[Closed] bedroom tax??

What are your parents circumstances, the 'tax' is a misnomer, its a benefit cut to people in particular circumstances, not a tax on people who happen to have a bedroom.

only applies to tenants.. only applies if you receive certain benifits

http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/welfare_reform/%E2%80%98under-occupation%E2%80%99_penalty.aspx

the averages quoted of 14/16 quid seem average from what the tenants whose homes i work in tell me..

if your parents can show that they dont share a room.. then theres a saving straight away

yeah i know that but it seems everyone is calling it a tax rather than a cut/change in benefits.
My dad no longer works as he had a works related accident and they said he needed to have his leg amputated, but him being of an older generation refused and is now on pain killers.
My mum doesn't work either, she used to have a good job before we came along but couldn't get the same quality of job after leaving to be a full time mum.(3 of us)
She now helps with our kids during the day (mine,sisters and auntie's) as nursey cost an arm and a leg.

yeah i know that but it seems everyone is calling it a tax rather than a cut/change in benefits.

Thats fine - The media has been using the word 'tax' a lot and I've met a lot of people who live in rented or social housing, and also people on pensions who were convinced the cut would effect them. You didn't mention benefits in the first post, thats why I had to ask.

We haven't looked into it properly yet as we thought my dad was too old, but they were told that the sharing room thing wouldn't cut it even tho they do.(dad snores)

yeah there are a lot of different story's on who needs to pay and how much, i've just popped into my ma's and she was talking about it, i have no idea about it as it doesn't effect me.

yeah i know that but it seems everyone is calling it a tax rather than a cut/change in benefits.

Its not surprising it's confusing, everyone being the Labour Party and the BBC. It's a cut in benefits for some people.

There aren't many different stories. And the right one is easy to find.

[url= http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/welfare_reform/%E2%80%98under-occupation%E2%80%99_penalty.aspx ]National Housing Federation [/url]

So, if you rent a property from council or housing association you pay the rent. If you're short of money you claim housing benefit/universal credit to get cash to help, you pay the rent. If you have more bedrooms than couples/children it's been decided to give you less money to help pay the rent. 14% less benefit if you have one spare bedroom, 25% less benefit if more than one.

There are exemptions and exceptions based on particular circumstances, but on the little info we have, doesn't sound like your parents would meet them (too young and not requiring overnight carers on site etc). this means they will get less HB/UC in due course and will have to make up any shortfall in the rent money from other money coming in. All council housing and housing associations I know of have money advice departments, they are well up on the details of this and are worth contacting.

Its not surprising it's confusing, everyone being the Labour Party and the BBC. It's a cut in benefits for some people.

And David Cameron - PMQs 6/2/13

[b][i]I don’t accept the bedroom tax is a tax – it’s an issue about benefit[/i][/b]

its all here

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/housing_benefit_and_local_housing_allowance/housing_benefit_changes_2013

I was going to write a long reply, but svete's link probably hsa all the info you/your parents need

It only applies to working age social housing tenants so if you are at the state pension credit qualifying age or older it wont affect you.

https://www.gov.uk/calculate-state-pension

Use that to work out state pension age qualfiying date...and look at your local councils website for details on how it affects working age benefit claimants.

Thanks guys looks like this will affect them, I guess when it comes in they will have to decide what's best for them which will probably mean moving house.

which will probably mean moving house.

She now helps with our kids during the day (mine,sisters and auntie's) as nursey cost an arm and a leg.

Not if you pay them even a fraction of the going rate for childcare, should be more than enough to make up a fraction of council house rent.

(Get a feeling I've been trolled here)

I guess when it comes in they will have to decide what's best for them which will probably mean moving house.

Thats the flaw in all this - it presumes the available housing stock fits the size and shapes of households that require housing. Here the council and housing association are still moving single people into 2 and 3 bedrooms houses even though those people will be penalised in a few weeks time - because 2 and 3 bedroom house are the only houses that are here.

Can't the 3 siblings chip in together to cough up the difference especially as your mother is providing free child care?
I don't know how much social rents are but I imagine that they're significantly lower than commercial residential ones.

This ludicrous, ideologically-driven policy is already having some fairly perverse effects. In Wigan for example, the only housing stock available is 2 and 3 bedroom council houses. So people are being forced to downsize to flats. But the only flats available are in the private rented sector, which is considerably more expensive. I expect this is the case with an awful lot of local authorities

So now the housing benefit is having to cover the increased private rents. So this ridiculously ill-conceived policy, apparently designed to save money, is going to send the housing benefit bill souring once again. But hey ho - the (tory voting?) private landlords will be making plenty.

