Cameron bedroom tax failing big time.

[FederalRepublic]

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..

But if you have a spare bedroom, you're rich. Such is life with big brother.

 

[Artevelde]

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

You advocate that they receive subsidies for more rooms than they have children. Maybe you should try to stay logical.

 

[Lutherf]

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.

Well then wouldn't they just have to go back to the council and apply for a new residence?

I mean, heck, I can certainly understand the inconvenience of it all but if you're going to live on the public dole.......

 

[Aunt Spiker]

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..

Sounds like hte old way we did taxes in the US.

 

[Rainman05]

This has got to be the most stupidest tax I've ever heard of recently. And look at the results, 50k evicted since and maybe more to come. Way to go cameron, wanker.

 

[Mr X]

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.

Well that was supposed to be the whole idea of this, the problem is that there isn't enough one bedroom places for everyone to downsize. If you have 10,000 childless couples living in a 2 bedroom apartments, and only 5,000 one bedroom apartments available, then what?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Well that was supposed to be the whole idea of this, the problem is that there isn't enough one bedroom places for everyone to downsize. If you have 10,000 childless couples living in a 2 bedroom apartments, and only 5,000 one bedroom apartments available, then what?

At the risk of being insensitive, perhaps you have a problem with 10,000 childless couples being in government assisted housing. Maybe a childless couple or a single person could simply be renting a room in a home and not an entire home. I have a lot of time for people who want to help out families in need as they raise children and they're between jobs or just having trouble with all the expense of raising children, but I don't have nearly as much time for able bodies singles and childless couples looking for a handout from the government and being ticked off when their living arrangements are being downsized.

 

[alexa]

At the risk of being insensitive, perhaps you have a problem with 10,000 childless couples being in government assisted housing. Maybe a childless couple or a single person could simply be renting a room in a home and not an entire home. I have a lot of time for people who want to help out families in need as they raise children and they're between jobs or just having trouble with all the expense of raising children, but I don't have nearly as much time for able bodies singles and childless couples looking for a handout from the government and being ticked off when their living arrangements are being downsized.

You would never get this sort of housing if you did not have children. Basically it seems the intent is to end the social housing which began as a house for life. I am pretty sure they are paid for out of community charges not taxes so even those living in them will be paying a little.

As has been put the problem comes when children have flown the nest and there are not that many people in that situation.

One bedroom properties are extremely scarce as these properties were created for families. The obvious thing to do would be to transfer people out of too large a property into a smaller one when there are less people living there and to the best of my knowledge that is what councils have tended to do in the past.

Now people are given two options, stay in their home and if they are on benefits lose some or find another property non council. This went along with other changes in the benefits system. For instance before if someone was on housing benefit it would be paid directly to the landlord. Now they receive it with their benefits.

As we have seen 50,000 have already been evicted and 1/3rd are on their way to that because they are in arrears.

Now if we look at the amount of money. I think jobseekers allowance is about £65 per week £260 per month. Energy will cost around £80 per month and water rates say £35. They will have to pay for both of those. That leaves a person with £40 per week or £160 a month for everything else. If 25% is taken away they will only have £30 per week for food and everything else apart from energy and water. As far as I can see they only way to manage on this is to become a thief or get some illegal job or go round the Supermarket bins at night.

A lot of people will be thrown out of social housing. Some think there is a likelihood this is going to create ghettos and anti social behaviour. Even disabled people who were using the room to store their equipment are being charged.

I actually am not sure what the reason for this is. I guess the reason is just to let people know they have no one to rely on but themselves.

I see no problem in providing accommodation and asking people to move into the smaller accommodation, with financial help if necessary but just making more poor homeless or leaving them with a choice of eating or staying warm is cruel imo.

As far as those in a huff paying towards this, let me be very clear, I want my money back for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lybia. I want my money back that was spent on nuclear weapons. Just saying.

 

[CanadaJohn]

You would never get this sort of housing if you did not have children. Basically it seems the intent is to end the social housing which began as a house for life. I am pretty sure they are paid for out of community charges not taxes so even those living in them will be paying a little.

As has been put the problem comes when children have flown the nest and there are not that many people in that situation.

One bedroom properties are extremely scarce as these properties were created for families. The obvious thing to do would be to transfer people out of too large a property into a smaller one when there are less people living there and to the best of my knowledge that is what councils have tended to do in the past.

