is currently in a 3 bed council property that he rented when he was working but is now being paid for by HB. His monthly rent if/when he is working was £400 a month this was the full price not a subsidised one.
He now has to move to a one bed, they have told him he can go to private rented as they can't accommodate him. His new flat would be £475 per month if he was paying.
If it was a council house then the rent would have been either "affordable" rent or "social" rents, either way it would have been 80% of open market rents, or less. So definitely subsidised.The idea is to save money, but I know a guy who is currently in a 3 bed council property that he rented when he was working but is now being paid for by HB. His monthly rent if/when he is working was £400 a month this was the full price not a subsidised one.
He now has to move to a one bed, they have told him he can go to private rented as they can't accommodate him. His new flat would be £475 per month if he was paying.
Big Rod said:
chrisw666 said:
It's a good idea, but flawed IMO.
The idea is to save money, but I know a guy who is currently in a 3 bed council property that he rented when he was working but is now being paid for by HB. His monthly rent if/when he is working was £400 a month this was the full price not a subsidised one.
He now has to move to a one bed, they have told him he can go to private rented as they can't accommodate him. His new flat would be £475 per month if he was paying.
But the maintenance of the property falls out of the public domain.The idea is to save money, but I know a guy who is currently in a 3 bed council property that he rented when he was working but is now being paid for by HB. His monthly rent if/when he is working was £400 a month this was the full price not a subsidised one.
He now has to move to a one bed, they have told him he can go to private rented as they can't accommodate him. His new flat would be £475 per month if he was paying.
Cost to public purse long term will be greater.
Countdown said:
If it was a council house then the rent would have been either "affordable" rent or "social" rents, either way it would have been 80% of open market rents, or less. So definitely subsidised.
I know the area, if I had the same house to let privately I'd be lucky to get £1 over £400 PCM for it. Countdown said:
If it was a council house then the rent would have been either "affordable" rent or "social" rents, either way it would have been 80% of open market rents, or less. So definitely subsidised.
Social housing is not subsidised. If a private house is rented at $100 a week and a social house at $80 a week there is no subsidy because no one is getting $20 difference. it just one organisation offering the same product cheaper just like the difference between Tesco and Asda. If you argue that social housing is subsidised then you must also argue that privately rented housing is also subsidised because the open market is so heavily influenced by (rapidly growing) availability of HB to private lanlords.
rover 623gsi said:
Taking in a lodger will be an option for some people – of course, this throws interesting possibilities. Family A has a 23 yrs old on living at home in their 3-bed house. Family B also have a 23 yrd old son living a home in their 3-bed house. If the 23 yr olds each swap places, then their families can charge them rent and the lads can (potentially) claim HB to pay the rent. Result.
this^ but then council tax comes in to play..for the owner (original hb claimant)
..;)
rover 623gsi said:
Social housing is not subsidised. If a private house is rented at $100 a week and a social house at $80 a week there is no subsidy because no one is getting $20 difference. it just one organisation offering the same product cheaper just like the difference between Tesco and Asda.
If you argue that social housing is subsidised then you must also argue that privately rented housing is also subsidised because the open market is so heavily influenced by (rapidly growing) availability of HB to private lanlords.
The unsubsidised price is what the house would go for if it was sold and privately rented (as the government could sell it to a private landlord). Like any asset the opportunity cost is what matters, nothing else.If you argue that social housing is subsidised then you must also argue that privately rented housing is also subsidised because the open market is so heavily influenced by (rapidly growing) availability of HB to private lanlords.
chrisw666 said:
Countdown said:
If it was a council house then the rent would have been either "affordable" rent or "social" rents, either way it would have been 80% of open market rents, or less. So definitely subsidised.
I know the area, if I had the same house to let privately I'd be lucky to get £1 over £400 PCM for it. Having said all that, in some areas there is a cap on the amount of HB that an LA will pay to a private landlord. IIRC it's called the Local Housing Allowance. What it does is depress / distort private rents to match Council rents.
Edited by Countdown on Tuesday 12th March 21:15
rover 623gsi said:
Countdown said:
If it was a council house then the rent would have been either "affordable" rent or "social" rents, either way it would have been 80% of open market rents, or less. So definitely subsidised.
Social housing is not subsidised. If a private house is rented at $100 a week and a social house at $80 a week there is no subsidy because no one is getting $20 difference. it just one organisation offering the same product cheaper just like the difference between Tesco and Asda. .
Iam suprised Margret Thatchers government never brought in some kind of 'bedroom tax' law like this 30+ years ago,she never normally never missed a trick to penalise the poorest people in society.
I know a bloke who lived in a 3 bedroom council house alone & on the dole for 24 years,he would have been the ideal target for Maggie.
I know a bloke who lived in a 3 bedroom council house alone & on the dole for 24 years,he would have been the ideal target for Maggie.
wildone63 said:
Iam suprised Margret Thatchers government never brought in some kind of 'bedroom tax' law like this 30+ years ago,she never normally never missed a trick to penalise the poorest people in society.
I know a bloke who lived in a 3 bedroom council house alone & on the dole for 24 years,he would have been the ideal target for Maggie.
Seriously is there something fundamentally wrong with your logic?I know a bloke who lived in a 3 bedroom council house alone & on the dole for 24 years,he would have been the ideal target for Maggie.
My wife and I both work full time and can't afford a house with two spare bedrooms. Why should your "friend" get this for free?
How would this be penalising the poorest? "Oh sorry I know you can be bothered to get off your lazy arse and get a job so why not have a free house much larger than you need fir twent four years paid for by people who can't afford the same."
