Bedroom Tax - do you think it's fair?

[Kate!]

Here's a link to an article about the new Bedroom Tax, to be introduced next April. This is an issue which will affect many, including me personally if my current financial circumstances are the same when the time comes, and it's not a good thing in my opinion.

Read the article and share your thoughts below please?

http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/welfare_reform/bedroom_tax.aspx

[Livia]

In the broad sense, it does make sense that some people with spare bedrooms could stand living in a smaller residence if there are bigger families who need the room. In a less broad sense, it's simplistic to say that this approach is going to work for everyone.

[Vicky.]

The new bedroom tax proposals are not fair IMO. We were put in a 3 bedroomed house because there were no one or two beds available and wouldnt be for a long period of time. There is STILL a shortage of smaller properties and basically people will be forced to pay what they cant afford while stuck on a 2+ year waiting list again for a smaller property.

We have recently decorated our house, it has cost a small fortune...I cant imagine having to move now. Luckily we are working so we dont get full housing benefit rates anyway so this wont affect us as much as others, though the small bit of housing benefit we do get will likely be cut...but I cant imagine being on JSA or something and having to find an extra 30 quid or whatever every week because of the councils screwing up in the first place and selling off the majority of their homes, and ending up just having to stick people in whatever empty properties were available at the time.

Also a lot of people I know have taken larger houses than they need in very unpopular areas to avoid being homeless also. The council suggested they moved there, they did not ask for a larger property.

[Pyramid*]

It has it pros and cons.

Spare rooms could be used to generate some form of income for those unemployed or on low income.

Moving to a smaller property could free up housing for those who need larger properties but cannot obtain such because of those living in homes with rooms they do not need - which in turn will reduce the cost of heating a larger house with rooms that are not used - and saves the householder money.

Not an ideal solution for all by a long shot -but I can see advantages as well as disadvantages.

[Jake.]

Surely if people pay to live in a larger house, then thats up to them and shouldn't be punished for it?

[Marc]

Since when was having a spare bedroom a bad thing :conf:

[Pyramid*]

Surely if people pay to live in a larger house, then thats up to them and shouldn't be punished for it?

From a quick speed read - they aren't paying for it - as it's being paid by Government benefits as it's applying to those on the benefits system.. (unless I've misread).



Welfare reforms will cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home – find out how this will affect people.

The Government has said that it will introduce new size criteria for housing benefit claims in social housing.

[Marc]

Surely if people pay to live in a larger house, then thats up to them and shouldn't be punished for it?

I believe it affects those in social housing

[Kizzy]

It has it pros and cons.

Spare rooms could be used to generate some form of income for those unemployed or on low income.

Moving to a smaller property could free up housing for those who need larger properties but cannot obtain such because of those living in homes with rooms they do not need - which in turn will reduce the cost of heating a larger house with rooms that are not used - and saves the householder money.

Not an ideal solution for all by a long shot -but I can see advantages as well as disadvantages.

It is against the rules of your tenancy to sublet rooms in council property.

As said previously there is a shortage of smaller council accomodation.

[Kate!]

Yes, it applies to those in Social Housing, if you own your own home it doesn't affect, it's not like poll tax. Not sure how it works in relation to private tenants.

I live in social housing, a three bedroomed property. Moved in here in 2004. One bedroom is spare, as there is just me and my son here, but it's what the Housing Association offered us at the time, and it is local to my mum, so I have no intention or desire to move. Plus moving is a major stressful event and one that I don't think I could cope with in the foreseeable future, due to personal circumstance. Another factor in not wanting to move is that, like Vicky, I have spent money on carpeting and decorating our home, and moving incurs quite a bit of expense, yes fair enough you can take carpets with you to save some money, but they may not fit rooms etc.

Come next April, should I still be (fingers crossed not) out of work, then I will have to pay approximately £16 per week from Jobseekers Allowance (£71 per week) and it's hard enough to manage as it is! Social Landlords should have some conscience and reduce their rents to offset this situation, the poorest people are always the hardest hit it seems.

[Niamh.]

It is against the rules of your tenancy to sublet rooms in council property.

As said previously there is a shortage of smaller council accomodation.

If the person was housed in a bigger property because of lack of smaller properties it does seem a bit harsh to then charge them extra for a room they can't let out anyway. It doesn't make alot of sense.

[Kizzy]

If the person was housed in a bigger property because of lack of smaller properties it does seem a bit harsh to then charge them extra for a room they can't let out anyway. It doesn't make alot of sense.

Niamh, when has anything this government done made any sense?...:joker:
It will disrupt lives, families, schools, work...will they care?...no.

[Kate!]

Niamh, when has anything this government done made any sense?...:joker:
It will disrupt lives, families, schools, work...will they care?...no.

Exactly Kizzy! This Government won't be happy till they grind the working class into the dirt, reminiscent of Maggie Thatcher era. :nono:

[Livia]

It seems that people are saying they were housed in bigger proserties because smaller places were unavailable. Strangely, most people I know in social housing are in smaller places dying to get into bigger ones. It's an enigma.

[Pyramid*]

It is against the rules of your tenancy to sublet rooms in council property.

As said previously there is a shortage of smaller council accomodation.

Perhaps this is something the Government is looking to change....

There may be a shortage of council accomodation: as much as there are too many families crowded into houses that are too small for the amount of people in the household - that's a common complaint that I read about far more than families being unhappy about being placed in accomodation that they have spare rooms in.

[Pyramid*]

Exactly Kizzy! This Government won't be happy till they grind the working class into the dirt, reminiscent of Maggie Thatcher era. :nono:


'Grind the working class into the dirt'..... ironic choice of phrasology there given that this is aimed at those who are not working.

[Kate!]

'Grind the working class into the dirt'..... ironic choice of phrasology there given that this is aimed at those who are not working.

what you have just posted doesn't even make sense :conf: The Government are the ones who have instigated this new tax, and therefore (imo) they are slowly and gradually grinding the working classes (of which the unemployed are still counted as part of, being eligible for work) into the ground, they have no empathy or sympathy for us. Just because I am not currently working doesn't exclude me from being working class :shrug:

[Vicky.]

It seems that people are saying they were housed in bigger proserties because smaller places were unavailable. Strangely, most people I know in social housing are in smaller places dying to get into bigger ones. It's an enigma.

I know, odd isnt it :S

Me and a few friends have extra rooms, but only because this is what we were offered at the time. I originally applied for either 1/2 bed flat/house but I was about to be made homeless within 2 months so was classed as priority...unsure about the exact details about others getting larger properties though. I was offered a 3 bedroom house (a long way away from the area I wanted though but couldnt afford to be picky) within 1 week. When I asked about this I was told that it would have taken (at that time) averagely 5 months for the kind of property I wanted to be available, and they couldnt guarantee it would be anywhere near the area I originally chose either (would have been a LOT better for work had we been housed in that area). I imagine this is a longer waiting list now...especially as a lot of people will be 'panic moving' :laugh:

On the other hand, I also know quite a few people who need a larger property. The mother of my partners kids(2 boys 6 and 10. And a girl 8) has a 2 bedroom property and has been on the waiting list for around 4 years for a larger one...but she has to have it in round about the same area so that her kids school lives dont get affected.

Its very odd when you think about it. So many in smaller properties that need larger ones, while larger ones are given to people who dont need them because there are no smaller properties available apparently. Twisted logic IMO D:

[Vicky.]

'Grind the working class into the dirt'..... ironic choice of phrasology there given that this is aimed at those who are not working.

Not particularly. Also aimed at those who work who have 'low' incomes (such as me) too, so I would say working class was the correct term really.

[Kizzy]

'Grind the working class into the dirt'..... ironic choice of phrasology there given that this is aimed at those who are not working.

Here we go again pyra...What would you like jobseekers to be called?..The underclass?...The subclass?...
Can you please stick to the point in discussion without spiralling off on a tangent about the unemployed please?

[joeysteele]

I was looking at this about 3 months ago as I heard someone getting at a Liberal Counclillor about it on one of their street stall things they have at times.

The way I see it is, people were made tenants of these houses, for a great number it has been their home for life almost, they have many memories over the years, they have done all the decoration of the house and also the gardens too if it is a 3 bedroomed house say with a garden.
A lot then, of personal investment from them as to the property.

I understand they were likely given secure tenancies and if needed the financial aid was always assessed on the occupation of the house as in numbers in it.
If for instance,someone was eligible for housing benefit, but had someone living in with them,the housing benefit was reduced by that person living in the house too.
If only the tenant lived in the house nothing was reduced as to housing benefit.

I understand also, that the likely change will be ,around 10%+ will now be taken off the housing benefit payment granted if you have one bedroom vacant,regardless of whether family stay at times whatever.
If you have 2 bedrooms unoccupied then likely around 20%+ will be removed from the housing benefit granted.

If I have got all that right, then I think firstly,yes, it is wrong. I find it incredible that people can avoid massive tax payments and then you have this measure again likely in the main, hitting the poorest,weakest and most vulnerable of society.
If it had right to it, and I can see the thinking behind having 3 bedroomed houses for families,I feel this is not the way.
I think the benefit reductions proposed are way too high.ironically these Liberal councillors all said it was wrong too but it had benn supported by the parliamentary Lib Dems along with the Conservatives.

The questioner as to this though had a great point that they were getting around £80 weekly housing benefit, had a vacant bedroom so would lose around £9 a week if they stayed in the house, however to move them to a 2 bedroomed flat,the only ones available, were for rents near as high as the house is, so to move to the flat, the same original housing benefit would then have to be paid still.
Then they would likely have to cover cost of decoration that home as they would want it to be.

For me, overall, it is a badly thought out policy again, the reduction levels of the benefits seem too high and it is in my view unfair to come along now after so many decades of these payments permitted and in place to then take them away.
I believe in a cap as to benefits but this is not the way I feel.

The Govt,needs to invest and get going building programmes of affordable housing, social housing as I now believe it is called.
Not attack and get at tenants who by no fault of their own are now going to have even futher financial pressures put on them with this policy which I fear on reading about it and looking at its detail will cause far more problems than it will likely solve in the long run and do little to cut expenditure on housing benefit payments too.

[Vicky.]

Im also expecting some of the 'fathers' charities to pick up on this and start protesting (if it hasnt happened already)

A lot of fathers get access only on weekends. And as such have houses large enough to accomodate the children when they stay. If forced to move to a 1 bed or even shared room property...they wont be able to get proper access to their kids.

I know this will be true of some mothers too, as joint custody goes both ways, but I imagine it will affect more fathers, hence fathers charities :p

[Pyramid*]

what you have just posted doesn't even make sense :conf: The Government are the ones who have instigated this new tax, and therefore (imo) they are slowly and gradually grinding the working classes (of which the unemployed are still counted as part of, being eligible for work) into the ground, they have no empathy or sympathy for us. Just because I am not currently working doesn't exclude me from being working class :shrug:


Dont' blame me that the terminology is (and that was used in the quote) was 'working class' - there is a certain irony to it for the reason I stated - given the topic.

I too am working class and I don't feel that the Government are trying to grind me down to the dirt - even despite my having to lose out (or pay over the odds for) because of my own personal circumstances.

.


Not particularly. Also aimed at those who work who have 'low' incomes (such as me) too, so I would say working class was the correct term really.

Fair enough comment - I did refer to those on low incomes in my earlier post.

Here we go again pyra...What would you like jobseekers to be called?..The underclass?...The subclass?...
Can you please stick to the point in discussion without spiralling off on a tangent about the unemployed please?

Kiz, please desist - I found the term ironic. My posts are pertaining to the subject matter - not pertaining to you individually which you always try to throw the spin on. If you are unemployed: I am not going to not post because you don't agree with my comments.

You seem to have difficulty in not taking some personal slight every single time I make a post - that is your issue, not mine.

[Pyramid*]

Im also expecting some of the 'fathers' charities to pick up on this and start protesting (if it hasnt happened already)

A lot of fathers get access only on weekends. And as such have houses large enough to accomodate the children when they stay. If forced to move to a 1 bed or even shared room property...they wont be able to get proper access to their kids.

I know this will be true of some mothers too, as joint custody goes both ways, but I imagine it will affect more fathers, hence fathers charities :p


Have to say: there is something very unfair about what you've picked up on ...



Who will be affected?

All claimants who are deemed to have at least one spare bedroom will be affected. This includes:

Separated parents who share the care of their children and who may have been allocated an extra bedroom to reflect this. Benefit rules mean that there must be a designated ‘main carer’ for children (who receives the extra benefit)

[Pyramid*]

I know, odd isnt it :S

Me and a few friends have extra rooms, but only because this is what we were offered at the time. I originally applied for either 1/2 bed flat/house but I was about to be made homeless within 2 months so was classed as priority...unsure about the exact details about others getting larger properties though. I was offered a 3 bedroom house (a long way away from the area I wanted though but couldnt afford to be picky) within 1 week. When I asked about this I was told that it would have taken (at that time) averagely 5 months for the kind of property I wanted to be available, and they couldnt guarantee it would be anywhere near the area I originally chose either (would have been a LOT better for work had we been housed in that area). I imagine this is a longer waiting list now...especially as a lot of people will be 'panic moving' :laugh:

On the other hand, I also know quite a few people who need a larger property. The mother of my partners kids(2 boys 6 and 10. And a girl 8) has a 2 bedroom property and has been on the waiting list for around 4 years for a larger one...but she has to have it in round about the same area so that her kids school lives dont get affected.

Its very odd when you think about it. So many in smaller properties that need larger ones, while larger ones are given to people who dont need them because there are no smaller properties available apparently. Twisted logic IMO D:


Perhaps the last part in bold is what the Government are trying to address.

[Kizzy]

I was looking at this about 3 months ago as I heard someone getting at a Liberal Counclillor about it on one of their street stall things they have at times.

The way I see it is, people were made tenants of these houses, for a great number it has been their home for life almost, they have many memories over the years, they have done all the decoration of the house and also the gardens too if it is a 3 bedroomed house say with a garden.
A lot then, of personal investment from them as to the property.

I understand they were likely given secure tenancies and if needed the financial aid was always assessed on the occupation of the house as in numbers in it.
If for instance,someone was eligible for housing benefit, but had someone living in with them,the housing benefit was reduced by that person living in the house too.
If only the tenant lived in the house nothing was reduced as to housing benefit.

I understand also, that the likely change will be ,around 10%+ will now be taken off the housing benefit payment granted if you have one bedroom vacant,regardless of whether family stay at times whatever.
If you have 2 bedrooms unoccupied then likely around 20%+ will be removed from the housing benefit granted.

If I have got all that right, then I think firstly,yes, it is wrong. I find it incredible that people can avoid massive tax payments and then you have this measure again likely in the main, hitting the poorest,weakest and most vulnerable of society.
If it had right to it, and I can see the thinking behind having 3 bedroomed houses for families,I feel this is not the way.
I think the benefit reductions proposed are way too high.ironically these Liberal councillors all said it was wrong too but it had benn supported by the parliamentary Lib Dems along with the Conservatives.

The questioner as to this though had a great point that they were getting around £80 weekly housing benefit, had a vacant bedroom so would lose around £9 a week if they stayed in the house, however to move them to a 2 bedroomed flat,the only ones available, were for rents near as high as the house is, so to move to the flat, the same original housing benefit would then have to be paid still.
Then they would likely have to cover cost of decoration that home as they would want it to be.

For me, overall, it is a badly thought out policy again, the reduction levels of the benefits seem too high and it is in my view unfair to come along now after so many decades of these payments permitted and in place to then take them away.
I believe in a cap as to benefits but this is not the way I feel.

The Govt,needs to invest and get going building programmes of affordable housing, social housing as I now believe it is called.
Not attack and get at tenants who by no fault of their own are now going to have even futher financial pressures put on them with this policy which I fear on reading about it and looking at its detail will cause far more problems than it will likely solve in the long run and do little to cut expenditure on housing benefit payments too.

Great post joey, It will solve nothing and disrupt further social cohesion.. its a mess!

[Vicky.]

Perhaps the last part in bold is what the Government are trying to address.

Yes I get that, but the way they are going about it is so unfair. Some have lived in their houses for 20+ years and will now have to move. All I can imagine is a little old couple who have watched their kids and grandkids grow up in their lovely 2 bedroomed house(that they have done up themselves to have exactly how they want it), being forced to move to a dingy one bedroomed flat. I know thats ridiculous as cases like that will be few and far between, but I think things like this all the time :laugh:

Also as with my point above about seperated parents...its simply not fair to deny someone access to their kids because the councils ****ed up in the first place with allocation of properties. They should never have started selling council houses for a quick fix of cash.

