Cameron bedroom tax failing big time.

[PeteEU]

Exclusive: 50,000 people are now facing eviction after bedroom tax - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

More than 50,000 people affected by the so-called bedroom tax have fallen behind on rent and face eviction, figures given to The Independent show.

The bedroom tax penalises tenants if they have a “spare” bedroom by reducing their housing benefit by up to 25 per cent.

Basically if you have a family, with mother, father and 1 child, and have 3 bedrooms, then you get part of your housing benefit taken... taxed as punishment for having a room too many.

But on the flip side, the money went to give tax breaks to the uber wealthy! So what if people are being pushed into homelessness in the run up to winter. They will just die in the cold weather and become less of a burden for their rich benefactors!

The coalition government are idiots..

 

[Quag]

Sounds like one of the dumbest taxes ever

 

[PeteEU]

Sounds like one of the dumbest taxes ever

Just to clarify.. it is not a tax per say, but a reduction of benefits if you have a spare room. Calling it a bedroom tax is the media doing so, and it is catchy and frankly deserves to be called that.. because it is stupid.

So say you are a family on benefits, and have a room to spare.. instead of getting 100 dollars in housing help, you only get 75 dollars and have to make up the difference by .. basically eating less.

The idea I think was to force people into smaller and less expensive homes or force people to rent out the spare room to strangers, but the problem here is that most of these people are in homes provided to them by the local government and there is a massive shortage of affordable homes in the UK, so the idea wont work in forcing people to downgrade, and the idea of renting out a room with no private bathroom or access in most cases is... brain dead.

 

[Quag]

Just to clarify.. it is not a tax per say, but a reduction of benefits if you have a spare room. Calling it a bedroom tax is the media doing so, and it is catchy and frankly deserves to be called that.. because it is stupid.

So say you are a family on benefits, and have a room to spare.. instead of getting 100 dollars in housing help, you only get 75 dollars and have to make up the difference by .. basically eating less.

The idea I think was to force people into smaller and less expensive homes or force people to rent out the spare room to strangers, but the problem here is that most of these people are in homes provided to them by the local government and there is a massive shortage of affordable homes in the UK, so the idea wont work in forcing people to downgrade, and the idea of renting out a room with no private bathroom or access in most cases is... brain dead.

Trying to force people into smaller places makes no sense.
I think I can safely assume that a small 1 bedroom flat in London will cost more than something larger in say on the outskirts of Blackpool. The extra room could also provide a means to get off of assistance. A place to try and start a small business, office to write the next Harry Potter, place to store the equipment your child needs as they are in training to join the National Olympic team. etc. etc.
I do not live there but being cynical I would guess this has more to do with the govt trying to save a few bucks than them trying to get people to live in smaller places (after all who gives a f*** what size a place you live in?)

 

[PeteEU]

Trying to force people into smaller places makes no sense.

For some it does.. smaller place costs less money, which means less in housing benefit is needed. Problem it does not take into account availability, price and cost of moving.

I think I can safely assume that a small 1 bedroom flat in London will cost more than something larger in say on the outskirts of Blackpool.

Yep

The extra room could also provide a means to get off of assistance. A place to try and start a small business, office to write the next Harry Potter, place to store the equipment your child needs as they are in training to join the National Olympic team. etc. etc.

Tell that to the conservatives..

I do not live there but being cynical I would guess this has more to do with the govt trying to save a few bucks than them trying to get people to live in smaller places (after all who gives a f*** what size a place you live in?)

The Conservatives do care, and of course it is to save a few bucks.. and punish those on benefits of course.. something the Conservatives love to do while giving massive tax breaks to their wealthy backers.

 

[Higgins86]

Cameron's heart was in the right place but this tax wasn't what we needed. We do need to cut down on the huge amount of benefits the government gives out annually but this "tax" was always going to be inpratical and unpopular.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Housing benefit goes to paying rent for a place for a poor person to live. Te individual doesn't "benefit" other than having a roof over their head, the cash goes to the landlord. The housing shortage (despite the crash) has meant that landlords are screwing ever more money from their properties. The tory response to the profiteering is to punish the poor.

 

[MaggieD]

Exclusive: 50,000 people are now facing eviction after bedroom tax - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Basically if you have a family, with mother, father and 1 child, and have 3 bedrooms, then you get part of your housing benefit taken... taxed as punishment for having a room too many.

But on the flip side, the money went to give tax breaks to the uber wealthy! So what if people are being pushed into homelessness in the run up to winter. They will just die in the cold weather and become less of a burden for their rich benefactors!

The coalition government are idiots..

I'm rather surprised they didn't grandfather those already under lease. I get why they're doing it, and it makes sense, but unless a tenant knew that going in, I don't think it's right to penalize them in this way.

 

[Higgins86]

Housing benefit goes to paying rent for a place for a poor person to live. Te individual doesn't "benefit" other than having a roof over their head, the cash goes to the landlord. The housing shortage (despite the crash) has meant that landlords are screwing ever more money from their properties. The tory response to the profiteering is to punish the poor.

