bedroom tax

[besty57]

So that's why the ethnic majority have 4 families to a house!! Good thinking.

 

Royal

yeah they have to make room for the hordes arriving next year.

[aldivalloch]

It's a bad, ill-thought-out piece of policy.

 

In the area I live in the average income is pretty modest and there's a steady demand for social rented housing. Additional pressure upon availability arises through homelessness - the local authority has a duty in law to accommodate eligible homeless individuals / families.

 

That same local authority, and the housing associations with which it works in partnership, aren't in a position to build many new properties - there's insufficient funding available from central government. They don't have a big existing stock of one- and two-bedroom properties - historically the emphasis has been on building three-bedroom houses. That's because three bedrooms were / are best suited to traditional needs - one for mum and dad, one for male children and one for female children.

 

Not surprisingly, these social rented housing providers aren't keen on building new one- and two-bedroom properties for the reasons stated above. One- and two-bedroom houses lack versatility.

 

The fundamental problem with the so-called "bedroom tax" is that local authorities may quite genuinely have no accommodation of appropriate size to offer to homeless people, or to applicants who have risen to the top of the allocations list. So they will have no choice but to put these tenants in a situation in which they are automatically financially penalised for a situation over which they have no control.

 

Before anyone goes off on a right-wing rant about immigrants, skivers and parasites, let me just say that I do know quite a lot about what I'm talking about. Homelessness is a very real problem which can come about for a number of reasons - loss of employment; failure of business; relationship break-down; family break-down; domestic violence; loss of private tenancy; etc. And with regard to the need for long-term social rented housing, well, that has increased - and continues to increase - as house prices rise, taking that first step onto the property ladder further and further away from people on ordinary incomes.

 

Britain's housing crisis was born many years ago when the government of the time introduced right-to-buy and at the same time put a stranglehold upon the ability of local authorities to build new social rented housing. The outcome was predictable - council-housing waiting lists lengthened (where I live, the average waiting time quickly rose to seven years) and so people requiring accommodation had either to look to the private sector, where rents shot up, or purchase property. Of course the increased number of first-time buyers competing for property pushed prices up, and we all got to witness the ensuing mayhem in the mortgage market - unaffordable payments, negative equity, repossessions, and so on.

 

What this country needs is a huge programme of government-backed construction of property for rent. It would provide a viable alternative to house-purchase for the thousands of people out there who need somewhere to live but are stuck away down the allocations lists and unable to find a deposit and stretch to the mortgage payments necessary to become property owners. The consequent fall in demand for property to purchase would also bring some much-needed sanity to a housing market which, in spite of local fluctuations, is still seeing average prices outpace increases in income for a large proportion of the population.

[pigeonbasher1]

simple, if you have a two bedroom house knock a bedroom wall out

[Marine1980]

What about if you have more rooms than people in your house rather than losing money you have to rent the extra rooms out to the council for homeless people!! Problem solved!

 

Royal

[955i]

All MP's that have another property in London receive an allowance for that property, this is from our money just the same as housing allowance if they have one spare room will they lose 14% or 35% of there allowance they only need one bedroom

 

is this not one rule for one and another for the MP's

 

 

Deershooter

There should be no allowance for second homes for politicians. Investment should be made in a group of apartment blocks near parliament, all kitted out with basic amenities and exactly the same. All politicians should then be made to use these (kind of a W*****s Travelodge if you like). They should then be made to pay for everything on second homes themselves or sell them and put the money back in the pot.

 

There should be no allowance for second homes for politicians. Investment should be made in a group of apartment blocks near parliament, all kitted out with basic amenities and exactly the same. All politicians should then be made to use these (kind of a W*****s Only Travelodge if you like). They should then be made to pay for everything on second homes themselves or sell them and put the money back in the pot.

[Markr]

It's a bad, ill-thought-out piece of policy.

 

In the area I live in the average income is pretty modest and there's a steady demand for social rented housing. Additional pressure upon availability arises through homelessness - the local authority has a duty in law to accommodate eligible homeless individuals / families.

 

That same local authority, and the housing associations with which it works in partnership, aren't in a position to build many new properties - there's insufficient funding available from central government. They don't have a big existing stock of one- and two-bedroom properties - historically the emphasis has been on building three-bedroom houses. That's because three bedrooms were / are best suited to traditional needs - one for mum and dad, one for male children and one for female children.

 

Not surprisingly, these social rented housing providers aren't keen on building new one- and two-bedroom properties for the reasons stated above. One- and two-bedroom houses lack versatility.

 

The fundamental problem with the so-called "bedroom tax" is that local authorities may quite genuinely have no accommodation of appropriate size to offer to homeless people, or to applicants who have risen to the top of the allocations list. So they will have no choice but to put these tenants in a situation in which they are automatically financially penalised for a situation over which they have no control.