Now people are given two options, stay in their home and if they are on benefits lose some or find another property non council. This went along with other changes in the benefits system. For instance before if someone was on housing benefit it would be paid directly to the landlord. Now they receive it with their benefits.

As we have seen 50,000 have already been evicted and 1/3rd are on their way to that because they are in arrears.

Now if we look at the amount of money. I think jobseekers allowance is about £65 per week £260 per month. Energy will cost around £80 per month and water rates say £35. They will have to pay for both of those. That leaves a person with £40 per week or £160 a month for everything else. If 25% is taken away they will only have £30 per week for food and everything else apart from energy and water. As far as I can see they only way to manage on this is to become a thief or get some illegal job or go round the Supermarket bins at night.

A lot of people will be thrown out of social housing. Some think there is a likelihood this is going to create ghettos and anti social behaviour. Even disabled people who were using the room to store their equipment are being charged.

I actually am not sure what the reason for this is. I guess the reason is just to let people know they have no one to rely on but themselves.

I see no problem in providing accommodation and asking people to move into the smaller accommodation, with financial help if necessary but just making more poor homeless or leaving them with a choice of eating or staying warm is cruel imo.

As far as those in a huff paying towards this, let me be very clear, I want my money back for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lybia. I want my money back that was spent on nuclear weapons. Just saying.

That's all fair and well presented and I can respect your point of view. I'd just make two points. Firstly, it's clear in my mind that the cost of utilities generally grows with the size of home being maintained - therefore, if I have limited funds and limited need for space, occupying a space too big for me is going to waste some of my limited funds on heating, lighting, etc. that space - downsize and you also downsize your bills. Secondly, why is it not possible for people with limited incomes and on assistance to share accommodations? Is this not allowed by the government agencies that provide the assistance? If you have a couple in a two or three bedroom apartment could they not share their accommodation with another couple or a single person who are also on government assistance to both share the space and the cost of living there? Seems to me that young people, students going to school away from home or just starting out on careers have one, two, or more roommates all the time until such time as they can afford to live on their own. Shouldn't those on housing assistance have to do the same?

It sounds like I'm being heartless or uncharitable, but really there are limited resources available to government and the taxpayer has only so much of their hard earned wages to give to government. And this is only going to get worse as populations age and healthcare costs, also a government responsibility in places like Canada and the UK, increase along with it.

 

[PeteEU]

Well then wouldn't they just have to go back to the council and apply for a new residence?

I mean, heck, I can certainly understand the inconvenience of it all but if you're going to live on the public dole.......

Considering there are massive waiting lists for such places, what do you think the chances are? There are simply not enough affordable homes.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Considering there are massive waiting lists for such places, what do you think the chances are? There are simply not enough affordable homes.

If there aren't enough affordable homes, why not build more? Surely, there must be empty space somewhere, or unused buildings, or some acceptable place. Tax incentives to builders would be cheaper than subsidizing overly costly housing.

 

[PeteEU]

If there aren't enough affordable homes, why not build more?

Oh like they have not thought of that.... yes that is highly sarcastic!

Surely, there must be empty space somewhere, or unused buildings, or some acceptable place. Tax incentives to builders would be cheaper than subsidizing overly costly housing.

Builders would not touch affordable housing with a 10 mile pole even with tax incentives... not when they can earn a fortune building "normal" and luxury homes that are hella expensive. The government would have to fund it. And it is not just a UK problem btw, far from it.

As for spaces.. well that is when you get into problems, both space wise and zoning wise. Like it or not, councils want families that work, so building permits are targeted for such homes and not single person homes. It is a common problem world wide in cities and communities.. where people tend to live more and more alone, the zoning laws and regulations ban building single room apartments which pushes up prices massively for the existing ones.

Sure they could build a new community China style in the middle of no where and move people there, but that would require roads, public transport and so on as well, since relying on a car is not something you can when your monthly disposable income is a hundred pounds or two. Because if you cant provide these things.. how would the people in question be able to get to the jobs you want them to take?