This wont really affect us, as we get ~£5 per week housing benefit which isnt even hardly worth mentioning. But I still see the problems that people on lower incomes than me/jobseekers/people on disability benefits etc will be facing here.

[Pyramid*]

I was looking at this about 3 months ago as I heard someone getting at a Liberal Counclillor about it on one of their street stall things they have at times.

1. The way I see it is, people were made tenants of these houses, for a great number it has been their home for life almost, they have many memories over the years, they have done all the decoration of the house and also the gardens too if it is a 3 bedroomed house say with a garden.
A lot then, of personal investment from them as to the property.

I understand they were likely given secure tenancies and if needed the financial aid was always assessed on the occupation of the house as in numbers in it.
If for instance,someone was eligible for housing benefit, but had someone living in with them,the housing benefit was reduced by that person living in the house too.
If only the tenant lived in the house nothing was reduced as to housing benefit.

I understand also, that the likely change will be ,around 10%+ will now be taken off the housing benefit payment granted if you have one bedroom vacant,regardless of whether family stay at times whatever.
If you have 2 bedrooms unoccupied then likely around 20%+ will be removed from the housing benefit granted.

If I have got all that right, then I think firstly,yes, it is wrong. I find it incredible that people can avoid massive tax payments and then you have this measure again likely in the main, hitting the poorest,weakest and most vulnerable of society.
If it had right to it, and I can see the thinking behind having 3 bedroomed houses for families,I feel this is not the way.
I think the benefit reductions proposed are way too high.ironically these Liberal councillors all said it was wrong too but it had benn supported by the parliamentary Lib Dems along with the Conservatives.

The questioner as to this though had a great point that they were getting around £80 weekly housing benefit, 2... had a vacant bedroom so would lose around £9 a week if they stayed in the house, however to move them to a 2 bedroomed flat,the only ones available, were for rents near as high as the house is, so to move to the flat, the same original housing benefit would then have to be paid still.
Then they would likely have to cover cost of decoration that home as they would want it to be.

For me, overall, it is a badly thought out policy again, the reduction levels of the benefits seem too high and it is in my view unfair to come along now after so many decades of these payments permitted and in place to then take them away.

I believe in a cap as to benefits but this is not the way I feel.

The Govt,needs to invest and get going building programmes of affordable housing, social housing as I now believe it is called.

Not attack and get at tenants who by no fault of their own are now going to have even futher financial pressures put on them with this policy which I fear on reading about it and looking at its detail will cause far more problems than it will likely solve in the long run and do little to cut expenditure on housing benefit payments too.


1. People who have mortgages who find it difficult to make ends meet, who live in homes for as many years - and have invested similar years to their homes that are now too big for them, often sell up and down size due to change in circumstances, or in times of hardship, lower income etc. I'm not entirely sure why those who rely on social housing should expect not to do the same thing where possible.

2. Fairly hefty assumption Joey that moving a family into a smaller flat is likely to cost the same in housing benefit. The chances are: that moving to smaller premises: the rent would be less, thus less housing benefit in £ terms.

[Kizzy]

Kiz, please desist - I found the term ironic. My posts are pertaining to the subject matter - not pertaining to you individually which you always try to throw the spin on. If you are unemployed: I am not going to not post because you don't agree with my comments.

You seem to have difficulty in not taking some personal slight every single time I make a post - that is your issue, not mine

There was no irony, only your thinly veiled jibes.
Your opinion as to what constitutes as 'the working class' has nothing to do with the topic in discussion...I do believe you have taken this opportunity to again pull the subject back to your closed thread which I feel is very unfair to kate.

[joeysteele]

I have checked this aout again and there are wrong figures in my post above, it is up to 14% will be deducted from Housing benefit if you have one bedroon vacant and up to 25% deducted from housing beneift for having 2 bedrooms vacant.
However,it will only apply to tenants who are of working age still.

I still think it is a badly thought out policy and the figures are far worse than even those Lib Dem councillors mentioned. 14% and 25% is really not acceptable in my view.

In social housing now then, I can see a good number ending up with large rent arrears and many likely evictions. The costs of dealing with such will end up being likely enormous.

[Pyramid*]

Kiz, please desist - I found the term ironic. My posts are pertaining to the subject matter - not pertaining to you individually which you always try to throw the spin on. If you are unemployed: I am not going to not post because you don't agree with my comments.

You seem to have difficulty in not taking some personal slight every single time I make a post - that is your issue, not mine

There was no irony, only your thinly veiled jibes.
Your opinion as to what constitutes as 'the working class' has nothing to do with the topic in discussion...I do believe you have taken this opportunity to again pull the subject back to your closed thread which I feel is very unfair to kate.

As I say: I will post how I feel on a subject matter. Both you and Kate seem persistent to fault everything that I comment on - and there is no need.

You and Kate may possibly just be feeling a little sensitive, which may be understandable, but that doesn't mean I can't put my point over regarding a subject - which is what I am doing.

[Mystic Mock]

Since when was having a spare bedroom a bad thing :conf:

Exactly, that could be a guest's room or something if they are staying over for the night.

Tories punishing the innocent people once again, keep it up as the awful Labour Party will be back in power soon just to make it worse.

[Kate!]

As I say: I will post how I feel on a subject matter. Both you and Kate seem persistent to fault everything that I comment on - and there is no need.

You and Kate may possibly just be feeling a little sensitive, which may be understandable, but that doesn't mean I can't put my point over regarding a subject - which is what I am doing.

there is no need for you to drop your snide digs into threads either.

[Pyramid*]

Yes I get that, but the way they are going about it is so unfair. Some have lived in their houses for 20+ years and will now have to move. All I can imagine is a little old couple who have watched their kids and grandkids grow up in their lovely 2 bedroomed house(that they have done up themselves to have exactly how they want it), being forced to move to a dingy one bedroomed flat. I know thats ridiculous as cases like that will be few and far between, but I think things like this all the time :laugh:

Also as with my point above about seperated parents...its simply not fair to deny someone access to their kids because the councils ****ed up in the first place with allocation of properties. They should never have started selling council houses for a quick fix of cash.

This wont really affect us, as we get ~£5 per week housing benefit which isnt even hardly worth mentioning. But I still see the problems that people on lower incomes than me/jobseekers/people on disability benefits etc will be facing here.


I completely understand the top part - and it does seem somewhat heartless - but what is the ideal answer? That's the difficult balance to find.

As I said in my first post: I can see the advantages as well as the disadvantages - as for the single parents sharing access: I'm not sure that part has been thought out at all - one parent gains, the other loses out ... that's harsh.

[Vicky.]

Also interesting to note...I think LHA (which is what you get if you private rent) is actually higher than housing benefit for council properties. For a long time you have only been entitled to a rate equal to the amount of bedrooms you NEED. However, I had a private rented house about 4 years ago, and the LHA was about £75 per week for one bedroom. £85 for two. And I dont know the rates for a 3. I'm sure the LHA rates vary based on the area you live in too, so if you moved to a different area you would be entitled to much more LHA.

I am entitled to 2 bedrooms once I have my child.

Lets assume that I recieve full housing benefit. That would be around £80. It will still be £80 once I have my child. I could move to a private rented 2 bedroomed property and it would actually cost the government more to house me in a smaller property. So due to this move, the government might actually end up spending much more on benefits...I know they reckon the reason for these changes is to accomodate larger families, but personally I think its more about saving a bit of cash, as with all the other benefit cuts and changes ;) If this is the motivation, I have a feeling it may bite them on the arse.


Edit. Just checked online calculator on jobcentre website

Weekly LHA rate for September 2012
Durham BRMA

Two Bedrooms Rate:
£88.85 per week

for where I live now (if I moved to private rented)

But if I HAD to move into private rented, obviously I would move close to work, which would be newcastle area

Weekly LHA rate for September 2012
Tyneside BRMA

Two Bedrooms Rate:
£103.85 per week

Government would be paying an extra £23 per week on average for me to move from where I am currently, if I couldnt afford the changes.

[joeysteele]

1. People who have mortgages who find it difficult to make ends meet, who live in homes for as many years - and have invested similar years to their homes that are now too big for them, often sell up and down size due to change in circumstances, or in times of hardship, lower income etc. I'm not entirely sure why those who rely on social housing should expect not to do the same thing where possible.

2. Fairly hefty assumption Joey that moving a family into a smaller flat is likely to cost the same in housing benefit. The chances are: that moving to smaller premises: the rent would be less, thus less housing benefit in £ terms.

It was the Lid Dem councillors who highlighted the flat rents,because they were more modern flats,they had rents as high as the house rent.
As to your first point, a great number have problems with rents and mortgages and all those people who have get my full sympathy and understanding.
However,for these people in social housing, like Kate, who I hope she doesn't mind me saying. They have difficulties and were given this arrangement as to up to full housing benefit if needed, for the property they are in when hard times came.
It cannot be fair or in fact justified in my opinion, to then through no fault of themselves,after being given that support to then have it taken away so drastically,

I wasn't going to answer you directly but you jump in again about assumptions, I state many times 'likely' in my post, one can only assume as you can only too, since the change is not even operational yet.

However, I would prefer you to leave me out of your getting at and generalisation of others and debating games where anyone who disagrees gets a put down.
You,like me, are not always wrong but not always right either but please leave me out of your games on here to get reactions. Thank you.

[Pyramid*]

Also interesting to note...I think LHA (which is what you get if you private rent) is actually higher than housing benefit for council properties. For a long time you have only been entitled to a rate equal to the amount of bedrooms you NEED. However, I had a private rented house about 4 years ago, and the LHA was about £75 per week for one bedroom. £85 for two. And I dont know the rates for a 3. I'm sure the LHA rates vary based on the area you live in too, so if you moved to a different area you would be entitled to much more LHA.

I am entitled to 2 bedrooms once I have my child.

Lets assume that I recieve full housing benefit. That would be around £80. It will still be £80 once I have my child. I could move to a private rented 2 bedroomed property and it would actually cost the government more to house me in a smaller property. So due to this move, the government might actually end up spending much more on benefits...I know they reckon the reason for these changes is to accomodate larger families, but personally I think its more about saving a bit of cash, as with all the other benefit cuts and changes ;) If this is the motivation, I have a feeling it may bite them on the arse.


I'm not picking something up right here... If the1 bed works out at £75, the 2 bed because of baby works out £80.... how would it cost more money to house you in smaller property....... you'd be entitled to the 2 bed house at the existing £80. I'm confused !

just seen your edit: is this based on 'council lets' vs private lets?

[Kizzy]

As I say: I will post how I feel on a subject matter. Both you and Kate seem persistent to fault everything that I comment on - and there is no need.

You and Kate may possibly just be feeling a little sensitive, which may be understandable, but that doesn't mean I can't put my point over regarding a subject - which is what I am doing.

Thats unfair pyra there is no vendetta..
If someone infers I am lower than working class for being unemployed then yes then I get sensitive as it is a very rude and insensitive thing to say...Yes you have the right to say it, that however does not make it right or fair.
I am done on this topic with you now pyra tbh.

[Vicky.]

I'm not picking something up right here... If the1 bed works out at £75, the 2 bed because of baby works out £80.... how would it cost more money to house you in smaller property....... you'd be entitled to the 2 bed house at the existing £80. I'm confused !

Im comparing the council housing costs (housing benefit)to private rented(LHA) :p

As the council waiting lists will be so long with this move...a lot may have to go private instead. Private costs are much higher than council. LHA is a lot higher than housing benefit depending on the amount of rooms you need and the area you are in

(see my edit...I think it might make more sense that way :laugh: )

[Vicky.]

just seen your edit: is this based on 'council lets' vs private lets?

Yup, though not the lets as such, the amount of benefit you can claim based on if you live council V private.

A lot will be forced into private, as it will have to be a quick move, something the council wont be able to do with the housing shortages. Outcome = benefit bills being even higher.

[Kate!]

Thats unfair pyra there is no vendetta..
If someone infers I am lower than working class for being unemployed then yes then I get sensitive as it is a very rude and insensitive thing to say...Yes you have the right to say it, that however does not make it right or fair.
I am done on this topic with you now pyra tbh.

it is indeed, however it's what I've come to expect from this poster, who seems to think they can be as rude as they like to whoever they like, but can't stand it when someone rightly objects to it.:nono: God complex.

[Pyramid*]

It was the Lid Dem councillors who highlighted the flat rents,because they were more modern flats,they had rents as high as the house rent.
As to your first point, a great number have problems with rents and mortgages and all those people who have get my full sympathy and understanding.

However,for these people in social housing, like Kate, who I hope she doesn't mind me saying. They have difficulties and were given this arrangement as to up to full housing benefit if needed, for the property they are in when hard times came.

It cannot be fair or in fact justified in my opinion, to then through no fault of themselves,after being given that support to then have it taken away so drastically,

I wasn't going to answer you directly but you jump in again about assumptions, I state many times 'likely' in my post, one can only assume as you can only too, since the change is not even operational yet.

However, I would prefer you to leave me out of your getting at and generalisation of others and debating games where anyone who disagrees gets a put down.
You,like me, are not always wrong but not always right either but please leave me out of your games on here to get reactions. Thank you.


Firstly: I would far prefer to not individualise the subject to discussing Kate's own personal circumstances.

I made no assumptions Joey: you did. You also made incorrect assumptions on the percentages as you'd not checked the figures in the link provided.

I am a posting member Joey - and if you (or anyone else for that matter) puts up a post that I wish to comment on, pertaining to the points you have made on the subject matter, then I am entitled to do so.

[Vicky.]

OK back on topic please. I know things like this bring out very strong opinions in people but can members please not get personal about each other. Cheers.

[arista]

Convert Bedrooms into Art Studio or Living Room2


And have just 1 working bedroom.

[Vanessa]

Convert Bedrooms into Art Studio or Living Room2


And have just 1 working bedroom.

That's a great idea, Arista! :hugesmile:

[arista]

"Spare rooms could be used to generate some form of income"


Or become your Living Room 2
or Art Studio.

[arista]

That's a great idea, Arista! :hugesmile:


Yes remove spare beds
Convert into a 2nd Living Room


2nd living room can be for non TV
for when mates pop round etc.


They can not touch you.

[Kate!]

Firstly: I would far prefer to not individualise the subject to discussing Kate's own personal circumstances.

I made no assumptions Joey: you did. You also made incorrect assumptions on the percentages as you'd not checked the figures in the link provided.

I am a posting member Joey - and if you (or anyone else for that matter) puts up a post that I wish to comment on, pertaining to the points you have made on the subject matter, then I am entitled to do so.

:bored:

- where is the flogging a dead horse emoticon when you need it, sigh -

[Pyramid*]

Im comparing the council housing costs (housing benefit)to private rented(LHA) :p

As the council waiting lists will be so long with this move...a lot may have to go private instead. Private costs are much higher than council. LHA is a lot higher than housing benefit depending on the amount of rooms you need and the area you are in

(see my edit...I think it might make more sense that way :laugh: )


I caught that after your edit - and from that explanation - It makes perfect sense - and would also explain where Joey's thoughts have also come from in respect of same costs or higher.

What's the solution? Build more social / council housing of course - but where does all the money to do so, come from?

It's a difficult one - I can see why there is a need to look at these things, absolutely - - what or how a solution is reached that meets everyones expectations - is a different matter entirely.

[Mystic Mock]

Yes remove spare beds
Convert into a 2nd Living Room


2nd living room can be for non TV
for when mates pop round etc.


They can not touch you.

Spread the word Arista.:dance:

[arista]

Don't Let The System Get To you.

[joeysteele]

Firstly: I would far prefer to not individualise the subject to discussing Kate's own personal circumstances.

I made no assumptions Joey: you did. You also made incorrect assumptions on the percentages as you'd not checked the figures in the link provided.

I am a posting member Joey - and if you (or anyone else for that matter) puts up a post that I wish to comment on, pertaining to the points you have made on the subject matter, then I am entitled to do so.

If you read my second post you will see I amended those percentages,it would have saved you the bother of jumping in again.I originally quoted the percentages the Lib Dem councillors gave to the lady in question.
If I find I post some incorrect information, I alwasy amend it and make it right.

Also Kate had already shared her predicament with all on this thread on the bedroom tax as it is called so I am sure she would have no objection to me commenting briefly as to that to validate my point.

I don't go about nit picking at others posts.

All I am now saying is I didn't want to reply to you directly but chose to on that occasion, I will not again, so if you feel any need to respond to any of my posts please don't expect any reply back.
As also a posting member that is my right too, so I would think it better you respond to those you will get a response from.