 

Before anyone goes off on a right-wing rant about immigrants, skivers and parasites, let me just say that I do know quite a lot about what I'm talking about. Homelessness is a very real problem which can come about for a number of reasons - loss of employment; failure of business; relationship break-down; family break-down; domestic violence; loss of private tenancy; etc. And with regard to the need for long-term social rented housing, well, that has increased - and continues to increase - as house prices rise, taking that first step onto the property ladder further and further away from people on ordinary incomes.

 

Britain's housing crisis was born many years ago when the government of the time introduced right-to-buy and at the same time put a stranglehold upon the ability of local authorities to build new social rented housing. The outcome was predictable - council-housing waiting lists lengthened (where I live, the average waiting time quickly rose to seven years) and so people requiring accommodation had either to look to the private sector, where rents shot up, or purchase property. Of course the increased number of first-time buyers competing for property pushed prices up, and we all got to witness the ensuing mayhem in the mortgage market - unaffordable payments, negative equity, repossessions, and so on.

 

What this country needs is a huge programme of government-backed construction of property for rent. It would provide a viable alternative to house-purchase for the thousands of people out there who need somewhere to live but are stuck away down the allocations lists and unable to find a deposit and stretch to the mortgage payments necessary to become property owners. The consequent fall in demand for property to purchase would also bring some much-needed sanity to a housing market which, in spite of local fluctuations, is still seeing average prices outpace increases in income for a large proportion of the population.

 

well written post.

[aris]

Clearly there will be winners and losers from this change. The decisions being forced upon people on housing benefit are choices people in the private rental sector make every day. I'm not sure why benefits claimants should be immune. The exchequer is not an endless money pit and we as a a nation are in debt up to our gils.

[Vince Green]

Part of the problem round here is that the councils pay stupid amounts of money to rent houses off private landlords. I have heard it said many times that the councils just pay whatever is asked and never quibble.

Capping housing benefit would just bring down rents to a sensible level and cut out the profiteering by landlords. I don't agree that we need to build more social housing, I don't think we need any. Social housing is just a dumping ground these days. Its not like it used to be.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Vince Green

[aldivalloch]

Part of the problem round here is that the councils pay stupid amounts of money to rent houses off private landlords. I have heard it said many times that the councils just pay whatever is asked and never quibble.

Capping housing benefit would just bring down rents to a sensible level and cut out the profiteering by landlords. I don't agree that we need to build more social housing, I don't think we need any. Social housing is just a dumping ground these days. Its not like it used to be.

You're partly right - councils ARE paying over the odds for the reason I stated earlier, which is that they have a statutory duty to accommodate homeless people but don't have sufficient stock to do so.

 

And Housing Benefit is already capped, the cap varying from area to area in relation to the local reference figure.

 

But to say that we don't need to build more social housing, that we don't need any? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? What alternative would you offer people who can't afford to buy? A cardboard box in a side-street? Or are you suggesting that we should rely upon private developers, whose prime motivation would be profit?

 

And by saying that social rented housing is a dumping-ground you insult the thousands of hard-working, honest, respectable tenants out there (and on this forum) for whom owner-occupancy will never be a reality in these straitened economic times because low wages preclude saving for a deposit and then managing mortgage payments which, let's face it, can only go up once the Bank of England decides to increase the base rate.

[jasper3]

This is all well and good but what the hell is a bedroom tax?

 

its a bit like when the wife wants a new pair of shoes.... you get nooky

this time the council wants a new pair of shoes and they screw you

[aris]

House prices are determined by supply and demand. The demand is there if priced are sensible. Supply appears to be artificially constrained by land owners, over zealous Planning restrictions, and NIMBY's.

 

Open the supply tap - and prices will follow down.

 

[artschool]

House prices are determined by supply and demand. The demand is there if priced are sensible. Supply appears to be artificially constrained by land owners, over zealous Planning restrictions, and NIMBY's.

 

Open the supply tap - and prices will follow down.

 

i do agree but its not as easy as that. if the price comes down then whats stopping wealthy people buying more houses?

 

and because land is finite any relaxation in the number of available dwellings will only be a temporary relief.

[Vince Green]

by saying that social rented housing is a dumping-ground you insult the thousands of hard-working, honest, respectable tenants out there

 

I'm in North West London, there are no hard working, honest, respectable council house tenants any more. They never make it to the top of the housing list. Come with me, I will take you to whole estates where nobody gets up and goes to work in the morning.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Vince Green

[aris]

Sell to people on council waiting lists. But if wealthy people buy - presumably it will be to rent them out? If rental supply is up prices will vo down. If the returns on rentals are not right, investors will not invest.