This was never really about saving money, its just about further demonising, then punishing those who have the misfortune to be poor. And redistributing taxpayers money into the pockets of those who already have plenty 🙄

This was never really about saving money, its just about further demonising, then punishing those who have the misfortune to be poor. And redistributing taxpayers money into the pockets of those who already have plenty

That is the prime purpose of the Conservative party - redistribution of wealth, from the poor to the rich.

My dad no longer works as he had a works related accident and they said [b]he needed to have his leg amputated[/b], but him being of an older generation refused and is now on pain killers.
My mum doesn't work either, she used to have a good job before we came along but couldn't get the same quality of job after leaving to be a full time mum.(3 of us)
She now helps with our kids during the day (mine,sisters and auntie's) [b]as nursey cost an arm and a leg[/b].

😐

Can't the 3 siblings chip in together to cough up the difference especially as your mother is providing free child care?

This ludicrous, ideologically-driven policy is already having some fairly perverse effects. In Wigan for example, the only housing stock available is 2 and 3 bedroom council houses. So people are being forced to downsize to flats. But the only flats available are in the private rented sector, which is considerably more expensive. I expect this is the case with an awful lot of local authorities

So now the housing benefit is having to cover the increased private rents. So this ridiculously ill-conceived policy, apparently designed to save money, is going to send the housing benefit bill souring once again. But hey ho - the (tory voting?) private landlords will be making plenty.

This was never really about saving money, its just about further demonising, then punishing those who have the misfortune to be poor. And redistributing taxpayers money into the pockets of those who already have plenty

Post a picture of a Tory tarmacing over a poor person please Binners.

I'll put something together with Eric Pickles mincing up poor people and putting them into Iceland frozen lasagna

But the only flats available are in the private rented sector

1347 one and two bedroom properties up for swap at the moment within 10 miles of Wigan

and....?

Is that according to your ever reliable sources of information then Z-11? ie: plucked out of the air? Or from some bizarre uber-right wing website nobody has ever heard of?

from Channel 4 news t'other night.....

[i]Wigan and Leigh Housing, the arm's length company which manages 22,000 social housing properties on behalf of Wigan council, says the 'bedroom tax' will not produce savings to the public purse in the region it serves.

"With some 4,500 tenants affected and little social housing stock available it means it is inevitable households will be forced to move into the more expensive private rented sector," says Ashley Crumbley, chief executive of Wigan and Leigh Housing.

Mr Crumbley estimates the welfare bill could go up by £500,000 per year in Wigan, as tenants moving into private accommodation may be able to claim far more in benefits than they currently receive.

The problem is not confined to Wigan, nor the north of England.[/i]

[url= http://www.channel4.com/news/bedroom-tax-will-cost-taxpayers-more ]full report here[/url]

*whinnys*

Erm, no Binners its from the website where social tenants can register their homes to swap - you did know that people on council/housing association tenancies are allowed to swap properties didn't you ❓

I take it that you think that its better for, as in the vast majority of the country, families with two young kids to be stuck in a first floor two bed flat, whilst a mid fifties couple sits in a four bed house with a garden, with no compulsion whatsoever to move to something the size they need?

So going off the figures there. 4,500 people immediately affected, and your figure of 1347 available for swap. I'm not the best at maths, but that's the problem sorted then, isn't it? Oh....erm.... no, hang on a minute..... I make that a few thousand short 🙄

Poor people have the internets ? Shocking.

"With some 4,500 tenants affected and little social housing stock available it means it is inevitable households will be forced to move into the more expensive private rented sector," says Ashley Crumbley, chief executive of Wigan and Leigh Housing.

4,500 people Binners

that's number of people

not number of properties

and bearing in mind it would also include those downsizing from four to three rooms etc

and also bearing in mind that some of those people might think that fourteen quid a week for a spare room is a bargain - hell, you can't even rent a 5x5 room at lok n' store for that

Do you think that its better for the [u]taxpayer to be paying for[/u] people to live in properties that are far bigger than they need?

You know what, I've got no real problem with it being called a 'bedroom tax' if that's what the lefties want to do - but lets be slightly more accurate and call it a 'spare bedroom tax'

Do you think that its better for the taxpayer to be paying for people to live in properties that are far bigger than they need?

[img] [/img]

Buck house may be an extreme case maybe but what's the current cost to the taxpayer for grace and favour homes?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-soldiers-away-from-home-1505272

but lets be slightly more accurate and call it a 'spare bedroom tax'

z 11-- i live in a three bedroom house, one room can take a double bed, the other two only a single or bunks--they are 'box' rooms-- because my daughters are under 16-- it is deemed they share , when one of them reaches 16 then we are permitted a seperate room-- are you serious in your views or just ideologically driven to regurgitate drivel ??

Very nice for you

I live in a two bedroom flat, with my disabled twelve year old daughter, as a full time working single parent.

when my eldest daughter comes to stay they share - when they lived together they had bunks, in fact I'm sorry to say that I don't see anything unreasonable whatsoever about two young teenagers having bunk beds, and I would suggest that there's a shed load of parents on this forum whose teenage kids share a room, and who cannot afford anything bigger, because they're paying their own rent or mortgage.

