[Kizzy]

'An innovative housing development that could help people avoid the so-called "bedroom tax" has been shortlisted for an award.
North Kesteven District Council built 13 homes in Ruskington, Lincolnshire, with moveable internal walls.
It means the number of bedrooms can be easily altered from one to two to avoid losing housing benefit.
The project is shortlisted in the outstanding development category of the UK Housing Awards.
In each of the homes, built last year, the main bedroom has several electrical fittings and two windows allowing for a partition wall to be easily installed or removed.
Michael Gadd, property services manager, said: "It does mean that no-one can be penalised for having a spare bedroom that's not being used.'


Amazing! Well done Lincolnshire council


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-32277808

[kirklancaster]

Presumably, this could mean; that instead of a 12' x 10' bedroom and a 9' x 10' bedroom if it is an average 2 bed property, the tenant enjoys a rather luxurious 21' x 10' bedroom, but apart from this; how does this 'Bedroom Tax' avoidance scheme differ from 'Income Tax' avoidance schemes?

Both are deliberate manipulations of the regulations by people who believe they are 'legally' justified because their scheme breaks no laws, and 'morally' justified because the regulation they are 'legally' negotiating around is unjust anyway.

In both cases, the perpetrators of such a scheme want to 'protect' as much of their money from the clutches of the state as possible and feel 'justified' in doing so, so where is one 'avoidance' tactic any less reprehensible than the other?

I am expecting responses which are replete with the words; "Benefits" and "Need" (or variations of the same) used as comparators to words such as "Spare Money" and "greed" (or variations of the same) but I'm talking specifically about the 'principle' of both being 'Tax' avoidance schemes - where are they different that one is lauded and applauded and the other detested and berated?

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Presumably, this could mean; that instead of a 12' x 10' bedroom and a 9' x 10' bedroom if it is an average 2 bed property, the tenant enjoys a rather luxurious 21' x 10' bedroom, but apart from this; how does this 'Bedroom Tax' avoidance scheme differ from 'Income Tax' avoidance schemes?

Both are deliberate manipulations of the regulations by people who believe they are 'legally' justified because their scheme breaks no laws, and 'morally' justified because the regulation they are 'legally' negotiating around is unjust anyway.

In both cases, the perpetrators of such a scheme want to 'protect' as much of their money from the clutches of the state as possible and feel 'justified' in doing so, so where is one 'avoidance' tactic any less reprehensible than the other?

I am expecting responses which are replete with the words; "Benefits" and "Need" (or variations of the same) used as comparators to words such as "Spare Money" and "greed" (or variations of the same) but I'm talking specifically about the 'principle' of both being 'Tax' avoidance schemes - where are they different that one is lauded and applauded and the other detested and berated?

Its not avoidance, its using the space available effectively. So if there is only the requirement for 1 bedroom, the space is bigger rather than having a spare empty room. Nothing wrong with that. Although privacy must be a bit lacking

[arista]

Kizzy its the Spare Room Tax


Typical of you to use the fake Labour word
bedroom

[Josy]

Originally Posted by arista

Kizzy its the Spare Room Tax


Typical of you to use the fake Labour word
bedroom

No it isn't, it's bedroom tax, most people don't have the room going 'spare' and use it for family/guests staying over among other things.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Josy

No it isn't, it's bedroom tax, most people don't have the room going 'spare' and use it for family/guests staying over among other things.

Yes but its called a Spare Room

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Presumably, this could mean; that instead of a 12' x 10' bedroom and a 9' x 10' bedroom if it is an average 2 bed property, the tenant enjoys a rather luxurious 21' x 10' bedroom, but apart from this; how does this 'Bedroom Tax' avoidance scheme differ from 'Income Tax' avoidance schemes?

Both are deliberate manipulations of the regulations by people who believe they are 'legally' justified because their scheme breaks no laws, and 'morally' justified because the regulation they are 'legally' negotiating around is unjust anyway.