I agree that this tax wasn't the way to go about but sooner or later " the poor" are going to have to help themselves.

 

[Quag]

For some it does.. smaller place costs less money, which means less in housing benefit is needed. Problem it does not take into account availability, price and cost of moving.

Some people a smaller place makes more sense but I see no sense it trying to force people into a smaller place. Let people spend their cash as they see fit if they want a larger place either they spend more or move to a cheaper location. If they would rather keep their space and location then have extra cash to spend on entertainment or whatever so be it. To force people into smaller places makes no sense. To treat people equally and let them decide makes sense

 

[Higgins86]

Some people a smaller place makes more sense but I see no sense it trying to force people into a smaller place. Let people spend their cash as they see fit if they want a larger place either they spend more or move to a cheaper location. If they would rather keep their space and location then have extra cash to spend on entertainment or whatever so be it. To force people into smaller places makes no sense. To treat people equally and let them decide makes sense

Problem is they are not spending their own money they are spending my money. I have no problem with anyone living in a nice big house as long as they can afford it. I don't see why my tax money should go to the family down the street in the nice 4 bedroom house but only have one kid.

 

[Quag]

Problem is they are not spending their own money they are spending my money. I have no problem with anyone living in a nice big house as long as they can afford it. I don't see why my tax money should go to the family down the street in the nice 4 bedroom house but only have one kid.

If the assistance is too much then it should be lowered for everyone but to say I think you are living in too large a space well take away some of your benefits makes no sense to me.
An impeccable 2 bedroom place will often rent out more than a 3 bedroom dump. Should the person in the nice place get assistance cut because they could rent a crappier place for less $$.
I make no judgment on whether the assistance is too generous or not generous enough, I don't know your system.
However regardless of the system the removal of some benefits because the govt decides your housing is too large makes no sense to me.

 

[Artevelde]

Exclusive: 50,000 people are now facing eviction after bedroom tax - UK Politics - UK - The Independent





Basically if you have a family, with mother, father and 1 child, and have 3 bedrooms, then you get part of your housing benefit taken... taxed as punishment for having a room too many.

But on the flip side, the money went to give tax breaks to the uber wealthy! So what if people are being pushed into homelessness in the run up to winter. They will just die in the cold weather and become less of a burden for their rich benefactors!

The coalition government are idiots..

Since when is the reduction of a benefit a taks? Talk about entitlement philosophy!

 

[PeteEU]

I'm rather surprised they didn't grandfather those already under lease. I get why they're doing it, and it makes sense, but unless a tenant knew that going in, I don't think it's right to penalize them in this way.

This came out of the blue. For example, a family who have a kid who goes off to college... suddenly they have an extra room and bang the tax hits. Or someone who has taken care of their mother, and she dies, and bang the tax hits, because now they have a spare room.

 

[Higgins86]

If the assistance is too much then it should be lowered for everyone but to say I think you are living in too large a space well take away some of your benefits makes no sense to me.
An impeccable 2 bedroom place will often rent out more than a 3 bedroom dump. Should the person in the nice place get assistance cut because they could rent a crappier place for less $$.
I make no judgment on whether the assistance is too generous or not generous enough, I don't know your system.
However regardless of the system the removal of some benefits because the govt decides your housing is too large makes no sense to me.

Like I said before Camerons heart was in the right place but he has gone about it the wrong way. This "tax" was always going to be unpopular because its unpractical and leaves a lot of elderly people vulnerable. However what needs to happen is a complete overhaul of our benefits system because right now its a joke and the system is being manipulated by those who really dont need it/ don't want to work. We went from one extreme with Thatcher to the other extreme with new labour and what we have now are millions of people who are draining the government and the tax payer of much needed public funds.

 

[PeteEU]

Some people a smaller place makes more sense but I see no sense it trying to force people into a smaller place. Let people spend their cash as they see fit if they want a larger place either they spend more or move to a cheaper location. If they would rather keep their space and location then have extra cash to spend on entertainment or whatever so be it. To force people into smaller places makes no sense. To treat people equally and let them decide makes sense

Not sure if you understand, but these are people who are living off the state in some form or another and often in homes on state run estates, rented from.. the state or state owned corporation. The tax only applies to people receiving housing benefit.

 

[PeteEU]

Problem is they are not spending their own money they are spending my money. I have no problem with anyone living in a nice big house as long as they can afford it. I don't see why my tax money should go to the family down the street in the nice 4 bedroom house but only have one kid.

I agree but that is not what is happening. Very few people who live in a big house with 4 bedrooms get housing benefit.. This is targeting the couple who were assigned a 3 bedroom apartment by the council, and only use 2 rooms.

 

[Quag]

Like I said before Camerons heart was in the right place but he has gone about it the wrong way. This "tax" was always going to be unpopular because its unpractical and leaves a lot of elderly people vulnerable. However what needs to happen is a complete overhaul of our benefits system because right now its a joke and the system is being manipulated by those who really dont need it/ don't want to work. We went from one extreme with Thatcher to the other extreme with new labour and what we have now are millions of people who are draining the government and the tax payer of much needed public funds.