[Pyramid*]

"Spare rooms could be used to generate some form of income"


Or become your Living Room 2
or Art Studio.


Or an office for those who are homeworkers .... good point Arista.

[Mystic Mock]

Don't Let The System Get To you.

I can't help it, these snobby twats that are called the leaders of this country have never had to suffer anything, just once I would like them to have something bad happen to them and then they might see how we feel.

I know it's bad of me to want it to happen and I wouldn't want anything to bad to happen to them but something has got to be done as they are not down with the people at all.

[Pyramid*]

If you read my second post you will see I amneded those percentages,it would have saved you the bother of jumping in again.I originally quoted the percentages the Lib Dem councillors gace to the lady in question.
If I find I post some incorrect information, I alwasy amend it and make it right.

Also Kate had already shared her predicament with all on this thread on the bedroom tax as it is called so I am sure she would have no objection to me commenting briefly as to that to validate my point.

I don't go about nit picking at others posts.

All I am now saying is I didn't want to reply to you directly but chose to on that occasion, I will not again, so if you feel any need to respond to any of my posts please don't expect any reply back.
As also a posting member that is my right too, so I would think it better you repsond to those you will get a response from.


yes, I noted your correction.

Joey: a poster cannot decide they want to raise a thread based on their own predicament and share that with everyone as you have alluded to and then start taking offence - when they have chosen to bring themselves into it personally. Either Kate wishes this thread to discuss her own predicament, or the discussion is a general one for those it may affect. If it is down to discussing and sharing one members predicament as you have inferred here: then that allows ALL members to contribute - not only the ones that are all in agreement.

Perhaps someone can clarify - are we discussing a general Government proposal and how it will affect those GENERALLY in a particular situation.

[Mystic Mock]

If you read my second post you will see I amended those percentages,it would have saved you the bother of jumping in again.I originally quoted the percentages the Lib Dem councillors gave to the lady in question.
If I find I post some incorrect information, I alwasy amend it and make it right.

Also Kate had already shared her predicament with all on this thread on the bedroom tax as it is called so I am sure she would have no objection to me commenting briefly as to that to validate my point.

I don't go about nit picking at others posts.

All I am now saying is I didn't want to reply to you directly but chose to on that occasion, I will not again, so if you feel any need to respond to any of my posts please don't expect any reply back.
As also a posting member that is my right too, so I would think it better you respond to those you will get a response from.
She knows you amended the percentages but she's trying to wind you up.

[arista]

Or an office for those who are homeworkers .... good point Arista.


Yes a 2nd Living Room
can be used for many things.


Make sure any 2nd spare beds are removed etc.

[Pyramid*]

I can't help it, these snobby twats that are called the leaders of this country have never had to suffer anything, just once I would like them to have something bad happen to them and then they might see how we feel.

I know it's bad of me to want it to happen and I wouldn't want anything to bad to happen to them but something has got to be done as they are not down with the people at all.


I really have to say that no matter who is in power - no Government can please all of the people all of the time - and they never will.

What one Government fails on, another will succeed, and vice versa.

[Shaun]

It sounds like a good idea on paper, but like too many issues this government are trying to tackle in order to try and present themselves as tough on benefit cheats, it's too complicated. Situations with joint custody, older children coming home from University for the holidays, rooms being renovated... all bear complications.

Personally my mum's just moved into a three-bedroom council house - strictly for her, my younger brother, and my niece (who she has guardianship over... there was a long and bitter custodial battle between her mother and my older brother, but they both still see her and get along now). My sister's just turned 18 and is expected to find her own housing, and I am too. So at the moment I'm sharing a bedroom with my brother (which isn't ideal but he sleeps downstairs a lot when friends are over anyway :laugh:), my sister has her own room (unfair ¬_¬ LOL) and my mum uses my niece's room when she's at her mother/father's (which is more often during the holidays than it is in schooltime).

I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this :laugh: but presenting myself and my sister (who is employed, but not making enough to afford rent on her own even for a flat, since South Devon housing prices are probably some of the highest of the country). Torbay's a total mess, really - the highest teen pregnancy rates of the country, and some of the longest waiting lists, so I shouldn't complain really.

[Pyramid*]

Yes a 2nd Living Room
can be used for many things.


Make sure any 2nd spare beds are removed etc.

I see where you are coming from.... it does specifically refer to BEDROOM - and that's a word used continually throughout.

:hugesmile:

[Vicky.]

I caught that after your edit - and from that explanation - It makes perfect sense - and would also explain where Joey's thoughts have also come from in respect of same costs or higher.

What's the solution? Build more social / council housing of course - but where does all the money to do so, come from?

It's a difficult one - I can see why there is a need to look at these things, absolutely - - what or how a solution is reached that meets everyones expectations - is a different matter entirely.
I honestly have no idea. But targetting the most vulnerable in society isnt the way to go IMO. So many of the benefit reforms have been about taking away from those who need it most, and its unfair. And IF this new tax is about saving the government money (which I suspect it is, based on previous 'changes') they will be very disappointed I think ;)

Unless of course, when they realise they arent saving money through this they just cut LHA rates also, forcing more out onto the streets to save a bit more cash. Which I really wouldnt put past the current ones in power.

[Mystic Mock]

I really have to say that no matter who is in power - no Government can please all of the people all of the time - and they never will.

What one Government fails on, another will succeed, and vice versa.

Both Governments can't seem to do anything right though, and the Tories have made a stupid law here, you can't help it if your house is to big for how many live in there.

[Vicky.]

It sounds like a good idea on paper, but like too many issues this government are trying to tackle in order to try and present themselves as tough on benefit cheats, it's too complicated. Situations with joint custody, older children coming home from University for the holidays, rooms being renovated... all bear complications.

Personally my mum's just moved into a three-bedroom council house - strictly for her, my younger brother, and my niece (who she has guardianship over... there was a long and bitter custodial battle between her mother and my older brother, but they both still see her and get along now). My sister's just turned 18 and is expected to find her own housing, and I am too. So at the moment I'm sharing a bedroom with my brother (which isn't ideal but he sleeps downstairs a lot when friends are over anyway :laugh:), my sister has her own room (unfair ¬_¬ LOL) and my mum uses my niece's room when she's at her mother/father's (which is more often during the holidays than it is in schooltime).

I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this :laugh: but presenting myself and my sister (who is employed, but not making enough to afford rent on her own even for a flat, since South Devon housing prices are probably some of the highest of the country). Torbay's a total mess, really - the highest teen pregnancy rates of the country, and some of the longest waiting lists, so I shouldn't complain really.

By law, or by your mother?

I ask this because theres also talk of stopping any form of housing benefit for under 25s...as apparently the parents should house their children until this age if they cannot afford to live on their own D:

Under 35s will be expected to share rooms...though eactly where all these shared rooms for rent are, I dont know :S

[Kate!]

yes, I noted your correction.

Joey: a poster cannot decide they want to raise a thread based on their own predicament and share that with everyone as you have alluded to and then start taking offence - when they have chosen to bring themselves into it personally. Either Kate wishes this thread to discuss her own predicament, or the discussion is a general one for those it may affect. If it is down to discussing and sharing one members predicament as you have inferred here: then that allows ALL members to contribute - not only the ones that are all in agreement.

Perhaps someone can clarify - are we discussing a general Government proposal and how it will affect those GENERALLY in a particular situation.

Give it a rest Pyra, and stop having digs at me in your replies to other people. Yes we are discussing the policy in general, but people will always relate it to how it affects them personally, which is more than fine, it moves the discussion on and I am happy to divulge my personal circumstances, I just don't expect to be knocked for them. As I've stated several times on here, I have been employed all my working life since leaving school, so the implication that I'm a sponger isn't welcome, please stop it. However, you are hellbent on hammering the point home that people in social housing who are out of work aren't even fit to be called working class, out of your own mouth came the words, so don't try to back track please.

[Shaun]

By law, or by your mother?

I ask this because theres also talk of stopping any form of housing benefit for under 25s...as apparently the parents should house their children until this age if they cannot afford to live on their own D:

Under 35s will be expected to share rooms...though eactly where all these shared rooms for rent are, I dont know :S

Law - my mum wants to keep her :laugh:

[Pyramid*]

I honestly have no idea. But targetting the most vulnerable in society isnt the way to go IMO. So many of the benefit reforms have been about taking away from those who need it most, and its unfair. And IF this new tax is about saving the government money (which I suspect it is, based on previous 'changes') they will be very disappointed I think ;)

Unless of course, when they realise they arent saving money through this they just cut LHA rates also, forcing more out onto the streets to save a bit more cash. Which I really wouldnt put past the current ones in power.


I'd have to agree, it's all about saving money ultimately. Perhaps not the most carefully thought out I'd be the first to agree there - Whether it goes ahead or not...... let's see.

[Vicky.]

Law - my mum wants to keep her :laugh:

Well thats ridiculous then :o

By law you need to move out at 18, but also by law you cant recieve any help towards housing costs until 25 year old? The government gunna guarantee ever 18-25 year old a fulltime job upon leaving home then? Enough wage to cover rent and basic living expenses at least? Really doubt it :S

Edit. I should have quoted a source for that rather than just springing it out of the blue, but http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/24/housing-benefit-under-25s-welfare

[Pyramid*]

Give it a rest Pyra, and stop having digs at me in your replies to other people. Yes we are discussing the policy in general, but people will always relate it to how it affects them personally, which is more than fine, it moves the discussion on and I am happy to divulge my personal circumstances, I just don't expect to be knocked for them. As I've stated several times on here, I have been employed all my working life since leaving school, so the implication that I'm a sponger isn't welcome, please stop it. However, you are hellbent on hammering the point home that people in social housing who are out of work aren't even fit to be called working class, out of your own mouth came the words, so don't try to back track please.

For the love of god Kate, I have not implied you are a sponger - can't you stick to the topic... It is one that you wanted to discuss.

[Shaun]

Well thats ridiculous then :o

By law you need to move out at 18, but also by law you cant recieve any help towards housing costs until 25 year old? The government gunna guarantee ever 18-25 year old a fulltime job upon leaving home then? Enough wage to cover rent and basic living expenses at least? Really doubt it :S

Exactly, with these unemployment rates it's just daft. Council tax is really high around here too (I'm just trying to put off anyone moving to Devon now :D)

[Vanessa]

I have a one bedroom flat, so i should be safe. :tongue:

[Kate!]

For the love of god Kate, I have not implied you are a sponger - can't you stick to the topic... It is one that you wanted to discuss.

you blatantly have.

[Vanessa]

you blatantly have.

No one understands what it's like to be out of work until it happens to them. I lost my job last year and had to claim benefits. I was so depressed. Getting my job back has really helped my confidence. :)

[Pyramid*]

I'm shocked at this - or perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

Are we saying here that by Law, anyone over the age of 18 is not expected to stay with their parents if the parents? that does not sound right.... ??

Have I misunderstood?


My sister's just turned 18 and is expected to find her own housing, and I am too

[Shaun]

Let me rephrase: I'm not allowed my own room here because I'm only home for the holidays, and...expected to sleep on the sofa I guess :p but my sister isn't supposed to be here, no. Obviously forcibly evicting everyone staying with their mum after 18 in council housing is ridiculous and unrealistic, so nothing's been done yet, but she's expressed an interest in sharing a flat with some workmates in the future anyway (was saving for a deposit, but then spent it on driving lessons & tests IIRC)

[Pyramid*]

No one understands what it's like to be out of work until it happens to them. I lost my job last year and had to claim benefits. I was so depressed. Getting my job back has really helped my confidence. :)


Good that you've got on your feet again Vanessa, nice positive note there.

[Pyramid*]

Let me rephrase: I'm not allowed my own room here because I'm only home for the holidays, and...expected to sleep on the sofa I guess :p but my sister isn't supposed to be here, no. Obviously forcibly evicting everyone staying with their mum after 18 in council housing is ridiculous and unrealistic, so nothing's been done yet, but she's expressed an interest in sharing a flat with some workmates in the future anyway (was saving for a deposit, but then spent it on driving lessons & tests IIRC)

I'm still shell shocked that this is the Law?

If so, the Law most definitely is an ass.

[Kate!]

No one understands what it's like to be out of work until it happens to them. I lost my job last year and had to claim benefits. I was so depressed. Getting my job back has really helped my confidence. :)

I'm glad you got back on your feet Vanessa :)

Yes, it's pretty bleak tbh, I mistakenly and overconfidently thought that I would walk into another job very quickly, I have loads of experience to offer, backed up by the relevant qualifications in my field, which is office work. However, what I found was that for every job I went for there were over 100 applicants, and in the majority of cases I didn't even get an interview. :(

I lowered my sights and considered working in other fields, eg retail, but they all want you to be experienced in that particular field, even though I was more than capable of doing the jobs, again I wasn't getting interviews. It was and is very demoralising.

I know the only answer is to keep trying and eventually surely something will break for me, it might just be a case of being in the right place at the right time. :shrug:

With regard to the thread topic, this is why I feel so strongly that this bedroom tax is so unfair, it will only add to the stresses of life for someone such as myself who wants desperately to be back in work, even part time would do, not just for the wage but also for self esteem and feeling like you're doing your bit, and its such a struggle to manage on the money Jobseekers get, God knows how we'll all cope losing a sizeable chunk weekly to offset this tax. It really does beat people down.

[Vicky.]

I'm still shell shocked that this is the Law?

If so, the Law most definitely is an ass.

Heh, you only just realising this? :tongue:

[Vanessa]

Good that you've got on your feet again Vanessa, nice positive note there.

Yes. I love my job. And i get help towards my rent. Sometimes the government does help the poor guy! :p

[Mystic Mock]

I'm glad you got back on your feet Vanessa :)

Yes, it's pretty bleak tbh, I mistakenly and overconfidently thought that I would walk into another job very quickly, I have loads of experience to offer, backed up by the relevant qualifications in my field, which is office work. However, what I found was that for every job I went for there were over 100 applicants, and in the majority of cases I didn't even get an interview. :(

I lowered my sights and considered working in other fields, eg retail, but they all want you to be experienced in that particular field, even though I was more than capable of doing the jobs, again I wasn't getting interviews. It was and is very demoralising.

I know the only answer is to keep trying and eventually surely something will break for me, it might just be a case of being in the right place at the right time. :shrug:

With regard to the thread topic, this is why I feel so strongly that this bedroom tax is so unfair, it will only add to the stresses of life for someone such as myself who wants desperately to be back in work, even part time would do, not just for the wage but also for self esteem and feeling like you're doing your bit, and its such a struggle to manage on the money Jobseekers get, God knows how we'll all cope losing a sizeable chunk weekly to offset this tax. It really does beat people down.

Do you sign on? I think that helps im not up on it all though.

[Vicky.]

Do you sign on? I think that helps im not up on it all though.

Everyone on jobseekers 'signs on'

But it doesnt help with looking for a job tbh. The advisors arent the most helpful of people and 9 times out of 10 the jobs they get you to apply for arent even suitable for you. For example when I was about 19, they forced me to apply for a keyholder job at a jewelry shop. The job required 2 years previous keyholder experience (I had no experience), retail experience(none) and a crb check (I have a record for fraud :bored: ) so clearly I wouldnt get the job. But they made me waste my time, and the employers time anyway. Its ridiculous tbh.

Aside from that you are forced to go on WEEK LONG courses to do a CV. I was made to do 9-5 everyday monday to friday. I had my CV before i even went to the damn course. And I had a new CV finished within 15 mins of entering the course too. Yet still had to sit there 9-5 every damn day that week doing absolutely nothing. So basically they used up time I could have spent looking for work...doing nothing but sit in a room so they could claim that I was not out of work that week(when on the jobcentre courses you are classed as 'in training', its how they fiddle with the unemployment figures ;) )

[Vanessa]

I'm glad you got back on your feet Vanessa :)

Yes, it's pretty bleak tbh, I mistakenly and overconfidently thought that I would walk into another job very quickly, I have loads of experience to offer, backed up by the relevant qualifications in my field, which is office work. However, what I found was that for every job I went for there were over 100 applicants, and in the majority of cases I didn't even get an interview. :(

I lowered my sights and considered working in other fields, eg retail, but they all want you to be experienced in that particular field, even though I was more than capable of doing the jobs, again I wasn't getting interviews. It was and is very demoralising.

I know the only answer is to keep trying and eventually surely something will break for me, it might just be a case of being in the right place at the right time. :shrug:

With regard to the thread topic, this is why I feel so strongly that this bedroom tax is so unfair, it will only add to the stresses of life for someone such as myself who wants desperately to be back in work, even part time would do, not just for the wage but also for self esteem and feeling like you're doing your bit, and its such a struggle to manage on the money Jobseekers get, God knows how we'll all cope losing a sizeable chunk weekly to offset this tax. It really does beat people down.