In both cases, the perpetrators of such a scheme want to 'protect' as much of their money from the clutches of the state as possible and feel 'justified' in doing so, so where is one 'avoidance' tactic any less reprehensible than the other?

I am expecting responses which are replete with the words; "Benefits" and "Need" (or variations of the same) used as comparators to words such as "Spare Money" and "greed" (or variations of the same) but I'm talking specifically about the 'principle' of both being 'Tax' avoidance schemes - where are they different that one is lauded and applauded and the other detested and berated?

It is the housing association that has the power to convert the properties if required they are effectively 1 bed properties so nobody least of all prospective tenants are acting fraudulently, there is no spare room subsidy as there is no spare room.
Could you give me an example of how someone could avoid tax on their income and it be in any way comparable?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by arista

Kizzy its the Spare Room Tax


Typical of you to use the fake Labour word
bedroom

Actually technically its the 'spare room subsidy' which doesnt even make sense if you think about it...removal of this subsidy, fair enough but to call the policy itself the spare room subsidy is wrong.

I hate this tbh and welcome ANY way people can get round it, its simply unfair as the huge majority of councils don't have the smaller places available so what are people meant to do? And this is assuming the room is actually 'spare'...

[Toy Soldier]

I say break out the sledgehammers and convert all of the current houses affected by bedroom tax too.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Actually technically its the 'spare room subsidy' which doesnt even make sense if you think about it...removal of this subsidy, fair enough but to call the policy itself the spare room subsidy is wrong.

I hate this tbh and welcome ANY way people can get round it, its simply unfair as the huge majority of councils don't have the smaller places available so what are people meant to do? And this is assuming the room is actually 'spare'...

Yes it is
You Bright Spark

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I say break out the sledgehammers and convert all of the current houses affected by bedroom tax too.

That's what I was thinking....

[Josy]

Scotland has actually got rid of the bedroom tax a while ago, I wont say abolished because I don't think it's legally been abolished yet (at least they have in our area anyway) what they do now is use 2 discretionary funds to pay the bedroom tax, meaning they are still paying it out of their budget just like they would be doing if they hadn't reduced peoples housing benefits in the first place. It's absolutely mental.

[Josy]

This kind of explains it

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...m-tax-scotland

And not that it matters either way but it's definitely called the 'bedroom tax' here

[Vicky.]

The discretionary payments here (you know...the ones the government said would mean disabled people wouldnt be hit with this?) have a maximum award duration of 1 year

[Kizzy]

I really hope IDS is charged with human rights violations for his treatment of the disabled.

[smudgie]

People should not have been charged the extra in the first place, unless they had been offered accommodation without spare rooms in the first place and refused it.
Is it really too much to ask for a couple to be able to live in a two bedroom house anyway?

[Kizzy]

The lie perpetuated was that it would free up social housing, in truth it was to force those on housing benefit out of London.
They don't want to build any more social housing so they want to sell off what stock they have and force everyone else into private rented accommodation, the cap means they either live somewhere cheap or 3 to a room.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Josy

Scotland has actually got rid of the bedroom tax a while ago, I wont say abolished because I don't think it's legally been abolished yet (at least they have in our area anyway) what they do now is use 2 discretionary funds to pay the bedroom tax, meaning they are still paying it out of their budget just like they would be doing if they hadn't reduced peoples housing benefits in the first place. It's absolutely mental.

yes thanks to the SNP

[JoshBB]

The difference between bedroom tax avoidance and income tax avoidance is that the bedroom tax is completely unfair because it hits the poorest people only who rely on benefits to live, mostly the disabled, whereas income tax is a tax that is progressive and everyone pays a fair amount and how much money you make and/or have is taken into account.

That is why I support this. Good on you Lincolnshire Council!

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

The difference between bedroom tax avoidance and income tax avoidance is that the bedroom tax is completely unfair because it hits the poorest people only who rely on benefits to live, mostly the disabled, whereas income tax is a tax that is progressive and everyone pays a fair amount and how much money you make and/or have is taken into account.

That is why I support this. Good on you Lincolnshire Council!

I didn't know that Josh - thank you.