Yeah that's picking on the poorest isn't it?
Johnnytheboy said:
Countdown said:
Big Rod said:
I have it on good authority that there's a sever lack of availability of smaller council housing at the moment so those that might want to downsize just plain can't.
.
Your good authority would be correct .
Are you here all week?
DonnyMac said:
... but, it is my understanding that should they let the under occupied rooms ..
Is there really going to be much demand for what is likely to be a tiny room, and in a household living on benefits?DonnyMac] said:
.. that they not only are not penalised for the under occupancy, they also get to keep the rental generated without it affecting their benefits.
That's not correct - for now the lodger stops them being penalised, but they lose all but £20 of the income.Once Universal Credit comes in, lodgers won't count, but the occupier can keep all income.
rover 623gsi said:
DonnyMac said:
To be fair, it is an option to everyone who this new legislation affects, whether they like it is another matter.
There is a housing shortage, you (Mr/Mrs social housing) can help in one of two ways, either we pay you a little less toward your highly subsidised rent so we can give it to someone else who needs a hand, or you can take in someone that needs a hand and we'll let you keep any money (without reducing your housing benefit) that you make from helping us to alleviate the housing shortage.
These are your options, we need your help.
Allow both the private and public sector to build more homesThere is a housing shortage, you (Mr/Mrs social housing) can help in one of two ways, either we pay you a little less toward your highly subsidised rent so we can give it to someone else who needs a hand, or you can take in someone that needs a hand and we'll let you keep any money (without reducing your housing benefit) that you make from helping us to alleviate the housing shortage.
These are your options, we need your help.
Introduce rent controls in the private sector
Stop forcing social lanlords to increase their rents way in excess of inflation
If it was merely a large cut on housing benefit based on occupancy (retrospectively, after occupancy) I'd believe the policy was a vote buying spiteful measure, perhaps even going so far as 'social cleansing' to remove singletons and old folk from estates where there could be family cohesion; however, with the inclusion of the ability to become 'mini landlords' and pocket the cash - which in some cases will be more than their rents, which remain unaffected - this seems to me to be fair, not spiteful and still retaining an element of vote winning as it seemed most on this thread thought the most vulnerable had no choice but to move, whereas they do have a choice.
I cannot disagree with you on your first point and I don't know enough about your third point to offer an opinion, but there is no way I'd vote for a party which capped private market influenced rents, no way. This option leads nowhere in a society which morally accepts it should look after those less fortunate than themselves - the safety net for those in society that need help is broad and strong, to my mind there is no such thing as true poverty in this country, which is the way it should be.
For those that cannot accept that they take some responsibility for either their 'predicament' and/or lack the moral fibre to understand that they too need to make sacrifices for those in even more need than them should take stock of their lives and their contribution to society; many, many people contribute to their standard of living and now they must do something for themselves and society at large, move to allow better use of limited stock or profit from their (very) good fortune of having more space than they need.
We all need to make choices.
My mate's son is autistic. He's 8. They've essentially been told that if they let him sleep in the same bedroom as his twin sister, they'll be culpable for neglect by virtue of failing to protect the little girl from her very boisterous brother, who doesn't really understand his own strength and very frequently accidentally hurts people, sometimes quite badly.
They live in a housing association property - on a care worker's wage (even doing well over what anybody would normally call fulltime) they have no choice. Other parent is at home caring for the little lad, who can't manage much time in school. They receive just a bit of housing benefit, not the full amount.
How the f
k is it 'fair' that they are now being informed that the box room their son sleeps in (bare of furniture, mattress on the floor because he hits his head on anything hard when distressed) is more than they need and that they should lose some of the support they get to pay for their housing costs?
Then there's me - I live in a 2 bedroom bungalow, which has had tens of thousands of pounds of adaptations to enable me to live an active, useful and safe life. As it happens, because my support people are NOT my spouse or a blood relative, I am not being told that I only need one bedroom. If they were, I would. Even if my needs were exactly the same, even if what was being done was exactly the same.
This is poorly thought out, illogical and I think deeply spiteful legislation which will do little or nothing to improve the housing situation because it so grossly misinterprets the needs of so many households, and demands that people move into accommodation which doesn't actually exist in many areas. Anyone fancy locating a one-bedroom wheelchair accessible (NB must be purpose-built: need space for equipment etc) bungalow or ground-floor flat in Manchester? I've looked...
They live in a housing association property - on a care worker's wage (even doing well over what anybody would normally call fulltime) they have no choice. Other parent is at home caring for the little lad, who can't manage much time in school. They receive just a bit of housing benefit, not the full amount.
How the f
k is it 'fair' that they are now being informed that the box room their son sleeps in (bare of furniture, mattress on the floor because he hits his head on anything hard when distressed) is more than they need and that they should lose some of the support they get to pay for their housing costs?Then there's me - I live in a 2 bedroom bungalow, which has had tens of thousands of pounds of adaptations to enable me to live an active, useful and safe life. As it happens, because my support people are NOT my spouse or a blood relative, I am not being told that I only need one bedroom. If they were, I would. Even if my needs were exactly the same, even if what was being done was exactly the same.
This is poorly thought out, illogical and I think deeply spiteful legislation which will do little or nothing to improve the housing situation because it so grossly misinterprets the needs of so many households, and demands that people move into accommodation which doesn't actually exist in many areas. Anyone fancy locating a one-bedroom wheelchair accessible (NB must be purpose-built: need space for equipment etc) bungalow or ground-floor flat in Manchester? I've looked...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff