Cameron bedroom tax failing big time.

[Excon]

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.

Basically eating less?
That is spin.

Lets be honest about it and not spin.

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.

Basically (the landlord) not having an extra 25 to spend on whatever it is they were spending it on.
Drugs alcohol, cigs, movies, fast food, or food, etc...

 

[Artevelde]

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.

Absolutely right.

 

[PeteEU]

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.

I understand what you are saying and agree some what. Problem is that in the real world it is far from this simple. Not only is it a "tax" being imposed by the Cameron government.., but it is also leaving the clear up to the local councils who assigned the homes in the first place. And since there is little (as far as I understand) if any cooperation across council borders, the optimization you point out, can only happen within the local area. And if there is no homes that fit the bill.. then what? Plus what if there are homes, but they are 50 miles apart.. which means that the one person who does work in the families suddenly has his/her commute costs explode causing him to either give up his job or loose it? Not exactly economically wise to save a few quid in housing benefit.

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.

err this is only for people on housing benefits.. not everyone. It is not for people who own or rent their own place without government assistance.

 

[PeteEU]

Basically eating less?
That is spin.

Lets be honest about it and not spin.
Basically not having an extra 25 to spend on whatever it is you were spending it on.
Drugs alcohol, cigs, movies, fast food, or food, etc...

It is not spin. Having 25 bucks less a month can be the difference between eating 30 days a month and only 20 days a month, especially if you have kids. UK benefits are not massive per say, especially if you live in high cost of living areas and dont have the ability to move out of those areas. It is no different in any country in the western world.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I understand what you are saying and agree some what. Problem is that in the real world it is far from this simple. Not only is it a "tax" being imposed by the Cameron government.., but it is also leaving the clear up to the local councils who assigned the homes in the first place. And since there is little (as far as I understand) if any cooperation across council borders, the optimization you point out, can only happen within the local area. And if there is no homes that fit the bill.. then what? Plus what if there are homes, but they are 50 miles apart.. which means that the one person who does work in the families suddenly has his/her commute costs explode causing him to either give up his job or loose it? Not exactly economically wise to save a few quid in housing benefit.



err this is only for people on housing benefits.. not everyone. It is not for people who own or rent their own place without government assistance.

I'm somewhat familiar with the sense of entitlement that what I'll be uncharitable and call "lifetime" squatters in some highly sought after government housing facilities here in Toronto. We recently had the City of Toronto attempting to rationalize some of these properties and sell some in a booming housing market in order to use the proceeds to help with some of the enormous repairs backlog in other facilities. To hear some of the residents in these places talk, about living in a home for over 30 years, etc., it's their home as if they own it, and not a rent to income property owned by the City. You have some single or older couples living in 3 bedrooms houses being maintained by the city and some large and extended families with 7 or 10 or more people living in a cramped 2 bedroom apartment because the squatters are too invested in their "living off the government teat lifestyle" to move to a more appropriate home and give the larger place to someone more in need of it.

This is nothing more than the age old difficulty of trying to pry an undeserved but long received government benefit from someone who's made a career out of receiving it. Once given, that benefit is expected to be provided until death - it's why social programs are killing democracies all over the world.

 

[Artevelde]

It is not spin. Having 25 bucks less a month can be the difference between eating 30 days a month and only 20 days a month, especially if you have kids. UK benefits are not massive per say, especially if you live in high cost of living areas and dont have the ability to move out of those areas. It is no different in any country in the western world.

Why should people receive benefits for having three children if they have two?

 

[Excon]

It is not spin. Having 25 bucks less a month can be the difference between eating 30 days a month and only 20 days a month, especially if you have kids. UK benefits are not massive per say, especially if you live in high cost of living areas and dont have the ability to move out of those areas. It is no different in any country in the western world.

No, it is spin.
Because those funds can be spent on other things as well.
Not just "basically food." That is spin.


Btw, I edited my post before you posted a reply to it. Still in the same minute though.

 

[Dittohead not!]

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..

Governments to tend to attract idiots.

What this illustrates is the fallacy of depending on government "benefits" to provide housing instead of depending on wages earned and used for rent of a mortgage payment, and leaving the decisions as to where to live and who lives in the house up to the individual, and not the government.

 

[lizzie]

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..

So, if I'm understanding, they aren't actually taxing them, but withholding a certain amount of taxpayer-funded benefits?

 

[Lutherf]

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.

Just so I understand.....the problem is that people getting substantially subsidized housing are now going to get a reduced benefit for living in that subsidized housing. Sure seems a shame....

 

[Lutherf]

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.

Then again, they also don't have a son or a mother to feed.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I'm still in two minds about the "bedroom tax" / benefit changes but here's a useful set of Q & A's

BBC Q&A

Aspire Q&A

Some salient points

1) More than half those to be affected are normally in debt for 3 months in a year.

