Bedroom tax, new thread !

[thered]

You have to be kidding right ?

even with the money they would make from everyone paying this bedroom tax (which wont happen) there would only be enough money to build litrally some 1 bedroom homes, remember we'r talking about 100's of thousands of people being effected here, not 900 people or something like that, and we'r talking about from the top of Scotland to the bottom of England !

By that i meant he waited 18 month for a home, maybe if they were not so many half empty houses people would not have to wait 18 months so therefore it may help people in similar positions

Btw new houses who will be expected to pay?

[thered]

I have read many arguments and comments about this thread from the good to the stupid, both for and against on this site.

Why do soldiers keep getting brought into it? Lots of people use this as a way to get out of paying, and genuinely if they have family in the army earning a living, then I am only too sure that the person who is doing his or her job in the armed forces and earning a good salary shoudl send some money home to fund the bedroom so that when they return, they can live with their parents - after all its ?11 p/w for the 1st bedroom - hardly breaking the bank of a soldier to support their mum or dad?

On the issues of foster care, if you have children from mixed marriages they cannot share a room, if you have foster children you the childrean cannot share a room.

The ethos behing the tax is a good thing - it makes people accountable. Why on earth should people who dont work live in bigger houses than what is required and get it paid for by the state. If they want to live there, then pay the extra, if you dont then move!!

There are definitely some issues and it wont run easy, there will always be some people who are caught out by the system, and by that I mean people who we know shouldnt have to pay, but playing by the rules they are forced to pay. To counter this, each local authoity has discretionary payments to cover this for households which are required.

How does it break someones human rights to evict them from their home when they havent paid the rent due? the rent is not changing at all!!! If I dont pay by mortgage will you stand with me when I am being evicted for non payment saying it is against my human rights !! FFS there is some sh!te floating about.

Housing Providers only survive from rents, if it doesn't come in , they wont have a house to live in, as HP's are now businesses, although they do not make profits. As a taxpayer, I know that I dont want to subsidise social housing as well as the housing benefit system. Let the b!stards who want to live in a 4 bed house when there is only one person in there, with their grandchildren staying every other weekend!!! Let them effing pay!!!! They want it, they pay for it!!!

Good points tbh, it wouldnt hurt to send some cash back

[Saltire]

By that i meant he waited 18 month for a home, maybe if they were not so many half empty houses people would not have to wait 18 months so therefore it may help people in similar positions

Btw new houses who will be expected to pay?

what new houses mate, there is none, we'v already checked this out and there is no 1 bedroom older houses available either, not in this area.

[Saltire]

I cannot honestly believe my eyes when I read what you guys are saying about troops leaving home for a while and thier family having to pay bedroom tax while they risk thier lifes to protect our familes and ourselves, I think thats absolutley shocking even to suggest that even if they do go on tour of duty for 6 months or so, I might have family out there fighting just now, doesnt sound like you guys have, but again, your entitled to your opinion.

But that just sickens me to the core.

[gaz306]

Well from what i hear , tenants wont be evicted for rent arrears caused by this tax ? Any truth in that , makes no odds really to me as i for one wont be paying it

[rds60h]

Something that in my mind could negate the need for a bedroom tax, that could also kick start a bit of a building boom which in turn would increase employment available is the wide range offer of 50 year mortgages.
It would bring mortgage payments down to an affordable level, enabling more people to afford their own home which in turn reduces the need for more Social Housing. It would also attract some small businesses into the new build areas.
So, with the increase in the number of new homes would come more employment, more employment would mean more expendable income which may also be used to buy homes thus creating further building need. The increased employment would also mean increased income from taxation.
To me it seems a win win situation with the ordinary working man gaining employment and homes and the government gaining increased tax income and a decrease in benefits paid.
I'm not saying this scheme is infallable or that some will still try to work the system but it would give the honest genuine man on the street another option and chance.

[thered]

what new houses mate, there is none, we'v already checked this out and there is no 1 bedroom older houses available either, not in this area.

You dont want the tax, so i am assuming you want millions of council homes to be built throughtout the UK enabling everyone to stay in their bigger homes and this issue to go away

So who will pay for that?