You could try agencies. They usually get you working straightaway. :) I feel like the working class is always the one who is worse off The more we work the more taxes we have to pay. Now we have to pay for an extra bedroom. What's next i wonder? :bored:

[Pyramid*]

Heh, you only just realising this? :tongue:

lol... I've had that opinion for quite some time now.... but I failed to realise just HOW MUCH of an ass it was.!!



Yes. I love my job. And i get help towards my rent. Sometimes the government does help the poor guy! :p

That's why the benefits system is there Vanessa: to help in times of need and it's heartwarming that you found work - and even better, that you are enjoying the job. Win win all round - long may it continue for you.

Just don't start building new bedrooms.....well not yet... !

[Pyramid*]

You could try agencies. They usually get you working straightaway. :) I feel like the working class is always the one who is worse off The more we work the more taxes we have to pay. Now we have to pay for an extra bedroom. What's next i wonder? :bored:


That's been my experience too Vanessa - agencies always seemed to offer far more than the job centre side of things.

Watched a documentary the other week - and interestingly: very good jobs that were available working in the DWP (and over quite some period of time) - somehow managed not to be advertised on their own websites that the jobseekers had access to in the job centre.

[Vicky.]

That's been my experience too Vanessa - agencies always seemed to offer far more than the job centre side of things.

Watched a documentary the other week - and interestingly: very good jobs that were available working in the DWP (and over quite some period of time) - somehow managed not to be advertised on their own websites that the jobseekers had access to in the job centre.

Thats probably because jobseekers are pretty much forced to apply for every job, even ones they arent qualified for and have no chance at all of getting(thus wasting their own time AND more importantly the employers time)...and the jobcentre in question couldnt be arsed with recieving and sifting through 500+ useless application forms (including ones from people who are not fit for work in any manner currently, yet ATOS has deemed them fit against the requests of qualified health professionals) and maybe 1 or 2 that were suitable for the post. But they expect other employers to do this :laugh:

[Vanessa]

That's been my experience too Vanessa - agencies always seemed to offer far more than the job centre side of things.

Watched a documentary the other week - and interestingly: very good jobs that were available working in the DWP (and over quite some period of time) - somehow managed not to be advertised on their own websites that the jobseekers had access to in the job centre.

I think it's worth a try. You may find a better job in agencies. They're always looking for experienced people. :blush:

[Pyramid*]

Thats probably because jobseekers are pretty much forced to apply for every job, even ones they arent qualified for and have no chance at all of getting(thus wasting their own time AND more importantly the employers time)...and the jobcentre in question couldnt be arsed with recieving and sifting through 500+ useless application forms (including ones from people who are not fit for work in any manner currently, yet ATOS has deemed them fit against the requests of qualified health professionals) and maybe 1 or 2 that were suitable for the post. But they expect other employers to do this :laugh:


It was unreal: the 'heid honchie' was brought into the interview to explain... she couldn't... was admanant they were being advertised. Disappeared for ages, came back about 90mins later with the Press Officer - showed the interviewer 'supposed proof'.... and he pointed out that her proof was not the jobs in question. Shocking stuff.

The same programme showed how well (I use the term very loosely) the DWP staff actually checked on the jobs applied for etc... one guy completed his record card with his shopping list....... (quite deliberately & for the programme - to prove his point that his local DWP were completely ineffective) - and not an eyelid was bat - signed on for another 2 wks. !!

Deary me.

I think it's worth a try. You may find a better job in agencies. They're always looking for experienced people. :blush:


Yep, certainly up in this neck of the woods that's the case, they are great for placing people - in fact - all staff I've recruited over the years have come via agencies - and when I'd had the need, I've used them myself.... my last two jobs have come through agencies acting for the Companies recruiting, rather than the job centre.

However... we digress.

[Vicky.]

It was unreal: the 'heid honchie' was brought into the interview to explain... she couldn't... was admanant they were being advertised. Disappeared for ages, came back about 90mins later with the Press Officer - showed the interviewer 'supposed proof'.... and he pointed out that her proof was not the jobs in question. Shocking stuff.

The same programme showed how well (I use the term very loosely) the DWP staff actually checked on the jobs applied for etc... one guy completed his record card with his shopping list....... (quite deliberately & for the programme - to prove his point that his local DWP were completely ineffective) - and not an eyelid was bat - signed on for another 2 wks. !!

Deary me.


Oh I was going to watch that but I forgot about it :laugh:

The system is so ****ed up its unbelievable. Depdnding on where you live, the staff either dont give two ****s if you are actually looking for work (you are always meant to prove it by filling your booklet before each signing time) or are like little mini hitlers about it, demanding that you apply for 100+ jobs per week even if not qualified/experienced.

I really do feel sorry for the employers who advertise via the jobcentre though, the amount of substandard applications they must recieve will be shocking as everyone has to apply wether they fit the description or not :/

I know for sure that when we inherit Gavs dads company (which should be quite soon...) we will NOT be advertising for staff through the jobcentre. Im not going through literally hundreds of applications just to find one that fits what Im looking for.

[Pyramid*]

Oh I was going to watch that but I forgot about it :laugh:

The system is so ****ed up its unbelievable. Depdnding on where you live, the staff either dont give two ****s if you are actually looking for work (you are always meant to prove it by filling your booklet before each signing time) or are like little mini hitlers about it, demanding that you apply for 100+ jobs per week even if not qualified/experienced.

I really do feel sorry for the employers who advertise via the jobcentre though, the amount of substandard applications they must recieve will be shocking as everyone has to apply wether they fit the description or not :/

I know for sure that when we inherit Gavs dads company (which should be quite soon...) we will NOT be advertising for staff through the jobcentre. Im not going through literally hundreds of applications just to find one that fits what Im looking for.

I found myself having to sign on some years back for a short while - there I was, appeared with my wee booklet crammed with jobs I'd applied for, places I'd registred with etc - the lady who dealt with me was incredibly helpful and I honestly couldn't fault her. Still... as I say; it was the agencies that came up trumphs....... which perhaps tells it's own story. so I don't blame you !!

[Vicky.]

I found myself having to sign on some years back for a short while - there I was, appeared with my wee booklet crammed with jobs I'd applied for, places I'd registred with etc - the lady who dealt with me was incredibly helpful and I honestly couldn't fault her. Still... as I say; it was the agencies that came up trumphs....... which perhaps tells it's own story. so I don't blame you !!

Oh yes, it used to be much better than it is now. I used the jobcentre straight out of school, wasnt claiming anything but I was going there daily to find a job, and the staff couldnt be more helpful. There was a LOT more jobs out there back then too.

I think they are just too stretched nowadays, with so many unemployed and so little available/advertised jobs (the majority seem to be word of mouth, or depend on WHO you know, rather than anything else). But the way they operate really doesnt help people to find a job, it just seems to waste time, the jobseekers time, the employers time AND the jobcentres time. I mean, it doesnt take a genius to figure out that if an employer has specifically puts in their ad that they require, for example, at least 2 years retail experience, that making someone with no experience apply for the job is not going to help anyone :joker:

However if you point out to the advisors that its pointless applying if you dont fit the requirements, you are threatened with a sanction...just a vicious circle really.

[Tom4784]

When I was on JSA it was like being in a factory line, you'd sit down they'd glance at your booklet and sign it and then you'd be off with nary a word said. It just wasn't very helpful. apparently it's worse now though, I was talking to a mate about it the other day and basically you just hand in a letter at the front desk now and then they send you on your way without giving you any guidance or support.

How's that meant to be helpful?

[Pyramid*]

Oh yes, it used to be much better than it is now. I used the jobcentre straight out of school, wasnt claiming anything but I was going there daily to find a job, and the staff couldnt be more helpful. There was a LOT more jobs out there back then too.

I think they are just too stretched nowadays, with so many unemployed and so little available/advertised jobs (the majority seem to be word of mouth, or depend on WHO you know, rather than anything else). But the way they operate really doesnt help people to find a job, it just seems to waste time, the jobseekers time, the employers time AND the jobcentres time. I mean, it doesnt take a genius to figure out that if an employer has specifically puts in their ad that they require, for example, at least 2 years retail experience, that making someone with no experience apply for the job is not going to help anyone :joker:

However if you point out to the advisors that its pointless applying if you dont fit the requirements, you are threatened with a sanction...just a vicious circle really.

The last part there.....that's shocking.

[Pyramid*]

When I was on JSA it was like being in a factory line, you'd sit down they'd glance at your booklet and sign it and then you'd be off with nary a word said. It just wasn't very helpful. apparently it's worse now though, I was talking to a mate about it the other day and basically you just hand in a letter at the front desk now and then they send you on your way without giving you any guidance or support.

How's that meant to be helpful?

It's not helpful, not at all.

When you experienced this ... did you raise it with anyone in a senior capacity - if so, what was their reaction? (after watching that documentary I mentioned earlier: I don't' think I'd be surprised if the reaction was 'nil', certainly from what I saw on that programme, as well as what I'm reading here).

[Vicky.]

I know, I disagree with sanctions in the first place. JSA is worked out as the 'minimum amount the LAW says you need to live on', and lets be honest, 70 quid a week or whatever is an absolutely pitiful amount when you have heating costs and that to pay aswell as feeding yourself...but the law is the law. I'm not disputing the amount JSA is...

What I have a massive problem with, is that people can be threatened with getting LESS than the amount the law says you NEED to live on...sometimes even recieving nothing at all for months at a time, for little things such as missing an appointment, or failing to apply for a job. While I agree that jobseekers should do everything they can to find work, the idea that they can just strip you of any money at all on a whim is barbaric to me tbh.

I know one guy who was sanctioned for 2 weeks (a relatively short sanction) for being late for his signing time. The bus he gets did not turn up, and they were only one an hour, so he was about an hour late. But apparently that wasnt a reasonable excuse, he should have gone for the bus 2 hours before his appointment was due to avoid possibly being late. Its pure bullcrap at times.

On a brighter note, he did appeal this sanction, and won, however by the time the appeal went through, he had already gone a fortnight with no money at all anyway, so it wasnt of much help.

[Tom4784]

It's not helpful, not at all.

When you experienced this ... did you raise it with anyone in a senior capacity - if so, what was their reaction? (after watching that documentary I mentioned earlier: I don't' think I'd be surprised if the reaction was 'nil', certainly from what I saw on that programme, as well as what I'm reading here).

I never did since it seemed pointless but my friend did and he just got pushed aside. Our Job Centre is pretty bad though, they won't help you very much and after 1 or 2 sign ins they'll just refer you to this education place which apparently you aren't meant to go to unless you've been on JSA for a very long period of time. They just wash their hands of you really.

I'm glad I took myself off it, I'm earning more then I did when I signed on and I'm only applying for jobs I have a chance of getting instead of being forced to apply for ones I'd never get to satisfy a bureaucratic tyrant.

[Pyramid*]

I know, I disagree with sanctions in the first place. JSA is worked out as the 'minimum amount the LAW says you need to live on', and lets be honest, 70 quid a week or whatever is an absolutely pitiful amount when you have heating costs and that to pay aswell as feeding yourself...but the law is the law. I'm not disputing the amount JSA is...

What I have a massive problem with, is that people can be threatened with getting LESS than the amount the law says you NEED to live on...sometimes even recieving nothing at all for months at a time, for little things such as missing an appointment, or failing to apply for a job. While I agree that jobseekers should do everything they can to find work, the idea that they can just strip you of any money at all on a whim is barbaric to me tbh.

I know one guy who was sanctioned for 2 weeks (a relatively short sanction) for being late for his signing time. The bus he gets did not turn up, and they were only one an hour, so he was about an hour late. But apparently that wasnt a reasonable excuse, he should have gone for the bus 2 hours before his appointment was due to avoid possibly being late. Its pure bullcrap at times.

On a brighter note, he did appeal this sanction, and won, however by the time the appeal went through, he had already gone a fortnight with no money at all anyway, so it wasnt of much help.

That's unbelievable. :shocked: (not as in ''I don't believe you''.... unbelievable that the guy went through all that - the amount of time and money involved in setting up the appeal, hearing it, decisions being made, replying to him..... would have most probably have amounted to more than he was due).

I never did since it seemed pointless but my friend did and he just got pushed aside. Our Job Centre is pretty bad though, they won't help you very much and after 1 or 2 sign ins they'll just refer you to this education place which apparently you aren't meant to go to unless you've been on JSA for a very long period of time. They just wash their hands of you really.

I'm glad I took myself off it, I'm earning more then I did when I signed on and I'm only applying for jobs I have a chance of getting instead of being forced to apply for ones I'd never get to satisfy a bureaucratic tyrant.

Shocking, absolutely shocking.

Part of hearing all this stuff going on - does make me wonder how the actual DWP/JSA staff feel - in reality if they were able to speak up truthfully I mean without reparcussion: are these things happening as they themselves are being put under too much pressure - and this is the knock on effect?

Something's far wrong - that's for sure. It's sad to read of all this kind of stuff going on.

[Tom4784]

The whole system needs an overhaul. I'm just lucky that I've found some good sources of cash in hand work while I look for something more permanent, I'd have hated being in the system for any much longer then I was. The whole time I was on JSA was the most depressing period of my life. I was just made to feel completely useless.

[Vanessa]

The whole system needs an overhaul. I'm just lucky that I've found some good sources of cash in hand work while I look for something more permanent, I'd have hated being in the system for any much longer then I was. The whole time I was on JSA was the most depressing period of my life. I was just made to feel completely useless.

The whole time i was on JSA i felt pressured to find a job quickly. I had one interview, where i was told to get a job so i wouldn't be on benefits. Honestly. :bored: I finally got the help i needed from LEAP. It's a charity that helps you to find work. They showed me what i was doing wrong and i finally got the job i was after. :)

[Pyramid*]

The whole system needs an overhaul. I'm just lucky that I've found some good sources of cash in hand work while I look for something more permanent, I'd have hated being in the system for any much longer then I was. The whole time I was on JSA was the most depressing period of my life. I was just made to feel completely useless.


It's lousy if that's been your experience - but the one thing I will say Dezzy - is that you yourself have managed to find an alternative in the interim - proving that you are far from useless.

On that note on the 'cash in hand' situ: one of the most lucrative ways is the fast food home delivery drivers: lot of money to be made there (plus a free meal every night just never goes wrong!).

[thesheriff443]

so many posts!
why dont the goverment fine house owners that have several houses or flats and let them sit empty, and beacuse of the lack of houseing people have to go into bed and breakfast.

[Kizzy]

This bedroom tax as far as I am aware is applicable only to social housing stock, the private renters have a benefits cap to reduce housing benefits payments.
This has caused its own problems such as the fragmetation of whole communities and family units.
It seems that social cohesion has been put on a back burner for the time being....

Although that is a different issue, I feel that this will impact on the council housing lists further north as those who due to the cap are forced from their private rented properties in london and surrounding areas.

One point the government could make that would help everyone concerned would be to target underperforming local councils...
Those who do not adequately maintain their housing stock, here in leeds and i'm sure there are in towns and cities up and down the country 1000's of council properties becoming derelict.
Why is this allowed to happen?

At one time this was given media attention and now it all appears to have fizzled out, and who are left to make all the sacrifices?...The tenants and residents of these neglected boroughs.
In my local area the maintainance of council housing and other services has been outsourced, unfortunately they have mismanaged the budget from central government and therefore any improvement works to be done to maintain housing stock are not being carried out.
It is just another example of central government being so out of touch with the rest of the country... i'm not sure they even know if anywhere outside the capital exists!

This is the programme which first made me aware that the problem was not localised, but countrywide.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8931959/The-Great-British-Property-Scandal-Channel-4-preview.html

[Vicky.]

Unsure how reliable this source is, but just found this while looking about at random stuff

http://www.clockworkcontent.com/blog/2011/11/press-release-ex-offenders-exempt-from-housing-benefit-caps/

Apparently ex-offenders and OAPs are exempt from this new tax. OAPS I can understand, but why give favour to ex-offenders :conf:

from that link 'The DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) have approved exemptions for ex-offenders if claimants might present a risk of causing serious harm to the public'.

Surely if they are at risk of harming the public, they should still be locked up, not given priveleges D:

[Kizzy]

Found another site that explains changes to housing benefit.
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/housing_benefit_and_local_housing_allowance/housing_benefit_changes_2013?gclid=CObi7KX0r7ICFUX K

[joeysteele]

All I can see from all those reports as to this move will be that people will try to ride out the extra payments they need to make,they will likely fail as more and more financial pressures come on them because of other benefits reforms and then rent arrears will occur or rise.