I pay my own rent - apparently we're paying yours as well!

If someone offered me another bedroom for sixteen quid a week, I'd think it was a 'king bargain, I could use it to keep my bikes in.

Sorry, but this all seems eminently sensible. If "we" are paying people's housing benefit we should be paying for what they need not what they just fancy - "to each according to their need" as someone famous once said.

so do we then have to take in a 'lodger' to satisfy your twisted logic ?

you really are a sad case z11 --hopefully you will not need any help in your life.....

So are people that are affected going to be offered suitable accommodation?
Or do they have to go and find it?

In a lot of cases these people won't have chosen he house they're in, the local council will have allocated it to them

Hey, we all need help at sometime in our lives rudebwoy, me included.

the question is whether we all deserve to have a three bedroom house paid for by the taxpayer if we don't need it, while everyone else has to scrimp and save to make ends meet and pay their rent.

Personally, If I was in the situation of relying on the state to pay my way, I'd be thankful to get provided with what I needed when there are so many people without - rather than acting like an ungrateful child, telling anonymous taxpayers that I deserved something they couldn't afford for themselves because of my overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

ather than acting like an ungrateful child, telling anonymous taxpayers that I deserved something they couldn't afford for themselves because of my overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

Just like the recipients of the grace and favour residences then?

sorry, have you ever seen me suggesting that John Prescott needed two free houses anymore than Nick Clegg, George Osbourne or Princess Di would?

No but the people telling others that they shouldn't live in places paid for by the tax payer that's a bit bigger than they need - even if they were put there by the council - have extra bedrooms at our expense to spare, not to mention croquet lawns and you're defending their logic

Defending their logic?

you think that I support [u]them[/u] having free houses?

way, way off the mark I'm afraid Jota - but two wrongs don't make a right, do they? or is it just the politics of envy?

[i]"Well, the queens got twenty spare bedrooms, so I deserve one as well?"[/i]

Fact remains, that there's absolutely no justifiable reason, in this day and age, that we have taxpayers paying for people to under-occupy a precious resource, while other people are forced to live in cramped, unsuitable and overcrowded properties.

don't get me wrong, there are a great many perfectly good arguments for the state being responsible for the provision and construction of housing for people on a 'need' basis and aso good arguments for social cohesion and health for those homes being open to all who need them, regardless of income.

The difference becomes when people expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for something they don't need.

The only true travesty was that the reforms and sales of council properties in the 80's prohibited councils putting the money from sales back into the pot for new building - worth also mentioning that Blair could have reversed that overnight in 1997, to be fair he could also have thought about it before bringing a million plus immigrants here as well...

Z 11 -i have worked most of my adult life-- i am now 53-- so give up on the patronising claptrap-- get real , my house is barely adequate for us, but its okay.

There is no logic to this punitive attack on the poor-- peoples circumstances can change dramatically-- sudden redundancy for instance-- and you are insisting that people have to move over a 6' x 6' room ??

no --this is another smokescreen , the amount of benefit paid to 'private' buy to lets , bnb , 'hotels' far exceedes that to social housing-- lots of profit to the lanlords--a market created by choking public housing-- oh and the billions and billions bankers have been bailed out with-- yes Z 11 its socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor....

Spherical objects rudebwoy - Its ridiculous to think that since we gave someone a five bedroom house in 1985 because they had four kids, that they should now expect to stay in it until the day they die, with the rest of us picking up the bill!

totally and utterly ridiculous!

Tell you what, since you mention socialism - I'll throw you a quote from Marx:

[i]A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence.[/i]

i dont know if some of you have read wider but there is now also a housing benifits cap on the same horizon..

''A new cap on the total amount of welfare benefits that can be claimed by people of working age will start to be introduced from 15 April 2013. The London boroughs of Bromley, Croydon, Enfield and Haringey will be the first to be affected. The cap will be extended to the rest of the country by the end of September 2013.

Most benefits are counted, including housing benefit. The limits are:

£500 per week for families with children
£350 per week for individuals.
You won't get anything above these limits, even if you're assessed as needing more. There are some exemptions, however. For example, if you or anyone else in your household qualifies for working tax credits, the benefits cap won't apply to you.

Any benefits you receive that would take you above these levels will be deducted from your housing benefit. It will be up to you to make up any shortfall in your rent from the benefits intended to help with the ordinary costs of living, such as food, gas, electricity etc. ,,

so no the private tory landlords wont be raking it in.. as the tenants will have a limited income for the first time so that work does actually pay.. after all why if your healthy of working age should you be able to claim more in cash benifits than the person working next door is likely to earn.