Basically it is not simple at all and the only way to really get affordable homes built is by going through the government building option, but even that is against 30 years of policy in most countries. You see the UK has for the last many decades sold its affordable housing to the tenants in an attempt to get out of the business of providing homes. Problem is that they have not anticipated a growing population and changing family structure which results in a far greater need for 1 bedroom homes than 3 bedroom homes. This means couples or single people have been living in homes with a spare room because there is no alternative, and then comes this bedroom tax (provided they are on housing benefit) and it punishes them for having an extra room but does not provide them with any alternative other than renting the room out.. which in many cases is illegal (sub-let rules and all that crap) and frankly few people other than students would want to live in such a situation.. no bathroom you can call your own, having to share a kitchen and entrance with strangers.

It is not an easy situation, but the whole issue is that Cameron in all his stupidity with this policy has pushed 50+k homes into being behind on their rents and to potential homelessness, all to save a few bucks here and there.. because the actual saving from this policy is absolutely minimum relatively speaking. It is not like they will actually be saving anything if these 50k+ people are evicted, because many of them have children and then comes emergency housing which is always more expensive and all that crap.. not to mention the administrative headache it is causing.

No this is a very very bad policy that creates far far far more problems than it even remotely was suppose to solve.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Oh like they have not thought of that.... yes that is highly sarcastic!



Builders would not touch affordable housing with a 10 mile pole even with tax incentives... not when they can earn a fortune building "normal" and luxury homes that are hella expensive. The government would have to fund it. And it is not just a UK problem btw, far from it.

As for spaces.. well that is when you get into problems, both space wise and zoning wise. Like it or not, councils want families that work, so building permits are targeted for such homes and not single person homes. It is a common problem world wide in cities and communities.. where people tend to live more and more alone, the zoning laws and regulations ban building single room apartments which pushes up prices massively for the existing ones.

Sure they could build a new community China style in the middle of no where and move people there, but that would require roads, public transport and so on as well, since relying on a car is not something you can when your monthly disposable income is a hundred pounds or two. Because if you cant provide these things.. how would the people in question be able to get to the jobs you want them to take?

Basically it is not simple at all and the only way to really get affordable homes built is by going through the government building option, but even that is against 30 years of policy in most countries. You see the UK has for the last many decades sold its affordable housing to the tenants in an attempt to get out of the business of providing homes. Problem is that they have not anticipated a growing population and changing family structure which results in a far greater need for 1 bedroom homes than 3 bedroom homes. This means couples or single people have been living in homes with a spare room because there is no alternative, and then comes this bedroom tax (provided they are on housing benefit) and it punishes them for having an extra room but does not provide them with any alternative other than renting the room out.. which in many cases is illegal (sub-let rules and all that crap) and frankly few people other than students would want to live in such a situation.. no bathroom you can call your own, having to share a kitchen and entrance with strangers.

It is not an easy situation, but the whole issue is that Cameron in all his stupidity with this policy has pushed 50+k homes into being behind on their rents and to potential homelessness, all to save a few bucks here and there.. because the actual saving from this policy is absolutely minimum relatively speaking. It is not like they will actually be saving anything if these 50k+ people are evicted, because many of them have children and then comes emergency housing which is always more expensive and all that crap.. not to mention the administrative headache it is causing.

No this is a very very bad policy that creates far far far more problems than it even remotely was suppose to solve.

It all seems to boil down to way too many people depending of government for their basic needs, such as housing. We have the same sort of problem here in the USA, of course. The government can't provide such housing in sufficient quantity, and the private sector finds it more profitable to build houses for upper and middle class families.

It's kind of sad that so many people need single bedroom smaller homes rather than depending on extended family, too, isn't it?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

If there aren't enough affordable homes, why not build more? Surely, there must be empty space somewhere, or unused buildings, or some acceptable place. Tax incentives to builders would be cheaper than subsidizing overly costly housing.

Unfortunately private house building companies don't want to build affordable homes. They build premium houses in London and other such areas because they make so much more on them.

What we have got is a lot of housing associations that buy up large numbers of cheap terraced houses, do them up and then let them to homeless families. Cheap homes that builders produce often get bought up en masse by the wealthier landlords who then rent them out.

The real solution is for councils to be allowed to start building affordable homes again.

EDIT: I'm forgetting - some housing associations also build affordable houses. In 2000 - 280 new affordable homes were built by local councils. Compare that with approx 20,000 built by housing associations. In 2010 - 1380 new affordable homes were built across the whole country by local councils but that compares with 27,000 affordable houses a year since 2006 built by housing associations.