Wont be the people on housing benefit will it, they will expect workers to foot the bill so they can stay where they are in their houses that are too big

Now that is certainly not right


As i said earlier a working family in council accomodation pays the rent, they pay more for their home for every bedroom they have

Should they get a reduction for bedrooms not used?

[rds60h]

Well from what i hear , tenants wont be evicted for rent arrears caused by this tax ? Any truth in that , makes no odds really to me as i for one wont be paying it

That is sort of right.
The government is allocating a set amount fund to each local council to pay a Discretionary Housing Payment, the eligibility to award the payment will be decided by the Benefits Department of the local council and there is no set criteria for deciding who is eligible.
As I said the council will be given a set amount for this and once that fund has run out no further payments will be made irrespective of your circumstances.

[rds60h]

As i said earlier a working family in council accomodation pays the rent, they pay more for their home for every bedroom they have

Should they get a reduction for bedrooms not used?

The same family working and paying rent and paying more rent for the size of the house today could be the unemployed family claiming benefit tomorrow.
So should they really be treated any different because today they are employed and have the money to pay but tomorrow they are unemployed and do not have an income to enable them to pay ?
Yes, those working the system should be hit.
But don't hit all those who are struggling because of a few bad eggs.
It's a bit like saying lets double the amount of income tax because some people are using tax evasion methods. Would the working man be happy if this occurred ?

[rds60h]

I cannot honestly believe my eyes when I read what you guys are saying about troops leaving home for a while and thier family having to pay bedroom tax while they risk thier lifes to protect our familes and ourselves, I think thats absolutley shocking even to suggest that even if they do go on tour of duty for 6 months or so, I might have family out there fighting just now, doesnt sound like you guys have, but again, your entitled to your opinion.

But that just sickens me to the core.

Saltire, I can initially see why you find the statement abhorant.
But, any family on benefits who has someone in the household working will have their benefits reduced.
Now I do not know the ins and outs of what the situation is regarding benefits paid to families of those serving our country.
I do not know if benefit reduction is lifted while the serviceman is on camp or posted abroad or whatever other circumstances.
But, I can also see the point of an employed member of a household claiming benefits having to contribute and a serviceman/woman is an employed person albeit doing a much more dangerous job.

[Diddy]

You dont want the tax, so i am assuming you want millions of council homes to be built throughtout the UK enabling everyone to stay in their bigger homes and this issue to go away

So who will pay for that?


Wont be the people on housing benefit will it, they will expect workers to foot the bill so they can stay where they are in their houses that are too big

Now that is certainly not right


As i said earlier a working family in council accommodation pays the rent, they pay more for their home for every bedroom they have

Should they get a reduction for bedrooms not used?

I actually think that building millions of social housing IS the answer, let me explain why -
1. Build say 1 million social housing "units"
2. Kickstarts the local building trades who all pay tax NI AND then use their spare cash in the private sector buying goods and services - So we are taking people off benefits and employing them in all the building trade disciplines from labourers through to skilled trades
3. As a direct result of number 2 the local economy gets a much needed lift due to the afore mentioned spending power of the building trade. More profits for all the shops and local services, they may even have to take on more staff to cope....More tax more NI and less benefits needing paid.
4. As a result of the 1 million new homes rented out at an affordable rate it would more than likely push DOWN all other rents (got to be a good thing) so everyone apart from the landlords benefits.
5. These homes would pay for themselves in a short time due to the fact that 1. The rent recouped for each is pure profit. 2. They are an asset. 3.The cost of build is negated by the fact that the people building them are likely to be rent paying tax and NI payers. So in reality that house that cost 60k to build actually cost 20 (hope you get what I mean by this part because it is central to the argument.
6. Takes kids (16yo+) off the streets and into proper employment apprenticeships and the like....Not into taxpayer funded work programs that ONLY benefit the multi national non tax paying companies who take advantage of them.