Then repossession orders will be sought and people will likely end up being evicted.Every Lib Dem councillor I have spoken to is against this move,even some Conservative councillors are too.
Labour claim to be totally against the move but secretly must be rubbing their hands in glee at its likely implementation.
However,I can only see really bad news on this measure, by the end of 2013 and well into 2014 onwards.

The Govt needs to think hard again and at least reduce by half the originally planned percentages of cuts to housing benefit, if they are not willing to shelve the policy altogether.

[Marsh.]

Unsure how reliable this source is, but just found this while looking about at random stuff

http://www.clockworkcontent.com/blog/2011/11/press-release-ex-offenders-exempt-from-housing-benefit-caps/

Apparently ex-offenders and OAPs are exempt from this new tax. OAPS I can understand, but why give favour to ex-offenders :conf:

from that link

Surely if they are at risk of harming the public, they should still be locked up, not given priveleges D:

That is absolutely baffling. Essentially "playing nice" to ensure they don't kick off or something. The legal system is so backwards it's not even funny.

[Kizzy]

Unsure how reliable this source is, but just found this while looking about at random stuff

http://www.clockworkcontent.com/blog/2011/11/press-release-ex-offenders-exempt-from-housing-benefit-caps/

Apparently ex-offenders and OAPs are exempt from this new tax. OAPS I can understand, but why give favour to ex-offenders :conf:

from that link

Surely if they are at risk of harming the public, they should still be locked up, not given priveleges D:

Omg... Is student accomodation classed as self contained or shared acc?

[Vicky.]

Well well well. I know this isnt about the bedroom tax (though Im looking up about this too) but it seems my local council has a lot of sense :shocked:

Just been looking on their site for the proposals for the new council tax benefit (that people on benefits might have to pay up to 20% of their council tax bill) and it appears they have found a way to manage despite the government cutting their budget and trying to make them get poor people to pay more.

http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=8964
If the council chooses to apply the reduction, then the rest of the claimants who are of working age would need to pay more to make up the reduction in the council’s income. This would mean they would need to start paying around 20 per cent of their Council Tax. Given that the majority of working age people receiving Council Tax Benefit are not in employment or are in low paid work, they will have to meet this from extremely limited budgets.

On the other hand, if the council choose to remove the discretionary Council Tax discounts currently available to owners of certain categories of empty properties, the council would have an additional source of income which could offset the loss in grant.
Durham County Council is aware of the very difficult economic situation faced by many of our households across the county. If we passed on the reduction in Council Tax support to these working age householders, it could significantly add to the problems they face.

I really hope other councils follow this example instead of going for the easy option of adding the extra cost to the most vulnerable.

[Vicky.]

Just got rid of my mate who is in absolute pieces over this, been here for ages.

She got a letter this morning saying she overoccupies by 1 bedroom so will be expected to find an extra £20 per fortnight to make up the shortfall, from the £140 per fornight she gets as she was made unemployed a few months back. She does not have anyway of finding an extra 20 quid a fortnight as everything she gets goes immediately on bills, a little bit of food, and she needs a bit left over for busfares and such to interviews or for regular jobsearching.

The council chose to put her in a 2 bed house when she only asked for a 1 bed flat/bedsit as they had no 1 bed places available at the time and had loads of 2 bed propeties. Now she is being penalised for it. Yeah, her house could go to someone who needs the extra room, however here is the catch...

She is willing to move. But on ringing the council this morning she has been told that the waiting list for a new property currently is around 2-3 years. This new bedroom tax is from April next year. So this means that she will have no choice but to pay money she does not have for 1.5 years at least. The council woman advised her to take in a lodger...what sort of ****ing advice is that? Take in a random person who could rob you or harm you?! She has no family who could take her in either. Her parents are dead and she has no siblings. Of course there is the option of moving to somewhere private rented, but where is she going to find the (often over 1k) bond/rent in advance/admin fees involved with private renting? Its hard enough to find a landlord willing to accept housing benefit in the first place, then finding that much money from nowhere when on JSA? No chance. So basically..she is ****ed. Totally ****ed. Cant move, unwilling to take in a lodger (I do not blame her, its a disataer waiting to happen IMO) has not got the money to pay this extra, so will be evicted no doubt before she can find another suitable property. Unless she turns to crime I guess, until she finds employment again.

Great new scheme eh?

[Jesus.]

Let's go the whole way, and just create ghetto's and poor houses over again.

[Vanessa]

Just got rid of my mate who is in absolute pieces over this, been here for ages.

She got a letter this morning saying she overoccupies by 1 bedroom so will be expected to find an extra £20 per fortnight to make up the shortfall, from the £140 per fornight she gets as she was made unemployed a few months back. She does not have anyway of finding an extra 20 quid a fortnight as everything she gets goes immediately on bills, a little bit of food, and she needs a bit left over for busfares and such to interviews or for regular jobsearching.

The council chose to put her in a 2 bed house when she only asked for a 1 bed flat/bedsit as they had no 1 bed places available at the time and had loads of 2 bed propeties. Now she is being penalised for it. Yeah, her house could go to someone who needs the extra room, however here is the catch...

She is willing to move. But on ringing the council this morning she has been told that the waiting list for a new property currently is around 2-3 years. This new bedroom tax is from April next year. So this means that she will have no choice but to pay money she does not have for 1.5 years at least. The council woman advised her to take in a lodger...what sort of ****ing advice is that? Take in a random person who could rob you or harm you?! She has no family who could take her in either. Her parents are dead and she has no siblings. Of course there is the option of moving to somewhere private rented, but where is she going to find the (often over 1k) bond/rent in advance/admin fees involved with private renting? Its hard enough to find a landlord willing to accept housing benefit in the first place, then finding that much money from nowhere when on JSA? No chance. So basically..she is ****ed. Totally ****ed. Cant move, unwilling to take in a lodger (I do not blame her, its a disataer waiting to happen IMO) has not got the money to pay this extra, so will be evicted no doubt before she can find another suitable property. Unless she turns to crime I guess, until she finds employment again.

Great new scheme eh?

She could get a student to move it. They're usually reliable. A female if she prefers.

[Vicky.]

She could get a student to move it. They're usually reliable. A female if she prefers.

...

I wouldnt share my home with a stranger. Even a stranger of the same sex. Saying someone is usually reliable doesnt mean it would be safe to open your home to them. I think advising people to take strangers into their home is really ****ty advice. will the council be there to pick up the pieces if the lodger ups and leaves at 4am with all the stuff from the house? or if the lodger assaults you? I doubt it.

[Vanessa]

...

I wouldnt share my home with a stranger. Even a stranger of the same sex. Saying someone is usually reliable doesnt mean it would be safe to open your home to them. I think advising people to take strangers into their home is really ****ty advice. will the council be there to pick up the pieces if the lodger ups and leaves at 4am with all the stuff from the house? or if the lodger assaults you? I doubt it.

I know it's a risk. It would be better to get a friend to move in.

[Vicky.]

I know it's a risk. It would be better to get a friend to move in.

Well I suggested that actually. I'm hoping she manages to find someone she knows who needs a place to live and this sorry mess can all be sorted out. If she cant find someone though, shes knackered.

[Kizzy]

You can't have lodgers in local authority homes...wth is the advisor on about.
I would contact all local MP's for advice, and she could put her name down on the mutual exchange list?
One little bit of good news is that all bus travel will be free for jobseekers from jan so she will save a fair bit of money there?
I really hope she gets something sorted vicky. :)

[Vicky.]

You can't have lodgers in local authority homes...wth is the advisor on about.
I would contact all local MP's for advice, and she could put her name down on the mutual exchange list?
One little bit of good news is that all bus travel will be free for jobseekers from jan so she will save a fair bit of money there?
I really hope she gets something sorted vicky. :)

You can, but you have to get permission from the council to do so.

I didnt know about the free travel for jobseekers thing, good idea and long overdue IMO.

[Irene Pearson]

Modern day Highway Robbery. If someone is living in a larger house they are paying a larger rent surely? What next for heavens sake ? garden sheds? wendy houses? There is nothing left to tax and this proves it. Since when did having a spare room for visitors become an offence?

[Irene Pearson]

Let's go the whole way, and just create ghetto's and poor houses over again.

For once I agree with you wholeheartedly!

[Irene Pearson]

That is absolutely baffling. Essentially "playing nice" to ensure they don't kick off or something. The legal system is so backwards it's not even funny.

Well there is the answer lets all go out and indulge in a bit of law breaking. So glad I am old.

[Vicky.]

Modern day Highway Robbery. If someone is living in a larger house they are paying a larger rent surely? What next for heavens sake ? garden sheds? wendy houses? There is nothing left to tax and this proves it. Since when did having a spare room for visitors become an offence?

Not necessarily with council properties. All the council places round here are pretty much the same.

Its a 'reduction in housing benefit' though, rather than a bedroom tax. Basically more attempts to save a bit from the benefit bill (under the disguise of it being to 'free up housing' for families) with no thought at all put into how it will affect peoples lives...and again not affecting pensioners (more likely to vote ;) ) even though they are more likely than anyone else to be underoccupying. Most of the pensioners where I live live alone or just as a couple and all houses here are 2/3/4 bedroomed...

[Kizzy]

You can, but you have to get permission from the council to do so.

I didnt know about the free travel for jobseekers thing, good idea and long overdue IMO.

Really? It's not on my tenancy agreement, a friend of mine was threatened with eviction a few years ago and there was no question of being able to sublet.
Looks as if they are shifting the goalposts, but in all seriousness I wouldn't entertain the stress of having strangers in my home for the sake of £20pw.

[Vicky.]

With the bedroom tax due to hit many vulerable people in the next few weeks...MPs second home allowance RISES :rolleyes:

http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/03/14/second-home-expenses-boost-for-mps/

The costs of running and paying for a second home are on the rise. That's why MPs have been given an extra £100 to help them cope.

All in this together still though I guess..****ing disgusting :bored:

[lostalex]

That's OUTRAGEOUS!

I wouldn't pay it if i were you.

(that's what i say every time i go out to eat with my friends right before i hand them the bill)

[joeysteele]

With the bedroom tax due to hit many vulerable people in the next few weeks...MPs second home allowance RISES :rolleyes:

http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/03/14/second-home-expenses-boost-for-mps/



All in this together still though I guess..****ing disgusting :bored:

Note Vicky, they aren't saying that anymore,caught out again with their deceit.
We hear nothing of Cameron's big society plan either now.

This bedroom tax is going to cause chaos, it will I feel sure over the next 12 months become this Coalition Govts. poll tax.
It is unjust and ridiculous.

[Vicky.]

OK, logged onto facebook today tos ee this link/ It needs spread as wide as possible, so if you or anyone you know is about to be hit by the bedroom tax..have a read of this

www.speye.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/if-ever-tenant-appeals-the-bedroom-tax-will-go-direct-action-is-needed/

Basically everyone has grounds to appeal. And everyone should appeal. If even 50% of people hit by this appeal then it will bring the system to its knees and it will very likely be done away with.

[Kizzy]

OK, logged onto facebook today tos ee this link/ It needs spread as wide as possible, so if you or anyone you know is about to be hit by the bedroom tax..have a read of this

www.speye.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/if-ever-tenant-appeals-the-bedroom-tax-will-go-direct-action-is-needed/

Basically everyone has grounds to appeal. And everyone should appeal. If even 50% of people hit by this appeal then it will bring the system to its knees and it will very likely be done away with.

Copied vicky will post it on my FB now thanks :)

[mizzy25]

havent read all of this as theres too much. my nephew and his girlfriend live in a 3 bedroomed house they have 2 boys one 8 one 6 both a year older this year so 9 and 7 but the council say they can share a bedroom therefore they have to pay the bedroom tax. on and they can only share a bedroom till the oldest one is 10 which is next year! totally ridiculous.

[joeysteele]

As this ridiculous, unjust and completely heartless tax draws nearer, people are now only understanding the full effects it will have.
Already this Govt is and has re-thought some elements to it and made concessions.

It is the most ridiculous idea from any Govt and I have nothing but contempt for the Lib Dems who helped support this policy through.
I also know of a couple who have 3 daughters, in a 4 bedroomed house, one of which is a very small box room,barely room for a single bed and another item of furniture.
They have been told, 2 of the daughters should share, another have a bedroom but that they will then be liable for the under occupancy charge for the small bedroom.
It will leave them £55 worse off every month.

I have said for over a year now,this policy will lead to heavy rent arrears next year as people think they can save on gas and electric this year to pay it,only to find themselves in problems when winter bites again and higher energy bills.

There will likely be court cases for rent arrears and then eviction orders coming next year.
There are not the one bedroomed or smaller properties available to house everyone affected by this obscene measure and it should be scrapped.

It is a policy that should never have even been thought of never mind implemented and I really hope it becomes this heartless Govts poll tax.

[arista]

"I have nothing but contempt for the Lib Dems who helped support this policy through."


"But there is Money problems ,
after New Labour burnt the money,
and they can also see the books that
tell you round the corner is far worse."

[Vanessa]

I'm lucky i have a one bedroom flat. I'd be furious if i had to pay this as well.

[Vicky.]

Brighton and Hove council arent going to evict anyone who gets into debt over this ridiculous idea

http://keepourcouncilhomes.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/council-no-tenant-to-be-evicted-over-bedroom-tax/

I hope other councils follow suit.




Arista, you say this is about saving money on the benefit bill as labour left debt. Now, I agree with you that its about saving money, but the government keep saying that its to 'free up larger housing for families'

It wont do either and heres why

- Pensioners are most likely to be 'underoccupying' than anyone else and they are exempt from this.
-Many people hit will be couples with no kids who have a 2 bed property. One bedroomed places are very rare, I'm sure most people know this. So these families that the houses need freed up for are going to be most likely in 2 bed places anyway. Why penalise the couple in a 2 bed property, despite there being nowhere for them to move to...and them moving wouldnt help anyone anyway? In short, there arent enough places for people to downsize to.
-People cannot afford the massive costs involved with moving..so wont move.

Now onto why it wont save money.

-Those that do move, will most likely move into private housing(as it has been confirmed by many many councils that enough smaller council properties dont exist), which costs a lot more on the housing benefit bill than social housing does.
-Among people who have to move are the disabled who have their properties adapted for their needs. Move these people, and its more cost to the government, having to adapt their new properties too.

There are many more arguments for both of those, but that was the first ones that came into my head when writing this :p

In short, a good idea in theory, very unfairly implemented, and not thought through well at all.

[joeysteele]

"I have nothing but contempt for the Lib Dems who helped support this policy through."


"But there is Money problems ,
after New Labour burnt the money,
and they can also see the books that
tell you round the corner is far worse."

Then they should be going for greater savings than this from those that can best afford to lose out a bit more and not keep banging the sledgehammer against the most vulnerable.
They should also have made sure there were adequate and enough properties available to properly house the people they are trying to force out of their homes, homes people were even likely born in decades ago and who are sitting with secured tenancies.
Who now because they are on very low incomes and status are near being politically blackmailed out of those homes.

It is the shocking failure of all Govts to deal with the housing problems not just Labour's,yes they had 13 years of power from 1997 to 2010 but the Conservatives had 18 years of unbroken power before that and did nothing to address this problem or plan ahead either, even after selling off council housing stock.

While I agree, Labour helped run up a debt and deficit problem.They could likely only have avoided that by going down the route of the Govt of the 1980s and allowed Jobs to be lost and unemployment to rise to ridiculous levels.
Thereby creating massive human cost as to livelihoods and jobs
Many of the unemployment problems now still stem from the 80s and early 90s Govt belief that unemployment was a price worth paying to get out of their recessions.

They are not going to solve the debt crisis by hammering the most vulnerable, sick and disabled and even people working on very low incomes too.
They are failing on every front of their economic policies almost, Osborne will be coming out again next week likely revising down his forecasts as he has had to do every year since coming to power.

No decent Govt would make the poorest and most vulnerable pay for the mistakes of Bankers and Govts of all parties like this Govt is, it is obscene and it is why I have certainly parted company with this rotten shambles of a Govt and hope they get well and truly thrown out at the next election.

The bedroom tax is a rotten,heartlesss and unfair policy, that like so many other policies that are failing and have already failed is as badly thought out as it is going to be in practice too.

Another heartless policy from a Govt that has no heart, however it is gutless too, because it can only prey on the weakest and most vulnerable in society and that really stinks to me.

[arista]

"The bedroom tax is a rotten,heartlesss and unfair policy, "


Sure but it will get far worse
for 10 years or so.