 

[PeteEU]

It all seems to boil down to way too many people depending of government for their basic needs, such as housing. We have the same sort of problem here in the USA, of course. The government can't provide such housing in sufficient quantity, and the private sector finds it more profitable to build houses for upper and middle class families.

The problem ultimately comes down high income inequality and a broken system. Low income housing would not be needed if people did not have low incomes. And it should not be the governments job to provide such homes or access to them, but because of the way it is set up.. government basically has no choice. Either do it, or increase homelessness, poverty and everything that comes with that 10 fold. I mean do we really want to have cities and people living like the poor in places like India and elsewhere, where 10 people share a single room and the toilet is the gutter outside the main door? Because that is what it was like 100 years ago in many big cities and places in the western world. I remember still having apartment buildings from the early 1900s with the toilet in the yard... and this was in the 1970s.

It's kind of sad that so many people need single bedroom smaller homes rather than depending on extended family, too, isn't it?

Not really. And what do you do with those who's extended family are in the same situation? Putting the burden on the extended family is just as bad as putting it on government and the rest of the tax payers. It does not solve the fundamental problem of housing.

We need 1 and 2 bedroom homes/apartments built that are affordable and dont cost an arm and a leg to rent. Rents and the amount of homes/apartments need to reflect society.. and at the moment they are no where near doing that.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The problem ultimately comes down high income inequality and a broken system. Low income housing would not be needed if people did not have low incomes. And it should not be the governments job to provide such homes or access to them, but because of the way it is set up.. government basically has no choice. Either do it, or increase homelessness, poverty and everything that comes with that 10 fold. I mean do we really want to have cities and people living like the poor in places like India and elsewhere, where 10 people share a single room and the toilet is the gutter outside the main door? Because that is what it was like 100 years ago in many big cities and places in the western world. I remember still having apartment buildings from the early 1900s with the toilet in the yard... and this was in the 1970s.



Not really. And what do you do with those who's extended family are in the same situation? Putting the burden on the extended family is just as bad as putting it on government and the rest of the tax payers. It does not solve the fundamental problem of housing.

We need 1 and 2 bedroom homes/apartments built that are affordable and dont cost an arm and a leg to rent. Rents and the amount of homes/apartments need to reflect society.. and at the moment they are no where near doing that.

Exactly, the root cause of the problem is income inequality and a broken system, so the government attempts to treat the symptoms without addressing the causes, and unsurprisingly, fails.

Of course, no one wants to create the situation that exists in India and elsewhere in the third world where people live in unsanitary conditions.

Well, almost no one. I think we might find some support for such an idea right here on this forum, but I digress.

As for extended families, if the whole family is living in poverty, and attempting to live in a half dozen small rent subsidized apartments, wouldn't it be better not only economically but also socially to have them sharing larger quarters? An excessive need for small living quarters for individuals seems to me to be a symptom of a larger problem, one likely to lead to loneliness and depression. The human animal did not evolve to be solitary.

 

[alexa]

That's all fair and well presented and I can respect your point of view. I'd just make two points. Firstly, it's clear in my mind that the cost of utilities generally grows with the size of home being maintained - therefore, if I have limited funds and limited need for space, occupying a space too big for me is going to waste some of my limited funds on heating, lighting, etc. that space - downsize and you also downsize your bills.

That would work for energy bills though nowadays most people have radiators they can turn off in rooms they don't use. I am not sure how water is worked out. Some people can get a meter and so only pay for what they use.

Secondly, why is it not possible for people with limited incomes and on assistance to share accommodations? Is this not allowed by the government agencies that provide the assistance? If you have a couple in a two or three bedroom apartment could they not share their accommodation with another couple or a single person who are also on government assistance to both share the space and the cost of living there?

Well this is what happens when people are made homeless. I saw a documentary where a woman lost her home because she could not keep up with the payments. She was about 50 and was offered to share with a man in his twenties who was addicted to drugs in a filthy place. She was fortunate in that she was able to find family to make space for her. While it sounds good in words, in practice can become a bit like dossing houses which is one of the reasons people are concerned about the creation of new ghettos.

My point is these people entered a situation where they believed they would have the possibility of a council house for as long as they needed it provided they acted as good tenants. If as it has the government has changed it's mind on this, then it seems to me only reasonable they find suitable accommodation.