[Paddy Galore!]

this stinks, it won't affect the people who need a kick up the backside because they'll just keep popping out sprogs until the house is filled, or the drug addled wino who turns his pad into a squat. the only people this really affects are the normal 40 plus brigade on low / minimum wage who's kids have grown up and moved out, with occasional weekenders with the grand kids. where are they supposed to move to? and how are they going to afford it?

that's the last time i'll vote tory, that cameron and his crew are a bunch of vaj's.

[al4x]

That's exactly who it's meant to get those in social housing too large for their needs. Why should you have a large house subsidised by tax payers when you don't need it?

A mutual exchange with someone requiring the house isn't hard

Edited March 9, 2013 by al4x

[pegasus bridge]

I thought it applied to those in receipt of housing benefit? Ie: the unemployed?

[Paddy Galore!]

the primary goal for the government is to save money, how about reducing benefits to baby factories instead? they're the biggest drain on society.

i did a spell working on social housing last year, there's a serious shortage of 2 bed properties, as has already been mentioned, councils built 3 bedders galore all those years ago, or retirement bungalows. and why are pensioners exempt?

[arnieboy]

the horrible bitch next door to me has a 3 bed house for her and he spawn and she says she will have to be carried out feet first as it was he mothers house before and she has the right to live in it even if she only uses 2 rooms cant wait till they do carry he out come on council free up some housing stock and out her for me

[olly321]

if any one can get away with it it will be a foreigner

[IXI KARL IXI]

I agree with the bedroom tax, it will save a crippled system some money and get houses free'ed up. I work have done all my working life (am only30 mind) but due to a accident and back op am on the sick for a few months not long fingers crossed. Lost a lot of money per month but can't claim a penny because of what I earned up to date. I live in private rent paying £520 PCM where a council tenant who doesn't work about 10 doors up pays £15 PW and complains its to much. Sorry state we live in. I can't get a council house as well because there isn't any 3 beds a load of two bed and single but no one wants to move

[aldivalloch]

I'm in North West London, there are no hard working, honest, respectable council house tenants any more. They never make it to the top of the housing list. Come with me, I will take you to whole estates where nobody gets up and goes to work in the morning.

Sadly, I have no reason to disbelieve you. I remember seeing this forty years ago when I stayed for a while in a small city and got caught up in doing a bit of voluntary work. I was taken to an estate where the "green areas" were litter-strewn expanses of mud, punctuated with broken fridges and abandoned toys. There were no lights in the stairways of the blocks of flats - they'd been smashed or stolen - and a lot of the windows had been patched over with plywood. The residents weren't exactly honest, civilised, industrious or hospitable..... It was some shock to a naive youth who'd been brought up in the country amongst hard-working, proud, independent people.

 

I live in the far, windy north now, and have done for more than thirty years. Average incomes aren't great but unemployment is low. There's very little crime, no significant drugs problem, we don't routinely lock our doors or our cars, and there are no "ghettos" of mingers and scroungers. The weather's nothing to shout about but the shooting and fishing are good. I'm not planning relocating anywhere in the foreseeable future!

 

I thought it applied to those in receipt of housing benefit? Ie: the unemployed?

 

Housing Benefit isn't only for the unemployed. It's available to people on low incomes - for example the retired; those unable to work because of disability or ill-health; part-time workers; and those in poorly-paid full-time employment. You'd be surprised just how few tenants actually pay full rent.

[karpman]

Just for the record, since I'm due to move into social housing next month I will be paying the rent and council tax in full the rent being 475 per month and council tax 113. That's more than half may wages gone right there lol

 

 

Karpman

[Diceman]

House prices are determined by supply and demand. The demand is there if priced are sensible. Supply appears to be artificially constrained by land owners, over zealous Planning restrictions, and NIMBY's.

 

Open the supply tap - and prices will follow down.

 

Quite true. The most expensive part of building a new house is the bit of paper allowing you to build it - It can increase the value cost of an acre of land from £10K to £1000K. The same bit of land, in the same place, costs one hundred times more with planning permission. If we want more affordable housing the solution - relaxation of planning law - is very simple and will cost the government virtually nothing. Even if they do end up being bought by 'wealthy people' the market will decide what the rental value is so they will still be more affordable.

[IXI KARL IXI]

IMHO a good solution would be: if you buy some land, you can build a house but the house can't be sold for say 25-30 yrs this means you given a family a chance to build Home not a asset. If you want to buy land build houses make money you have to get the planning regs. The daft thing is I can buy land (been looking to shoot on) but I can't get a fair mortage. One I was offered was for a 30% deposit £30,000,mwoodland about 15 mile from where am renting £20000 4 acres.