[joeysteele]

"The bedroom tax is a rotten,heartlesss and unfair policy, "


Sure but it will get far worse
for 10 years or so.

All the more reason then not to batter the weakest and poorest and I include the sick and disabled in that too.
To make sure in fact they are protected not exposed to insecurities further

All the more reason to be looking at really sorting the problems out by ensuring it is done in fair and just policies.

If it is going to get worse over the next 10 years now as you indicate, then that is a massive further condemnation towards the policies of this present Govt who insisted the cuts they would be making and the policies they would be undertaking would all but clear the deficit by 2015 and restore secure growth for the future too.

To now be admitting for the next 10 years that things are likely to get far worse, that has to be laid only at the door of this Govt and its policies which have by far failed to achieve anything really it was insisted they would do.

[Vicky.]

And while people are already going to struggle paying this...it comes out that the jobcentres have TARGETS of how many people to sanction each week :bored:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/21/jobcentre-set-targets-benefit-sanctions

Absolutely ****ing disgraceful. Actually looking for reasons to leave someone destitute.

Her advice includes: "Do not accept the same job search every week, do not accept 'I dropped off CV to shops like Asda or Sainsbury's', listen for telltale phrases 'I pick up the kids', 'I look after my neighbours children/my grandchildren' or just 'I am busy' – all of which suggest that the customer may not be fully available for work, even cases where a parent shares custody can be considered."

[Jesus.]

I'm not particularly a fan of labour, but people need to drop the myth that Labour are in any way to blame for the financial meltdown.

It was a worldwide crisis brought about by the bankers. This isn't even open to dispute, so why Arista keeps peddling some nonsense about labour is baffling.

The reforms being pushed by the right have nothing to do with deficits and debt, but are ideological aims by the far right.

The gap between rich and poor continues to get wider everyday, yet the people at the top want to keep taking away from the poor. How much is enough for these people? When will they finally allow people to live?

[arista]

I'm not particularly a fan of labour, but people need to drop the myth that Labour are in any way to blame for the financial meltdown.

It was a worldwide crisis brought about by the bankers. This isn't even open to dispute, so why Arista keeps peddling some nonsense about labour is baffling.

The reforms being pushed by the right have nothing to do with deficits and debt, but are ideological aims by the far right.

The gap between rich and poor continues to get wider everyday, yet the people at the top want to keep taking away from the poor. How much is enough for these people? When will they finally allow people to live?


No but because of that Brown Sold off all our Gold Vaults dirt cheap.

The Fact that America was in a mess
does not mean I let New Labour off.
Its the way they Let Our Banks get away with it.

So New Labour burnt all our money
because they were stupid.

[Jesus.]

No but because of that Brown Sold off all our Gold Vaults dirt cheap.

The Fact that America was in a mess
does not mean I let New Labour off.
Its the way they Let Our Banks get away with it.

So New Labour burnt all our money
because they were stupid.


It wasn't just America that was in a mess, it was the financial world. No political party would have tackled the banks, just like they haven't anywhere else.

[arista]

It wasn't just America that was in a mess, it was the financial world. No political party would have tackled the banks, just like they haven't anywhere else.


Yes
But New Labour made it worse.
Thats why I will not let go of my bone

[Jesus.]

Yes
But New Labour made it worse.
Thats why I will not let go of my bone

Keep your bone, Arista. It's genuinely insane though as the problem is politicians unwilling to fight for the people they represent in exchange for corporate donors. It's nothing to do with political parties. They're all ****houses.

[joeysteele]

I'm not particularly a fan of labour, but people need to drop the myth that Labour are in any way to blame for the financial meltdown.

It was a worldwide crisis brought about by the bankers. This isn't even open to dispute, so why Arista keeps peddling some nonsense about labour is baffling.

The reforms being pushed by the right have nothing to do with deficits and debt, but are ideological aims by the far right.

The gap between rich and poor continues to get wider everyday, yet the people at the top want to keep taking away from the poor. How much is enough for these people? When will they finally allow people to live?

I have to say I am more in agreement with this.

I also believe no matter what Govt had been in at this time the same crisis would have occurred although likely the Conservative party would have allowed unemployment to rocket rather than take a financial route to try to deal with the situation,thereby causing massive loss of livelihoods to peoples lives anyway.
Also while I would agree Labour had 13 years in power,I also am mystified why as to banking particularly, nothing was done in a whole 18 years of unbroken rule by the Conservatives as to them in that time either.

This bedroom tax,(although the Govt hates it being called a tax,however how odd many Conservative councillors I have talked to and near all Lib Dem councillors call it the bedroom tax), is in my view 100% wrong for the many reasons I have already said previously in posts on this thread.

They have already looked at and changed slightly this bit of it and that bit of it and are even looking at more of it again now.
It is a totally badly planned idea that any Govt with even a tiny shred of decency left in it at all would scrap completely.
What it is likely to save is not worth the hassle and bother it will bring really.

[Jesus.]

I'd really recommend a book by Naomi Klein called shock doctrine, Joey. Think you'd find it an interesting read.

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

[Vicky.]

I'm not particularly a fan of labour, but people need to drop the myth that Labour are in any way to blame for the financial meltdown.

It was a worldwide crisis brought about by the bankers. This isn't even open to dispute, so why Arista keeps peddling some nonsense about labour is baffling.

The reforms being pushed by the right have nothing to do with deficits and debt, but are ideological aims by the far right.

The gap between rich and poor continues to get wider everyday, yet the people at the top want to keep taking away from the poor. How much is enough for these people? When will they finally allow people to live?

Yeah, I find it quite amusing that some seem to think labour were capable of causing a worldwide recession. But I just let them get on with it tbh..once something is so set in someones mind, theres no changing it.

[michael21]

it does not effect me :hmph: but what date dose it come in :colour::colour::colour:

[arista]

Yeah, I find it quite amusing that some seem to think labour were capable of causing a worldwide recession. But I just let them get on with it tbh..once something is so set in someones mind, theres no changing it.


I have never said that Vicky.



But if Labour get power they want to go like Greece
and borrow until Bankrupt.

Labour are Worse.

[Jesus.]

I have never said that Vicky.



But if Labour get power they want to go like Greece
and borrow until Bankrupt.

Labour are Worse.

Firstly we don't have a debt/deficit problem, we have a jobs problem. If you get people back to work, the pay taxes, and buy from businesses, those businesses are then able to hire more workers, buy more expensive personal goods etc.

In order to kick off a jobs program in the first place, you need to borrow the money to pay for infrastructure repairs. There is good and bad debt, borrowing to increase tax base and get the economy moving from the bottom up is good debt. Borrowing money to pay for tax reductions on the top earners is bad debt.

It really is basic economics. You can ignore it if you wish, but when you throw out stuff like "we'll be Greece" then they are right wing talking points, not facts.

[joeysteele]

I honestly now do not believe that Labour could be any worse than this Coalition, I have in the last 5 years crossed completely the political divide.
I supported this Coalition when it came to power,I even hoped for good things from it but I really draw the line at any party in power battering the weakest and most vulnerable in its society.
I also have no faith in either of the Coalition party's as to the NHS and will not trust my vote to either for them to damage the NHS further.

This Chancellor is a total failure,he comes out year after with forecasts,all that have to be downgraded the next year due to this Govts failure, not just downgraded either but as to this years budget,heavily downgraded too.

Labours plan to make less cuts and none in the first year at all, also to only set out to halve the deficit in 4 years actually now seems to have been the fairer way and easier way to handle things.
What this lot are doing is failing on a grand scale and they still set out to hammer the weakest and poorest more and more as if it is the poors fault for the mess.

This bedroom tax they claim is for under occupying, however it is only the people who are in the unfortunate position to have to claim housing benefit that would seem to be under occupying council housing according to this Govt.
It claims really that this under occupancy reform is to open up houses for families where houses are being under occupied.
However someone working with a good income, in council housing,living alone, is not according to this Govt under occupying,it is only the people who have to claim housing benefit that are under occupying and who are going to be penalised

Both sets of tenants were given secured tenancies but it is only the weakest and poorest on the lowest income that are to punished for under occupying.
This Govt is a total disgrace on this policy.
I have come across people who are going to be affected by this, who have worked most of their lives but now due to illness they cannot work ,some are in the house they were born in but this Govt is near politically blackmailing them out of the house simply because they are on housing benefit.

It is a gutless and cowardly policy from a gutless Govt that can only attack the weakest in the UK while strengthening the position of the richest and strongest and I want no part of any Party that advocates that line and this bedroom tax is not only wrong,in my view it is a totally unjust discrimination too.

[arista]

Firstly we don't have a debt/deficit problem, we have a jobs problem. If you get people back to work, the pay taxes, and buy from businesses, those businesses are then able to hire more workers, buy more expensive personal goods etc.

In order to kick off a jobs program in the first place, you need to borrow the money to pay for infrastructure repairs. There us good and bad debt. Borrowing to increase tax base and get the economy moving from the bottom up is good debt. Borrowing money to pay for tax reductions on the top earners is bad debt.

It really is basic economics. You can ignore it if you wish, but when you throw out stuff like "we'll be Greece" then they are right wing talking points, not facts.


Yes Jobs are on the way but there is not enough of them.
and at this time we are sadly borrowing due to the flat line status.


And Right Wing
is a easy label.


Sign Of The Times

[Vicky.]

Protests all over the country today

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork?utm_campaign=unknown&utm_source=11808409&utm_medium=social

Stream of trafalger square ^

[Kizzy]

Well waddya know? the uk can be stirred by something ....
9AlH2oYedfk

[joeysteele]

Well done to the people who have demonstrated against this obscene tax today.

As more is learned as to it, people are realising how heartless and unjust it is.
There will be much more of these demonstrations to come next year likely when the true problems of rent arrears and people being evicted start.
There will also be a great many people who will know of someone who has been badly affected and unfairly so by this tax.

Just nicely in time for the General election to follow the year after,I still say it, this bedroom tax will likely become this Coalitions poll tax.
They haven't listened, they won't listen so out they will go.

[arista]

Well done to the people who have demonstrated against this obscene tax today.

As more is learned as to it, people are realising how heartless and unjust it is.
There will be much more of these demonstrations to come next year likely when the true problems of rent arrears and people being evicted start.
There will also be a great many people who will know of someone who has been badly affected and unfairly so by this tax.

Just nicely in time for the General election to follow the year after,I still say it, this bedroom tax will likely become this Coalitions poll tax.
They haven't listened, they won't listen so out they will go.

Unjust
You will find the Next 10 years Far Worse


Its a good job you ain't in Cyprus



Feck Sake Joey Wake Up

[joeysteele]

I don't live in Cyprus though arista,I live in a supposedly decent society namely the UK.

I do not though consider it just to tell people they are entitled to something and to then have them claim it and give it to them, then to come along and take it off them in part or wholly.
I can accept them being told they could not have more entitlements,I cannot though accept taking entitlements from them and decreeing they have to be worse off by having to use funds from what they were also told they had to have to live on.

It is unjust, it is heartless and the fact this policy is directed against the weakest,poorest and most vulnerable,including the sick and disabled, makes it even more unjust and heartless.

It is this gutless and heartless Govt that needs to wake up, not me and those who can see this tax is totally wrong.
It also is really certainly not worth the effort being put into it by this Govt for the pittance it will save in Govt money terms.

[arista]

Its Not a Bedroom Tax


Its a Benefit. That has to be Cut

Loads are waiting for a Room to Live in.

[michael21]

Its Not a Bedroom Tax


Its a Benefit. That has to be Cut

Loads are waiting for a Room to Live in.

yea but older people who may have lost parters are having to move because of this

[joeysteele]

Its Not a Bedroom Tax


Its a Benefit. That has to be Cut

Loads are waiting for a Room to Live in.

Only the Conservatives don't call this a bedroom tax although in fact I know Conservatives councillors in my home town who do, especially the ones who hate it themselves and are learning of the problems it is going to bring.
Lib Dem councillors certainly call it the bedroom tax.The Govt doesn't want it called that because it exposes how rotten and sinister this policy is.

There are not the properties available of one bedroomed flats,bungalows or houses for anything near the number of people who will have to pay this tax.
It is an absolute disgrace to be even considering cutting this benefit when they don't even have the properties for the people to go into.

It is not the most vulnerables fault that they have had to come to rely on housing benefit, of course some abuse the system just as many at the top end abuse the income tax system too on a far larger scale financially.
Many of the people affected by this will be sick and disabled and a great many of those will have worked for decades in their lives paying their taxes for these entitlements too.

It is a rotten, gutless policy with not an ounce of compassion in it and as it unfoldes over this year and next, it will I am convinced see this Govt out on its ear in 2015 and deservedly so too.

Even reducing the % that people would lose under this policy would be a start, will they do that, no they will not.
This is both heartless and discimination too, because there is no penalty for those under occupying council housing who have a job and don't claim housing beneit it is only targeted at the unfortunates who now have to rely on housing benefit which is now being taken away from them.

A pathetic,cowardly and rotten policy from any Govt that has been enacted in the UK.
Unbelievable,to me anyway, anyone could really defend it in the form it is being enforced in.

Anyway I have said enough as to this policy, I would be ahsmamed to have any part of this policy myself.
However I will watch and see the rent arrears rise and then people get evicted for not being able to pay the rent and this extra tax.
As those evictions come and neighbours,friends and family of the evicted see the heartless damage it will cause then the demonstrations that have been against it so far will seem like nothing.

Labour must be ringing its hands with glee that the Govt haven't ditched this policy.
For me though, sadly it's peoples lives and status that is being undermined through nothing that they themselves have done wrong at all, just the massive failure of Govts of both parties really failing over the last 30 years to properly address the housing shortages.

[arista]

Yes Conservatives know the Truth

Its not a Bedroom Tax.

Its a Benefit. That Will be Cut - Times are Hard

Loads are waiting for a Room to Live in.


30% of labour voters say it Right.

So your "Glee"
is lost

[joeysteele]

Yes Conservatives know the Truth

Its not a Bedroom Tax.

Its a Benefit. That Will be Cut - Times are Hard

Loads are waiting for a Room to Live in.

Well it's a policy that has turned me 100% and a fair number of my family who have before, from even thinking of voting Conservative in 2015.
Not the only issue, the NHS is another major problem for us with the Conservatives.

I stress again though, they should have made sure they had the one bedroomed and 2 bedroomed properties needed to house these people they are taking money off now before they even thought of bringing in this absurd policy.It is the Govts of the last 30 years who are to blame for those people needing bigger houses not the people at the lower end of the scale.
Do you actually think it right to batter the most vulnerable this way, I certainly don't and I never will.

Stll, I am finding 'soft' Conservative voters from 2010 very worried as to this policy now. They are also near furious with David Cameron for not thinking things through better on it too and not just on this issue but on many other policies too.

[arista]

"fair number"


many of those - may not even vote


As Labour is staying in this Cut back way


Alot can change in 2 years
so you have no idea but what you think

[joeysteele]

Well, that's all any of us have arista really,what we think.
In those 2 years though, the effects of the further cuts still to come plus the real devastating effects of this bedroom tax will filter through by the end of this year and all through next as that is likely when the court cases for rent arrears and evictions begin.

The main problems with the ongoing NHS reforms will also likely hit waiting lists and further problems will occur there in the NHS too.
The growth forecasts have all been heavily downgraded again in the recent statement from the Chancellor, all independent sources are it seems stating that people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010.

The deficit reduction policy from 2010 will be nowhere near what the Govt said it would have to be by 2015.
No one but this Govt to blame for that not working.
They argued the severe cuts were needed in the first year because it wasn't known what could happen in the Eurozone.

Teachers are now getting ready to be at loggerheads with this Govt and the Police still have no faith in the current Home secretary.

I may not know what will be the situation as to the result of the next general election but this Govt is far from looking a good bet to win now in 2015, the Lib Dems are still at best on half the votes they got last time, the Conservatives have never even reached over 35% in any poll for well over a year now,as they could only barely do in the 2010 election anyway even after that chaos and gaffe ridden campaign by the Labour party.

I really don't believe the vast majority of voters like to see the weakest hit by the strongest, as this bedroom tax kicks in, I really believe this Govt will be held in contempt by the voters of this policy for doing just that.
I and indeed you, know nothing for sure, however I do have great faith in the voters of this Country and I have faith they will really turn, once the effects are seen as to the devastation of a great many of the most vulnerable peoples lives through this Govt and this bedroom tax policy.

A lot can change in 2 years as you say, something you said earlier was things will be bad for the next 10 years so in that case,I cannot myself see anything positive coming to help the Conservatives get anywhere near an overall majority in 2015, in fact I would go as far as to say they will be a fair way away from even being the largest party then too.