Seems to me that young people, students going to school away from home or just starting out on careers have one, two, or more roommates all the time until such time as they can afford to live on their own. Shouldn't those on housing assistance have to do the same?

Fine of course for students. For the rest depends on what sort of society we want to build. I understand they have the opportunity to rent their spare room. I don't know how many have tried this or who they have had in response. Of course we can force people in their 40's and 50's and 60's to share their home with anyone ...but I doubt how well this would work. Fights, social mayhem and doss houses come to mind. Again it depends on what sort of society we want.

It sounds like I'm being heartless or uncharitable, but really there are limited resources available to government and the taxpayer has only so much of their hard earned wages to give to government. And this is only going to get worse as populations age and healthcare costs, also a government responsibility in places like Canada and the UK, increase along with it.

Like I said then stop going to war. That will save far more money than the tiny amount which is going to be made by this....and that is something I have read. The money to be saved from this is tiny. The reason for it I don't think is money. We can have ghettos if we want but it does effect society as a whole. Welfare was not as much born of altruism as some people believe.

 

[gunner]

I have never seen a thread with such misinformation coming from both sides! I shall return

Paul

 

[Gardener]

Bedroom tax?

I can imagine it would be quite the source of tax revenue for the French or Italians, but I didn't think the Brits really spent much time in the bedroom.

 

[Higgins86]

Bedroom tax?

I can imagine it would be quite the source of tax revenue for the French or Italians, but I didn't think the Brits really spent much time in the bedroom.

Actually I treat my wife every night with 2 minutes of awakward lovemaking in the dark whilst I whistle God save the queen.

 

[Gardener]

Actually I treat my wife every night with 2 minutes of awakward lovemaking in the dark whilst I whistle God save the queen.

While wearing your socks with their suspenders still on.

Don't forget that.

 

[Higgins86]

While wearing your socks with their suspenders still on.

Don't forget that.

Goes without saying.

 

[Gardener]

Goes without saying.

Yes.

I have long suspected that there were some very valid reasons why the term "My wild British lover" was not considered a cliche'.

 

[gunner]

It is paramount when discussing the ‘bedroom tax’ (something the opposition party have dubbed it) that we know the housing stock under discussion. Housing benefit was initially devised for ‘council housing’ tenants, who were either out of work or in low-income jobs.
The criteria for being allocated a house has gone through many changes, but the crux of what factors go towards being considered has changed very little (sickness/children/unemployed/low income are all taken into consideration), Housing is awarded on a points system, where applicants are allocated a position. I.e. you bid on a property where you already know how many people are ahead of you in the rankings. It is not unusual for 50 applicants to bid on a property (if you are number 50 you hope 49 people will refuse the property) obviously this never happens.
Considering ‘social housing’ was designed as affordable housing stock for those most in need tells us more about inequalities that most anything else (wage disparity is ever more evident) so the need is still there in the 21st century.
The biggest shake up of ‘council homes’ was Thatcher’s policy of selling off the housing stock at massively reduced rates. This was very popular for those that had an aspiration to own property, and become “little capitalists” if they took advantage of market conditions; and turned a profit when they up-sized or moved to a more affluent area.
The trouble with such a policy was the stock dwindled and private landlords bought up many of the houses, and rented them back to people at a much higher rate. Housing benefit made up this shortfall.
What was the initial intention (of providing affordable housing) and then people moved on, rarely happened. The populations of such estates planted roots and rarely moved on. It is not unusual for residents to live in a house for 50+ years; often children marry and move back into the area.
Now why the introduction of this policy? There are many properties severely under-occupied hence the reduction in housing benefit for all bedrooms not occupied. The problem is because of the lack of house building, where are these people to move too? Downsizing cannot happen if there is NO property to move too.
The sociological factors also play a massive part. The UK workforce are invariably not very flexible, there is little movement of peoples. This is attenuated by those on ‘low wages’ who rely heavily on family and friend support structures (for child care etc).
On the face of it the policy looks attractive but when you dig below the surface it is very specious. Benefits are not massively generous per say. That said, I do agree there is a need for changes to the wider benefit system, I’m just not convinced this goes about it in the right manner.

Council house - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul

 

[Baltim]

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.

How about a single working person, living in a nice two bedroom property, either bought or privately rented, which they can easily afford?

They get a third reduction on their Council Tax bill, paid by the state.