Again I don't know your system but this seems like a really stupid idea.

 

[PeteEU]

Since when is the reduction of a benefit a taks? Talk about entitlement philosophy!

Ask the media about that... it is called the bedroom tax.

 

[Artevelde]

Ask the media about that... it is called the bedroom tax.

I don't feel obliged to be stupid just because the media is.

This is not a tax.

 

[Quag]

Not sure if you understand, but these are people who are living off the state in some form or another and often in homes on state run estates, rented from.. the state or state owned corporation. The tax only applies to people receiving housing benefit.

I freely admit I don't know your system. Are they all living in govt housing and does all govt housing have the same rent for same sized places? Or does it vary from place to place depending on location/quality etc?
Regardless of whether there are variances or not this doesn't seem to make sense. Reform the system in an intelligent way if it needs it, this just seems like it's punishing certain people based on 1 factor and ignores other more important ones.

 

[PeteEU]

Like I said before Camerons heart was in the right place but he has gone about it the wrong way. This "tax" was always going to be unpopular because its unpractical and leaves a lot of elderly people vulnerable. However what needs to happen is a complete overhaul of our benefits system because right now its a joke and the system is being manipulated by those who really dont need it/ don't want to work. We went from one extreme with Thatcher to the other extreme with new labour and what we have now are millions of people who are draining the government and the tax payer of much needed public funds.

I sympathise, but you cant tackle the benefits system as long as housing prices are so high in many areas of the UK.

Like it or not, moving is expensive which means people with next to no income cant move without help.

Like it or not, a person on benefits who is offered a job far away from his/her home will not take that job, if the difference between benefits and the wage is eaten up by extremely expensive travelling costs. Far from everyone has a car and petrol in the UK is some of the most expensive on the planet. And your public transport system, especially the trains are hella expensive.

Like it or not, a person with kids wont take a job if that jobs wages - childcare gives you less to live off than benefits. I saw program on Channel 4, where a single mother wanted to work, and she had been offered a job, but the wages were so low that with the childcare costs, she would have no money left over to feed her kid, let alone herself for a whole month. How do you fix such a problem?

It is stuff like this, that Cameron and many (including the left) fail to understand, let alone tackle... simply because they live in another world where there is plenty left over after the basics are paid...

 

[CanadaJohn]

Exclusive: 50,000 people are now facing eviction after bedroom tax - UK Politics - UK - The Independent





Basically if you have a family, with mother, father and 1 child, and have 3 bedrooms, then you get part of your housing benefit taken... taxed as punishment for having a room too many.

But on the flip side, the money went to give tax breaks to the uber wealthy! So what if people are being pushed into homelessness in the run up to winter. They will just die in the cold weather and become less of a burden for their rich benefactors!

The coalition government are idiots..

Perhaps you can clarify. Why is it right for people in need of government housing assistance to occupy government assisted housing space that is greater than their family's actual needs? Perhaps there's a family with mom and dad, two daughters and a son and they are living in a government assisted two bedroom house/apartment and the three children have to share one bedroom while the family you note gets to have a spare room beyond their needs. Maybe this 5 person family is trying to get into a three bedroom home but none are available because this 3 person family and others like them won't move.

Seems to me this isn't so much a tax as it is a government attempting to right-size the services they provide to all families in need with the limited resources they have. If you're telling me that people who own or rent their own place without government assistance are also being "taxed" the same way, you may have a point - but I don't get that from what you've presented here.

 

[PeteEU]

I freely admit I don't know your system. Are they all living in govt housing and does all govt housing have the same rent for same sized places? Or does it vary from place to place depending on location/quality etc?
Regardless of whether there are variances or not this doesn't seem to make sense. Reform the system in an intelligent way if it needs it, this just seems like it's punishing certain people based on 1 factor and ignores other more important ones.

I am not 100% sure what the English system is, but from my own country I know that public housing is more than often given out on basis of need, not size of family or location. This is due to a lack of public housing, and that problem is very acute in the UK.

The problem comes down to availability. Families with children get first priority, and that means they get moved into places almost regardless of size. I have heard of, both in the UK and in Denmark, families of 4 being moved into 2 room appartments, and a single mother with 1 kid being moved into 3 roomed apartments. They of course try not to do it this way, but when the situation is pressing then there is often little choice. The system aint perfect by any means.

But it all comes down to a lack of public housing and the massive price of homes in the UK, something that certainly wont be tackled by this program. Only thing that can happen is more homeless families.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Some people a smaller place makes more sense but I see no sense it trying to force people into a smaller place. Let people spend their cash as they see fit if they want a larger place either they spend more or move to a cheaper location. If they would rather keep their space and location then have extra cash to spend on entertainment or whatever so be it. To force people into smaller places makes no sense. To treat people equally and let them decide makes sense

I've bolded the operative words here - from my understanding, this is not "their cash" - it is a government housing subsidy - it's the taxpayer's cash and the government appears to be trying to spend it more wisely - almost always something the people paying appreciate.