At the very least,I believe there will likely be a Labour govt in coalition with the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dems then doing their usual turncoat trick and voting to repeal a lot of what they strongly supported in this Coalition.

Although it is more likely the voters will give Labour an overall majority. The problem for the voters last time was Gordon Brown,yet even then the Conservatives could only add 3.5% to their vote from 2005 and finish on only 36%.
In fact the Conservatives only added about 5.5% to their vote in the whole 13 years from 1997 while they were in opposition.
If the country had doubts about them then, they will be even more careful to avoid helping them to an overall majority in 2015.
A different leader and Labour could have grabbed another 15 seats at least likely.

Anyway arista, we are never going to agree on this issue, I do feel though I can be almost 100% sure that this bedroom tax and the effects of it will do absolutely nothing to help this Govt,nothing at all and I do hope it does become their poll tax.

[arista]

"Anyway arista, we are never going to agree on this issue, I do feel though I can be almost 100% sure that this bedroom tax and the effects of it will do absolutely nothing to help this Govt,nothing at all and I do hope it does become their poll tax. "


Sure
But this is no Poll Tax

Its a benefit for some
that is Being Cut.



Do not get stuck in Hype

[arista]

"I believe there will likely be a Labour govt in coalition with the Lib Dems."


You having a Laugh
Ed has Refused to work with Nick

Thats from Todays News
Labour wants to be alone - the stupid feckers


"900,000 choose to come off sickness benefit ahead of tests"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9963012/900000-choose-to-come-off-sickness-benefit-ahead-of-tests.html


That says a Great Deal about New Labours Feck Up

[joeysteele]

"I believe there will likely be a Labour govt in coalition with the Lib Dems."


You having a Laugh
Ed has Refused to work with Nick

Thats from Todays News
Labour wants to be alone - the stupid feckers


"900,000 choose to come off sickness benefit ahead of tests"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9963012/900000-choose-to-come-off-sickness-benefit-ahead-of-tests.html

That says a Great Deal about New Labours Feck Up


If Labour don't get an overall majority but if they can manage to govern with the likes of the SDLP from N.Ireland they won't likely need the Lib Dems anyway.
If they did though, Miliband will not need to worry as to working with Nick Clegg, Clegg will resign as leader as soon as it is clear the Lib Dems have lost seats heavily and that is if he even manages to hold his own seat in Sheffield Hallam.

Plenty in the Lib Dems want Clegg gone,he will likely be off to Europe very soon after the 2015 election,in fact many of his party wish he would go sooner.

As to the above as to benefits,If that is the case, then good that so many have come off benefits, I don't deny there are people who are on benefits who shouldn't be, there will always be some who abuse the system.
The vast majority don't, I find it amazing when those at the lower end of the scale on benefits get demonised by the Conservatives and some of their supporters while little is said about Companies who 'fiddle' against paying VAT, and also high earners who manage to avoid paying due taxes.

Poeple get a part time job, some keep claiming benefits,all of which are maybe not what they are entitled to, likely for a time,I don't agree with that.

I have absolutely no problem with any Govt looking for people who abuse the system, I do have a massive problem and contempt for any Govt that would demonise and punish people who don't and never have abused the benefits entitlements they have though.

As to the bit in bold, well this Govt is doing an even better job of that than Labour did now in my view and I never ever believed I would actually be saying that someday.

[Vicky.]

"I believe there will likely be a Labour govt in coalition with the Lib Dems."


You having a Laugh
Ed has Refused to work with Nick

Thats from Todays News
Labour wants to be alone - the stupid feckers


"900,000 choose to come off sickness benefit ahead of tests"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9963012/900000-choose-to-come-off-sickness-benefit-ahead-of-tests.html


That says a Great Deal about New Labours Feck Up
Not really, since it was thatcher that stuck loads of people onto sickness benefits to massage the unemployment figures.

Yes, labour should have done something about it during their time in power, but they didnt cause this, unfortunately for you ;)

Also, personally I am highly dubious about the 90k figure. I cant see 90k people just not bothering to even attend their medical.

[Kizzy]

I agree that we have to find social housing for people who are desperate for them, however I do NOT feel this is the correct way to free up housing. And in most cases it won't it just penalises those who are elderly, disabled and or vulnerable.
Why are more social housing not being constructed?
Why are the social housing stock we have not adequately maintained?

[Vicky.]

I agree that we have to find social housing for people who are desperate for them, however I do NOT feel this is the correct way to free up housing. And in most cases it won't it just penalises those who are elderly, disabled and or vulnerable.
Why are more social housing not being constructed?
Why are the social housing stock we have not adequately maintained?

Also, why has the right to buy scheme not been abolished. Since thats part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

Would have been grand if everytime someone bought their council house, another was built. But it hasnt ended up like that. Yet the stock is STILL being sold off and none built to replace it.

This money they are now throwing at people to buy houses (which people can use to buy second homes too)...they should be using it to build more social housing instead IMO.

[joeysteele]

Also, why has the right to buy scheme not been abolished. Since thats part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

Would have been grand if everytime someone bought their council house, another was built. But it hasnt ended up like that. Yet the stock is STILL being sold off and none built to replace it.

This money they are now throwing at people to buy houses (which people can use to buy second homes too)...they should be using it to build more social housing instead IMO.

Absolutely,100% agreement from me as to that point too.

[Kizzy]

Excellent point vicky, can't believe I forgot about this, it is exactly what happened when the right to buy scheme was introduced lots of people bought their council home, many lost their jobs not long after and the repossesion rates in the very early 90's soared...
Why would they want to replicate that?... :suspect:

[Vicky.]

LOL this keeps getting better and better

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/paedophiles-rapists-dodge-bedroom-tax-1795785

PAEDOPHILES and rapists will dodge the bedroom tax while poverty-hit families face homelessness.

A shocking loophole in the Con-Dem welfare cuts, which come into force today, could mean thousands of sex offenders being exempt.

:bored:

[Kizzy]

Social analysts are concerned that deprivation levels are going back to those of 30 years ago, with the poorest families worse off than they were under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.Debt and food poverty are growing, homelessness is increasing, and demand on food banks is soaring – a sign of more people falling through the welfare net. The social impact of this impoverishment of Britain's poorest families – with more than 60% of such households in work – will unravel recent achievements in tackling poverty, say campaigners. According to Alison Garnham, chief executive of the CPAG, the coalition "is on course to leave behind the worst child poverty record of any government for a generation".

Others see the welfare agenda as presaging a profound shift in the relationship between the state and its most vulnerable citizens. "Last year I warned that we risk a decade of destitution. Some thought I was being over-dramatic," says Julia Unwin, head of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. "I am more convinced than ever that we have a perfect storm brewing; the reforms to welfare, the economic slowdown and spiralling costs, together with an increasingly spiteful tone in how we describe people in poverty, risks the UK becoming a nation where people face destitution."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/31/bedroom-tax-benefit-cap-tottenham

[arista]

Yes Kizzy
But this is Not a Bedroom Tax
Its a Benefit that Half of Labour and Conservative (Workers)
say must stop.

New Labour did not build massive Housing in there massive long 13 years
so as a result - spare rooms will be used or paid for.

There are many cases which will not be in this
Medical reasons. This takes time to sort.


Life In The Fast Lane

[joeysteele]

Bedroom tax, under occupancy of social housing charge,(only being discriminately applied to the vulnerable having to claim benefit though).
Whatever you call it, is going to take money away every week from the people who can least afford to have money taken off them.
As I and others try to keep pointing out, as do local authorities,Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem ones,there are not the smaller properties available to move all these people into anyway,however those who cannot move, even if they wanted to, still have to pay this money extra every week.

What a ridiculous thing to do to anyone in any circumstances, to say you have to pay this charge/tax even if they have nowhere else smaller for you to go, there is no way to avoid doing so from today.
Like many other policies over the last 3 years, this is one of the daftest and most heartless yet.

Lib Dems are starting to run scared on it now, time that gutless and heartless politician IDS, already a massively failed politician at that, was forced to ditch this rotten idea once and for all.
What he is doing planning incomes and livelihoods is beyond me anyway,even his own party didn't trust him with theri future as leader.

[Kizzy]

Yes Kizzy
But this is Not a Bedroom Tax
Its a Benefit that Half of Labour and Conservative (Workers)
say must stop.

New Labour did not build massive Housing in there massive long 13 years
so as a result - spare rooms will be used or paid for.

There are many cases which will not be in this
Medical reasons. This takes time to sort.


Life In The Fast Lane

What would you call it, If you object to that term that has been adopted by the majority of the UK and is entirely apt?
Time? that is the one thing the elderlly and the disabled do not have while the government flounder around attempting to bash a square peg into a round hole.
Build more social housing... that is the only viable option here it would tick so many boxes and be of the greatest benefit, Why do we have town planners?
villages could be erected reasonably cheaply now with the advances in prefabricated housing.
Who will this model they have implemented benefit?

[arista]

What would you call it, If you object to that term that has been adopted by the majority of the UK and is entirely apt?
Time? that is the one thing the elderlly and the disabled do not have while the government flounder around attempting to bash a square peg into a round hole.
Build more social housing... that is the only viable option here it would tick so many boxes and be of the greatest benefit, Why do we have town planners?
villages could be erected reasonably cheaply now with the advances in prefabricated housing.
Who will this model they have implemented benefit?


No Left wingers call it that

Its a Benefit Stop.


"villages could be erected reasonably cheaply now "
Yes I agree 100%.

Housing can be built fast nowdays
and also why did New Labour not Build
them in their massive long 13 years

[arista]

Yes Joey it will take money or homes
of Council housing people.

But thats the way it is going.

No one has a safe job
even in banking

Times are hard

[Vicky.]

No Left wingers call it that

Its a Benefit Stop.


"villages could be erected reasonably cheaply now "
Yes I agree 100%.

Housing can be built fast nowdays
and also why did New Labour not Build
them in their massive long 13 years

Its called that in the right wing rags too. Its just wording.

Apparently its proper name is 'the spare room subsidy'. According to Cameron.

But who cares what people call it, whatever its name..it is unfair and has not been thought through well at all...

[Kizzy]

No Left wingers call it that

Its a Benefit Stop.


"villages could be erected reasonably cheaply now "
Yes I agree 100%.

Housing can be built fast nowdays
and also why did New Labour not Build
them in their massive long 13 years

Why why why....Z.
We can ask why untill the cows come home, I have no answers for that and now is not the time for a retrospective.
Is this the most proactive thing our government could have come up with in these times of economic malaise?
Whether or not you or anyone agrees with the term bedroom tax this is what it equates to.
The government have now offloaded the responsibility for council tax onto local council now, so there is added pressure there for areas with a high level of benefit claimants to recoup funds any which way they can.
They are not therefore going to be as sympathetic to the needs of their communities as they need the money to ensure the maintainance of essential frontline services... in essence, we are screwed.

[arista]

Its called that in the right wing rags too. Its just wording.

Apparently its proper name is 'the spare room subsidy'. According to Cameron.

But who cares what people call it, whatever its name..it is unfair and has not been thought through well at all...


Vicky it will take some time for medical people/homes
to sort their extra room to stay as it is.
But they are working to get it right.

And Half of Labour and Conservative Workers
agree with this as every room is needed.

For Example, my bunker is private
No council involved
I work Hard. Pay my Taxes

[arista]

"in essence, we are screwed. "


Yes Kizzy,
some in Council homes may be.

But they are better here than in Cyprus.

[Vicky.]

Vicky it will take some time for medical people/homes
to sort their extra room to stay as it is.
But they are working to get it right.

And Half of Labour and Conservative Workers
agree with this as every room is needed.

For Example, my bunker is private
No council involved
I work Hard. Pay my Taxes

Bollocks.

I dont care how many labour or tory MPs agree with anything.

The simple fact is, there arent enough smaller places for everyone who is 'underoccupying' to move to. Its unfair, and I really dont see how anyone can claim otherwise. Councils all over the UK have confirmed that the smaller properties arent available. So it is impossible to downsize, but you have your benefits cut anyway.

[Jesus.]

The government shouldn't have the powers to just turf people out of their homes. The people in that housing were placed in there by government workers to begin with, it's not like they're squatters. Those tenants that signed agreements and have kept up there payments, then the government should leave them alone. Tenants that are in serious arrears could be given the opportunity to move out for a debt reduction plan. That might be beneficial to all parties.


The government need to leave people alone, start collecting taxes at the top end, and ****** off.

[Kizzy]

"in essence, we are screwed. "


Yes Kizzy,
some in Council homes may be.

But they are better here than in Cyprus.


If you and I know it those who are implementing these changes will too.
We are not in Cyprus we are in the UK.

It is a very old tory ideology cut those less fortunate adrift, as a society we are backpeddling.

[arista]

Bollocks.

I dont care how many labour or tory MPs agree with anything.

The simple fact is, there arent enough smaller places for everyone who is 'underoccupying' to move to. Its unfair, and I really dont see how anyone can claim otherwise. Councils all over the UK have confirmed that the smaller properties arent available. So it is impossible to downsize, but you have your benefits cut anyway.


Yes It is.
And the Next 10 years will be worse.

Its Good You are Alive Vicky
as I know you are Tough

[Jesus.]

Yes It is.
And the Next 10 years will be worse.

Its Good You are Alive Vicky
as I know you are Tough

They don't have to be Arista. This is purely manufactured. Invest in jobs, communities and infrastructure, and the country will grow and move. Cut, cut, cut, and the country will suffer.

[arista]

If you and I know it those who are implementing these changes will too.
We are not in Cyprus we are in the UK.

It is a very old tory ideology cut those less fortunate adrift, as a society we are backpeddling.


Yes you can say that.

But Times Are Hard

[arista]

They don't have to be Arista. This is purely manufactured. Invest in jobs, communities and infrastructure, and the country will grow and move. Cut, cut, cut, and the country will suffer.


Yes The Infrastructure is not fast enough
HS2 is not until after the election

[Jesus.]

Yes The Infrastructure is not fast enough
HS2 is not until after the election

I'm talking about infrastructure programs like repairing roads, bridges, motorways etc. These are all necessary as the roads are a mess these days. Loads of time is spent avoiding pot holes.

This could be done tomorrow and will get people back into work, more tax revenue being paid, that money going in to local businesses, directly affecting local communities.

At some point you need to understand this fact, and not keep ignoring it.

[Kizzy]

Invest in communities, build .. grow. There is room for social and private housing and free schools now mean the pressure is off LA's to provide.
Money is cascading into holes and the pockets of oiligarchs.

[Vicky.]

They don't have to be Arista. This is purely manufactured. Invest in jobs, communities and infrastructure, and the country will grow and move. Cut, cut, cut, and the country will suffer.

This^

Cutting away from those at the very bottom might please the people who think all unemployed are scroungers...but it will do nothing at all to help the massive debts that our country is in. Nor will it reduce our outgoings significantly enough to justify causing so much misery.

We could lower the housing benefit bill by building more social housing. That way less money goes to greedy buy to let landlords who charge extortionate rents, which in turn are picked up by the taxpayer as people cant afford to pay them. Yes, building more properties would cost more now, but in the long run it would save a hell of a lot. Also rent caps would be a good idea.

Unemployment benefits..well this is kind of obvious. The unemplyoment bill wont drop until there are enough jobs out there for people to take. Unfortunately though, there will never ever be 100% employment.

A massive proportion of the bill goes to people IN work. This is a problem that definitely needs to be addressed.

I could go on, but I fear its wasted. As people who have their heads so far in the sand that they believe this bull**** about helping the economy by taking away from the poorest, are beyond help really.

[arista]

I'm talking about infrastructure programs like repairing roads, bridges, motorways etc. These are all necessary as the roads are a mess these days. Loads of time is spent avoiding pot holes.

This could be done tomorrow and will get people back into work, more tax revenue being paid, that money going in to local businesses, directly affecting local communities.

At some point you need to understand this fact, and not keep ignoring it.


Yes I know what you mean.
I ignore nothing.

I can work at anything.


Its On Ch5HD News now

[arista]

Invest in communities, build .. grow. There is room for social and private housing and free schools now mean the pressure is off LA's to provide.
Money is cascading into holes and the pockets of oiligarchs.


Yes Kizzy Great Points

[Jack_]

Iain Duncan Smith thinks he could live on £53 a week. I'd like to see the ****** try.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

[Vicky.]

Iain Duncan Smith thinks he could live on £53 a week. I'd like to see the ****** try.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week
I dont think he realises that to do it properly, he would be stripped of his expenses account.