2) The "spare room" or bedroom can be let / rented out by the person or family affected so they can make some money back.

3) People not affected include -

• pensioners or anyone of pension age
• people living in shared ownership properties
• people living in caravans, mobile homes and houseboats
• people living in some types of supported accommodation
• homeless people housed in temporary accommodation provided by the council (unless it is owned by the council)
• rooms allocated to people away serving in the armed forces and foster families waiting for a new foster child to arrive
• rooms for disabled children who cannot share with a sibling

 

[Quag]

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.

I do not see this as spending the public $ more wisely. If people are receiving too much in benefits then that should be addressed. The number of bedrooms is not really that indicative of how much waste in the system however. If you get a 3 bedroom that costs less than a 2 bedroom why would you want the 2 bedroom? Worse why would the govt want to force you into the 2 bedroom? makes no sense to me. It appears to be a blanket solution by the govt (yes I know they all love to do that regardless of county) where you often have a square peg being hammered into a round hole

 

[PeteEU]

So, if I'm understanding, they aren't actually taxing them, but withholding a certain amount of taxpayer-funded benefits?

Yes, they are reducing their benefit because they have a room that no one "lives" in.

 

[PeteEU]

Then again, they also don't have a son or a mother to feed.

I agree on the son bit, but the mother bit is.. because the chances are that the mother got a pension that went towards paying the bills. So not only are they loosing that income but are being punished for having a spare room now.

 

[PeteEU]

Governments to tend to attract idiots.

What this illustrates is the fallacy of depending on government "benefits" to provide housing instead of depending on wages earned and used for rent of a mortgage payment, and leaving the decisions as to where to live and who lives in the house up to the individual, and not the government.

The fallacy is that there is a need for public housing in the first place.. and that comes down to a lack of affordable housing in the first place.

 

[PeteEU]

Why should people receive benefits for having three children if they have two?

Now you are making **** up again. Where did I state anything remotely like that.. gezz.

 

[lizzie]

Yes, they are reducing their benefit because they have a room that no one "lives" in.

So, that really isn't a tax then. If taxpayers are footing the bill, I have no problem with the representatives of said taxpayers reducing benefits for space that is not needed.

 

[PeteEU]

To explain what housing benefit is about.

https://www.gov.uk/housing-benefit/overview

You could get Housing Benefit to help you pay your rent if you’re on a low income.

Housing Benefit can pay for part or all of your rent. How much you get depends on your income and circumstances.

You can apply for Housing Benefit whether you’re unemployed or working.

It is the low income people we are talking about, not the Paris Hiltons of the world.

 

[PeteEU]

So, that really isn't a tax then. If taxpayers are footing the bill, I have no problem with the representatives of said taxpayers reducing benefits for space that is not needed.

And how exactly is a person going to get rid of the space not needed if the housing they are in has been given to them by... the state!!!!???

 

[lizzie]

And how exactly is a person going to get rid of the space not needed if the housing they are in has been given to them by... the state!!!!???

What? Once someone in your country lives in a subsidized housing unit, they have no option to move elsewhere? Do you guys only have one size apartment available? That seems odd.

 

[PeteEU]

What? Once someone in your country lives in a subsidized housing unit, they have no option to move elsewhere?

On their own dime sure.. but they dont have that dime.. then what? The local council will not move you to another home, because... shock there are so few of them.

What I am basically saying, is that these people, well many of them, have no choice but to live in the home provided for them and then the government comes and says

"look we gave you this appartment with 3 bedrooms, but now we are going to reduce your help to pay the rent because you have 3 rooms and only need 2".

How is that fair?

The problem is actually big government not speaking to local government. The change has come down from No. 10, but it is the local government who are sitting with the turd and has to administer it while juggling a lack of affordable homes.

 

[lizzie]

On their own dime sure.. but they dont have that dime.. then what? The local council will not move you to another home, because... shock there are so few of them.

What I am basically saying, is that these people, well many of them, have no choice but to live in the home provided for them and then the government comes and says

"look we gave you this appartment with 3 bedrooms, but now we are going to reduce your help to pay the rent because you have 3 rooms and only need 2".

How is that fair?

Ask those who are paying for them about fairness. If there is a housing shortage for those living on subsidies, then you have larger issues than just this one.

 

[clownboy]

And how exactly is a person going to get rid of the space not needed if the housing they are in has been given to them by... the state!!!!???

Take in a low income boarder. I've seen how the council system works, I think more Americans should see that. It would keep us from ever allowing our politicians to move us in that direction. You folks really are owned by the state outright.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The fallacy is that there is a need for public housing in the first place.. and that comes down to a lack of affordable housing in the first place.

So, why not simply open the way for builders to build more houses, thus bringing the supply back up and the prices back down?