I will end with this thought. Sometimes it is a good thing to look to the future. Sometimes government borrowing can and does produce results to be proud of.
Finally I have no time or sympathy for the buy to let landlords who push all house prices up and have their little empires funded by the taxpaying public (through dss rents and also the fact that its taxpayers who are keeping the interest rates artificially low at the moment). They can and should be regulated and I believe EVERYONE is entitled to and should receive security of tenure....minimum 5 year rental contracts ect ect. They imho are where the majority of this countries benefits cash disappear to

[thered]

I actually think that building millions of social housing IS the answer, let me explain why -
1. Build say 1 million social housing "units"
2. Kickstarts the local building trades who all pay tax NI AND then use their spare cash in the private sector buying goods and services - So we are taking people off benefits and employing them in all the building trade disciplines from labourers through to skilled trades
3. As a direct result of number 2 the local economy gets a much needed lift due to the afore mentioned spending power of the building trade. More profits for all the shops and local services, they may even have to take on more staff to cope....More tax more NI and less benefits needing paid.
4. As a result of the 1 million new homes rented out at an affordable rate it would more than likely push DOWN all other rents (got to be a good thing) so everyone apart from the landlords benefits.
5. These homes would pay for themselves in a short time due to the fact that 1. The rent recouped for each is pure profit. 2. They are an asset. 3.The cost of build is negated by the fact that the people building them are likely to be rent paying tax and NI payers. So in reality that house that cost 60k to build actually cost 20 (hope you get what I mean by this part because it is central to the argument.
6. Takes kids (16yo+) off the streets and into proper employment apprenticeships and the like....Not into taxpayer funded work programs that ONLY benefit the multi national non tax paying companies who take advantage of them.

I will end with this thought. Sometimes it is a good thing to look to the future. Sometimes government borrowing can and does produce results to be proud of.
Finally I have no time or sympathy for the buy to let landlords who push all house prices up and have their little empires funded by the taxpaying public (through dss rents and also the fact that its taxpayers who are keeping the interest rates artificially low at the moment). They can and should be regulated and I believe EVERYONE is entitled to and should receive security of tenure....minimum 5 year rental contracts ect ect. They imho are where the majority of this countries benefits cash disappear to

I mentioned this in earlier post it would give economy a temporary lift


But only temporary

Yes it may get people jobs and back in work in the short term


but in reality the government will never get back what it spends,


Lets say for arguements sake it costs 20 billion

Of that we save 1 billion in welfare payments due to extra work provided

Then we get say another say 2 billion back in income tax

Then the companies involved making and supplying make better profits and pay an extra 3 billion in tax

There is more money in the economy so we get an extra 2 billion in vat

Government is ?12 billion down

The figures are BS i know but if anything are probably more generous than real life


Yes it would have some houses what it will then rent out to a large proportion of people on housing benefit so any money taken in rent will be negated by the extra benefit bill. Then the repairs bills come in and before you know it you are in a loss


No logic in that to me unless the new houses are for working people only,


also would the government see any of it back anyway its all companies now who run the council houses. Who magic their accounts as not for profit apparantly


Its total loss tbh whichever way you dress it up

If governtment bhouys market with cash for building its just false economy simple they get some back in dribs and drabs yes but never what they laid out

[Diddy]

This is going to be an agree to disagree subject I think. Housing benefit is paid by the taxpayer to the council. It is a fictional transfer of funds in reality. Its cash that stays in the system and does not line anyone's pockets.
Even if half of those homes that were built were rented out to working persons then they would eventually pay for themselves.
The other option is to do what they are doing now. Lets imagin for a min that the government goes all out 100% with this new policy.
Lets say that people with a spare room cant afford to pay the tax I personally know 5 people who get jsa only (?70 ish per week) who all have 2 bed houses. NONE of them can afford even ?1 per week let alone the ?20 per week (im including the council tax hit they are getting in april too) So thats 5 people I personally know who would either be left with ?50 per week for food/clothing/heating/lighting. None of these guys even want or need the extra room. They have all applied to the council for 1 beds...all have been told sorry we have none.
So we are now looking at a situation where they either default on their rent and the council spends your cash taking them to court for arrears. OR they could move from council to the private rent - There are a few 1 bed privates around here -Very nice they are too. These privates will COST the council (Taxpayer) almost 3 times as much cash to house these people in...and ALL that cash will go to private individuals. Not getting spread around like it would with my scenario - and rents will continue to rise artificially because the taxpayer is bloody well funding the rise.
The final scenario is the 5 friends of mine just flat refuse to pay - Court/fines/Prison/Crime/Sell drugs steal rob mug.....is that what we want to see ? All of these scenarios are very real.