No more £30 breakfasts charged to the taxpayer :joker:

[Jesus.]

Iain Duncan Smith thinks he could live on £53 a week. I'd like to see the ****** try.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

Do you know where Ian Duncan-Smith lives? He married into aristocracy, and lives in a multi million pound estate, at no cost.

[Kizzy]

Ignorant arrogant patronising ministers, my god as Alan Partridge would say 'this country!'

[arista]

Iain Duncan Smith thinks he could live on £53 a week. I'd like to see the ****** try.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week



He could
he would have to buy Sell By date food

[arista]

Ignorant arrogant patronising ministers, my god as Alan Partridge would say 'this country!'


We need him back
perfect time for him.

[waterhog]

bedroom tax day 1 - 01.04.13

i am fearing,
my heart dose bleed,
a back lash is gearing,
i hope rioting will not lead.
pure conservative pollution,
they have the foot on the clutch,
peace is not a solution,
because they are so out of touch.
people will struggle,
at first it will scrape,
don't be fooled by the snuggle,
us they are going to rape.
all millionaires on panel,
nowhere near the minimum wage,
pure deceit and lies is the channel,
this will be the inner rage.
Labour never provided,
no social housing built was a flaw,
now we have joined the "European Union",
not forgetting Labours "immigration" and the open door.
circumstances will change,
kids have left home and grown,
this new "tax" will derange,
depression in this trap will clone.
lets get together everyone,
"march's protests to the max,
because until we make the final "call",
only the start is "bedroom tax".

( i would like to make clear in-case i am accused of provoking the situation that i feel we all need to get together and march and protest and stand outside parliament on a mass scale and keep doing it until they are forced to back down on this policy. the reason we have no housing is because 15 years or around that number of labour and no building took place, also with a open door on people coming to this country which puts a massive strain anyway on the resources we have. i believe these 2 reasons have landed us in the pickle we are in now. to fix the problem we need to 1. build more housing. 2. only put people from this country in them and get lower the lists of people allowed to to enter this country to fix the problem. the sole reason for the government to introduce this is to 1. stop them having to build more housing and 2. to have rich and poorer areas. i hope people can wake up to this and see it is not right in how the government is treating us for something we never caused.)

[arista]

"i am fearing,
my heart dose bleed,
a back lash is gearing,"


No Waterhog

Working Labour Voters back this

Times are Hard

[Vicky.]

"i am fearing,
my heart dose bleed,
a back lash is gearing,"


No Waterhog

Working Labour VoterS back this

Times are Hard

Many of those getting hit by this ARE working.

[Kizzy]

It is noting to do with working labour voters arista, by this do you mean sun readers?..
It is about seeing the bigger picture here, seeing what happened before and learning from it, being proactive ... the diluting of inner cities to other areas will happen now but in a chaotic fashion.

[arista]

Many of those getting hit by this ARE working.


Yes but they cut there cloth
and Keep the UK Great

[arista]

It is noting to do with working labour voters arista, by this do you mean sun readers?..
It is about seeing the bigger picture here, seeing what happened before and learning from it, being proactive ... the diluting of inner cities to other areas will happen now but in a chaotic fashion.


Yes Kizzy I agree.

[Kizzy]

You clearly don't, if you agree with the measures used as of today that are counterproductive.
something had to be done I understand that but to take a sledgehammer and bash away like they have is going to have a severe effect.

[arista]

You clearly don't, if you agree with the measures used as of today that are counterproductive.
something had to be done I understand that but to take a sledgehammer and bash away like they have is going to have a severe effect.


No Kizzy


I can get something good out of everything
even Gloom.


Sledgehammers Great to knock down old homes bits
and update them.

You Are Most Wise Kizzy.

[Kizzy]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/11685_10200736841172853_1794085411_n.jpg

[Kizzy]

No Kizzy


I can get something good out of everything
even Gloom.


Sledgehammers Great to knock down old homes bits
and update them.

You Are Most Wise Kizzy.

Great! then why didn't they do that? there are 1000's of social housing going derelict up and down the country... who is utilising this resource?
It is nice to be able to look on the bright side, not so if you are affected. Thankyou, I am not wise though I just speak as I find, and I find this exploitative.

[joeysteele]

There is one thing that should never be forgotten by the opponents,(and I am one of them), of this bedroom tax.

It is a totally rotten idea and subsequent heartless policy from the Conservatives but it could never have got passed and brought into being had the Lib Dems not agreed to support it.
It is only with the votes of the Lib Dems that this got through Parliament, with 57 MPs they could easily have forced this to be massively moderated or even scrapped altogether.
I hope voters remember that in 2015 at the election.

[waterhog]

they won't no voter will - we have very short memories - my example is that the conseratives have got back into power (colaition) even after what they done last time- then again - labour are no better. so who do you vote for ?

[joeysteele]

they won't no voter will - we have very short memories - my example is that the conseratives have got back into power (colaition) even after what they done last time- then again - labour are no better. so who do you vote for ?

Well I for sure won't be voting for either of these 2 party's now. I also think the voters will have this in their minds, the bedroom tax effects will really hit next year in 2014.

People will try to pay it and stay in the homes they are in especially with Spring and Summer coming on, thinking likely they can save on Gas and Electricity in those seasons.

The difficulties will likely start in Winter and rent arrears will then likely rise to high levels, that will see in 2014 court action likely being taken against tenants and even eviction orders too.
The election has to be in May 2015,by March/April 2015 the election campaigns will be starting so it will be in the voters minds I would think and hope.

I was talking to an elderly lady yesterday, who asked me how long has this Govt got to go now, I said around 2 years yet.
She volunteered to say, that she thought, David Cameron had been right to say he had got rid of the nasty Conservative party.
To which I looked surprised until she added, he has got rid of that one to create an even nastier one.
I had to smile at that.

[Vicky.]

http://rosecrystal.blog.co.uk/2013/03/30/government-axes-homeless-advisors-15693992/

Erm..I know this is just a blog, and I havent managed to find this anywhere else so its to be taken with a pinch of salt...but if true, this is absolutely disgusting. Especially given the rise of homeless people there will be once this bites properly.

The government has scrapped its team of expert homelessness advisors despite a dramatic increase in the problem.

In an email sent earlier this month to councils across England, Communities and Local Government department officials said its expert advisors were to be disbanded from 31 March.

[joeysteele]

http://rosecrystal.blog.co.uk/2013/03/30/government-axes-homeless-advisors-15693992/

Erm..I know this is just a blog, and I havent managed to find this anywhere else so its to be taken with a pinch of salt...but if true, this is absolutely disgusting. Especially given the rise of homeless people there will be once this bites properly.

It just gets worse Vicky, also the more we learn the more ugly and sinister is the clear thinking behind this policy.
Shocking and really beyond any defence in my opinion. It is the silence now from the Lib Dems that astounds me, I know even a lot of their own councillors were and still are screaming for this bedroom tax/charge to be massively looked at again.

As you say,if this is true, it is disgusting.

[Nedusa]

Why am I reading post after post condemning this policy as heartless and cruel ?? The Govt is trying to role back 50 years or more of ridiculous social welfare misuse and abuse that has resulted in a whole generation of families possibly even more than one generation who are better off NOT working for a living.

Yes thanks to mostly labour and liberal social welfare acts passed year on year benefits have ballooned and are claimed by people who clearly do not need them. It's not their fault I mean why would anyone work if they can receive the same money or more for NOT working.

This nonsense has gone on too long and it needs a major economic recession to force the Govt in power to start to reform this monster.

So lets leave out the colourful language this present course of action is painful but is necessary to reset the natural order of things. You do not get more money for doing nothing than someone gets for working all week... That's just plain wrong and thankfully finally the Govt is redressing the balance and changing this outrageous aberration...!!!

[joeysteele]

Well this thread is concerned with the bedroom tax/charge, however like not getting 2.5 million unemployed into only half a million vacancies.
It is not going to be anywhere near possible to get the people so called under occupying out of the houses they currently live in because there are not the properties for them to move to.
However, they will still have to pay this extra tax.

That is a disgrace and it is heartless, there are no other words for that since these are people at the very lowest end of the scale as to income.

[Kizzy]

Why am I reading post after post condemning this policy as heartless and cruel ?? The Govt is trying to role back 50 years or more of ridiculous social welfare misuse and abuse that has resulted in a whole generation of families possibly even more than one generation who are better off NOT working for a living.

Yes thanks to mostly labour and liberal social welfare acts passed year on year benefits have ballooned and are claimed by people who clearly do not need them. It's not their fault I mean why would anyone work if they can receive the same money or more for NOT working.

This nonsense has gone on too long and it needs a major economic recession to force the Govt in power to start to reform this monster.

So lets leave out the colourful language this present course of action is painful but is necessary to reset the natural order of things. You do not get more money for doing nothing than someone gets for working all week... That's just plain wrong and thankfully finally the Govt is redressing the balance and changing this outrageous aberration...!!!

You seem to be labouring under the impression this only affects those on JSA?...

The National Housing Federation (NHF) says the reform will fail to solve overcrowding and could even increase the welfare bill.

If everyone moved, many would end up in the private rented sector, in some cases meaning larger housing benefit claims and the expense of adapting new homes for disabled tenants.

It found around two-thirds of those affected are disabled. The Government has said local councils have been provided with sufficient hardship funds to deal with such cases.

Disabled children expected to share a room under the new rules are among a group who have won the right to a judicial review of the policy, claiming it affects them disproportionately.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/31/bedroom-tax-attacked-labour_n_2989607.html

[Nedusa]

If I owned my house or was renting my house with a tenancy agreement , no one is going to come along and start telling me I have too many bedrooms and try and make me change my house or flat.

So what people are affected by this ? Could it be people who live in houses rent free where the council pays the rent for these people. If that is the case then I think you'll agree the people living there are not in the strongest bargaining position and may struggle to negotiate if asked to downsize because they have bedrooms they don't use and many families are squeezed into tiny houses with 2 or 3 children sharing a bedroom.

So what exactly is wrong with trying to redress the imbalance in the system ?

[Kizzy]

If I owned my house or was renting my house with a tenancy agreement , no one is going to come along and start telling me I have too many bedrooms and try and make me change my house or flat.

So what people are affected by this ? Could it be people who live in houses rent free where the council pays the rent for these people. If that is the case then I think you'll agree the people living there are not in the strongest bargaining position and may struggle to negotiate if asked to downsize because they have bedrooms they don't use and many families are squeezed into tiny houses with 2 or 3 children sharing a bedroom.

So what exactly is wrong with trying to redress the imbalance in the system ?

Have you read the article nedusa?... It would appear not, where would you like these people to go? you are all for this social cleansing of the social housing stock, what I don' hear is any soloution from you as to alternative accomodation.
Come on, we're all ears, what's the solution?

[Nedusa]

Have you read the article nedusa?... It would appear not, where would you like these people to go? you are all for this social cleansing of the social housing stock, what I don' hear is any soloution from you as to alternative accomodation.
Come on, we're all ears, what's the solution?

I thought I understood the article perhaps I'm missing something , I'll read it again, I thought the idea was that people with spare or surplus bedrooms which they don't use and find expensive to heat are prepared to swap houses with families who are squeezed into houses with too few bedrooms for the number of children they have. I thought the plan in theory made sense. Perhaps I have not fully understood all the implications of this new law.

[Vicky.]

There is not enough smaller properties for these people to move to.

and

It affects workers too. Not just the unemployed.

That is all.

[Vicky.]

I thought I understood the article perhaps I'm missing something , I'll read it again, I thought the idea was that people with spare or surplus bedrooms which they don't use and find expensive to heat are prepared to swap houses with families who are squeezed into houses with too few bedrooms for the number of children they have. I thought the plan in theory made sense. Perhaps I have not fully understood all the implications of this new law.

In theory, most of the welfare reforms make sense.

However the unfair way they are implemented and actually thought out(or not thought out, as it happens)...well it makes me think of a child sitting trying to bash a square peg into a round hole with a gigantic hammer.

[Nedusa]

There is not enough smaller properties for these people to move to.

and

It affects workers too. Not just the unemployed.

That is all.

Then surely once the smaller properties have all been filled with more suitable families the scheme will stop, it will only work as a two way transfer. Once the smaller properties have been exchanged people living in larger bedroomed properties would not be able to participate and as such would not be involved.

That's right isn't it ??

[Vicky.]

Then surely once the smaller properties have all been filled with more suitable families the scheme will stop, it will only work as a two way transfer. Once the smaller properties have been exchanged people living in larger bedroomed properties would not be able to participate and as such would not be involved.

That's right isn't it ??

Not quite. I'll give an example to try and explain one of the problems

A family are very very unlikely to be in a 1 bed flat/house. As not many 1 bed social properties exist in the first place(confirmed by many councils). So lets assume these overcrowded families are in 2 bedroomed properties.

A couple in a highrise 2 bed flat are 'underoccupying'.

The couple could not swap with the family. As it wouldnt make a difference. They also cant downsize, as there arent any one bed places. They will be hit with this penalty even though they cant actually do anything about it, nor would them moving actually help anything.


--

I live in social housing right now. I dont get housing benefit (at the moment) though so this doesnt apply to me, but it might in the future.

When we applied for a council property, we asked for a 2 bedroomed place. We were told point blank that the waiting list was years long for a 2 bed place, but they had a 3 bed place available that could be moved into within the next fortnight..and we were entitled to it as my partners children stay with us on a regular basis.

So, years ago, the waiting list was massive for a small property..so people were housed in properties larger than what they actually needed (we could have slept on the sofa when gavs kids were here, for example). The government are blaming the low paid/unemployed for their **** ups yet again. they sold off all the council stock (both tories and labour) and never built more. They housed people in places they are now 'underoccupying' and they think its fair to penalise these claimants when there is nothing at all the claimant can do to help their situation.

To add to this...pensioners are the group most likely to be rattling round in 3/4 bed houses. But they are exempt.

People (like me) who are officially 'underoccupying' but dont claim housing benefit...arent expected to downsize either.

So its not about freeing up housing at all. Or both of those groups would be included. It would be everyone in social housing.

[Vicky.]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/31/bedroom-tax-attacked-labour_n_2989607.html

No alternative accomodation available for 96% of people hit by this bedroom tax. Thats how fair this is...

Labour said freedom of information responses showed local councils had sufficient one and two bedroom properties to house only one in 20 of those families with spare rooms.

Responses from 37 authorities across Britain revealed 96,041 households faced losing benefit but there were only 3,688 smaller homes available.

[joeysteele]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/31/bedroom-tax-attacked-labour_n_2989607.html

No alternative accomodation available for 96% of people hit by this bedroom tax. Thats how fair this is...

Yet still they will be taking money off their original entitlements even though they have nowhere else to downsize too.

I think that is totally shocking, the sooner this shower of a heartless,gutless Govt is thrown out the better.
It nearly makes you ashamed to be British but I know I can do my bit to get rid of this lot in 2015,it is just a pity that is the only concession the Lib Dems got from the Conservatives, a fixed term parliament so that we have to wait until 2015 before they can be got rid of.

Imagine the stress, worry, panic and chaos this will be causing to the numbers listed by you above.
Its inhuman.

[Vicky.]

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/northern-ireland-rejects-bedroom-tax/6526399.article

Northern Ireland to reject the bedroom tax.

At least some of the UK has a bit of sense.

[michael21]

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/northern-ireland-rejects-bedroom-tax/6526399.article

Northern Ireland to reject the bedroom tax.

At least some of the UK has a bit of sense.

:nono: the uk all have sense its just the mp the run the county that done

green man tax coming in soon :dance::dance::dance:

[Niall]

I think the fact that the government have pushed this through shows their callous and detached nature to the general public. This is going to do nothing but generate so many needless cases of homelessness. I don't understand how this ever was seen as a viable law..

[smeagol]

The sooner this nerds who are running this country are voted out the better.
biggest mistake ever was people voting them in now everybody is paying day by day with some new half brained scheme to kill of the poor.

[joeysteele]

I think the fact that the government have pushed this through shows their callous and detached nature to the general public. This is going to do nothing but generate so many needless cases of homelessness. I don't understand how this ever was seen as a viable law..

I agree with you, I really fail to grasp how in law an entitlement can be given to people and then on a whim cut from them.

I said earlier,I can understand no more entitlements being given,ot raising entitlements being frozen even but it should be legally binding and definitely morally binding that entitlements already in place cannot be taken away when the recipients are doing nothing wrong in the first place.
This has to be a totally wrong and discriminative policy.

The Conservative party was only able to get this through thanks to the 50+ Lib Dem MPs.
That is what I think staggers me the most as to this cruel and heartless measure.