Personally I think a huge house building program IS a no brainer. You may say its a temp fix.....But its a solution. It will give people skills. Give people pride. And give people bloody homes. It worked pretty well for our parents/grandparents and the generations before them. Housing was provided for the working classes. Most people rented and didn't feel the need to buy. A temp fix ? Maybe but a dam site better than what we are facing now. The trouble is the upper classes have convinced half of the working classes that they are actually middle class - So we end up with these people turning their noses up at those who they perceive to be beneath them when in reality with the stroke of a pen they would all be in the same group. It has been the perfect ploy by successive governments - the oldest trick in the book - Divide & Conquer and the sad thing is the amount of people who have fallen for it.

* Edit to add - Even talking about repairing the housing stock - That all takes workers and they will pay tax -buy goods and services - pay rent.....its maybe a flawed system but then thats a different argument because many would argue that our WHOLE capitalist system is inherantly flawed - This has been proved by people more cleaver than me - I think the figures for the western world were we need approx 6% growth every year for ever to sustain our economy(The capitalist west model) We NEED people to consume, We need people to spend, otherwise it all comes crashing down around us ...Triple dip recession anyone ?

[thered]

This is going to be an agree to disagree subject I think. Housing benefit is paid by the taxpayer to the council. It is a fictional transfer of funds in reality. Its cash that stays in the system and does not line anyone's pockets.
Even if half of those homes that were built were rented out to working persons then they would eventually pay for themselves.

Most money in a sense is fictional its debt which gives it worth, if you put a teacher, a nurse,a soldiers family or any other goverment worker in the new homes you have not recouped a penny, you are merely giving the government some money back what they gave you in the first place

The other option is to do what they are doing now. Lets imagin for a min that the government goes all out 100% with this new policy.
Lets say that people with a spare room cant afford to pay the tax I personally know 5 people who get jsa only (?70 ish per week) who all have 2 bed houses. NONE of them can afford even ?1 per week let alone the ?20 per week (im including the council tax hit they are getting in april too) So thats 5 people I personally know who would either be left with ?50 per week for food/clothing/heating/lighting. None of these guys even want or need the extra room. They have all applied to the council for 1 beds...all have been told sorry we have none.
So we are now looking at a situation where they either default on their rent and the council spends your cash taking them to court for arrears. OR they could move from council to the private rent - There are a few 1 bed privates around here -Very nice they are too. These privates will COST the council (Taxpayer) almost 3 times as much cash to house these people in...and ALL that cash will go to private individuals. Not getting spread around like it would with my scenario - and rents will continue to rise artificially because the taxpayer is bloody well funding the rise.

I find private rents (the accept DSS ones) more or less on a par with council rates tbh, the reason for that is the council only pay what the house is worth its up to the tennant to make up the shortfall. I dont know where you get that info from tbh

The final scenario is the 5 friends of mine just flat refuse to pay - Court/fines/Prison/Crime/Sell drugs steal rob mug.....is that what we want to see ? All of these scenarios are very real.

They could try work

Personally I think a huge house building program IS a no brainer. You may say its a temp fix.....But its a solution. It will give people skills. Give people pride. And give people bloody homes. It worked pretty well for our parents/grandparents and the generations before them. Housing was provided for the working classes. Most people rented and didn't feel the need to buy. A temp fix ? Maybe but a dam site better than what we are facing now. The trouble is the upper classes have convinced half of the working classes that they are actually middle class - So we end up with these people turning their noses up at those who they perceive to be beneath them when in reality with the stroke of a pen they would all be in the same group. It has been the perfect ploy by successive governments - the oldest trick in the book - Divide & Conquer and the sad thing is the amount of people who have fallen for it.

I agree we do need some houses but they will never fix the economy its just more loans to never be paid. There is a reason why it will never be like when grandparents lived in new council homes and worked to pay for them. We still had an industry then,we still made and manufactured, we built ships and had big steel works. We shipped the stuff abroad. We were running along nicely. Until cheap foreign labour killed the lot

Edit to add - Even talking about repairing the housing stock - That all takes workers and they will pay tax -buy goods and services - pay rent.....its maybe a flawed system but then thats a different argument because many would argue that our WHOLE capitalist system is inherantly flawed - This has been proved by people more cleaver than me - I think the figures for the western world were we need approx 6% growth every year for ever to sustain our economy(The capitalist west model) We NEED people to consume, We need people to spend, otherwise it all comes crashing down around us ...Triple dip recession anyone ?

I agree systems ****ed our economy is basically made up by consumer goods and banks. It is on its arse, and i cant imagine what it will be like in 50 years, consumer items largely dont even benefit this country most food is sourced abroad and most goods sold come from abroad, or the cheap parts do and they get assembled here.

Its a merry go round of debt,never ever getting back what is been spent

Back to housing the solution you propose has been done before it was ok when people had jobs ( not government ones) and everything was paid for. When the jobs went to developing countries we started getting to where we are today.

Government was left with lots of council homes it could not afford to run, they started to fall behind in maintenance so the right to buy was introduced to try and get rid of the houses and maintenance problems.

It worked to a point, but still they made losses so now i think most council homes if not all are ran by companies who provide maintenance and new equipment. The rents since then have doubled since i had my first council house about 14 years ago. The organisations are supposed to be none profit and merely invest what they receive in wages rent and housing benefit.

We have more public sector than ever so if it didnt work before why will it work now??

[thered]

This is going to be an agree to disagree subject I think. Housing benefit is paid by the taxpayer to the council. It is a fictional transfer of funds in reality. Its cash that stays in the system and does not line anyone's pockets.
Even if half of those homes that were built were rented out to working persons then they would eventually pay for themselves.

Most money in a sense is fictional its debt which gives it worth, if you put a teacher, a nurse,a soldiers family or any other goverment worker in the new homes you have not recouped a penny, you are merely giving the government some money back what they gave you in the first place

The other option is to do what they are doing now. Lets imagin for a min that the government goes all out 100% with this new policy.
Lets say that people with a spare room cant afford to pay the tax I personally know 5 people who get jsa only (?70 ish per week) who all have 2 bed houses. NONE of them can afford even ?1 per week let alone the ?20 per week (im including the council tax hit they are getting in april too) So thats 5 people I personally know who would either be left with ?50 per week for food/clothing/heating/lighting. None of these guys even want or need the extra room. They have all applied to the council for 1 beds...all have been told sorry we have none.
So we are now looking at a situation where they either default on their rent and the council spends your cash taking them to court for arrears. OR they could move from council to the private rent - There are a few 1 bed privates around here -Very nice they are too. These privates will COST the council (Taxpayer) almost 3 times as much cash to house these people in...and ALL that cash will go to private individuals. Not getting spread around like it would with my scenario - and rents will continue to rise artificially because the taxpayer is bloody well funding the rise.

I find private rents (the accept DSS ones) more or less on a par with council rates tbh, the reason for that is the council only pay what the house is worth its up to the tennant to make up the shortfall. I dont know where you get that info from tbh

The final scenario is the 5 friends of mine just flat refuse to pay - Court/fines/Prison/Crime/Sell drugs steal rob mug.....is that what we want to see ? All of these scenarios are very real.

They could try work

Personally I think a huge house building program IS a no brainer. You may say its a temp fix.....But its a solution. It will give people skills. Give people pride. And give people bloody homes. It worked pretty well for our parents/grandparents and the generations before them. Housing was provided for the working classes. Most people rented and didn't feel the need to buy. A temp fix ? Maybe but a dam site better than what we are facing now. The trouble is the upper classes have convinced half of the working classes that they are actually middle class - So we end up with these people turning their noses up at those who they perceive to be beneath them when in reality with the stroke of a pen they would all be in the same group. It has been the perfect ploy by successive governments - the oldest trick in the book - Divide & Conquer and the sad thing is the amount of people who have fallen for it.

I agree we do need some houses but they will never fix the economy its just more loans to never be paid. There is a reason why it will never be like when grandparents lived in new council homes and worked to pay for them. We still had an industry then,we still made and manufactured, we built ships and had big steel works. We shipped the stuff abroad. We were running along nicely. Until cheap foreign labour killed the lot

Edit to add - Even talking about repairing the housing stock - That all takes workers and they will pay tax -buy goods and services - pay rent.....its maybe a flawed system but then thats a different argument because many would argue that our WHOLE capitalist system is inherantly flawed - This has been proved by people more cleaver than me - I think the figures for the western world were we need approx 6% growth every year for ever to sustain our economy(The capitalist west model) We NEED people to consume, We need people to spend, otherwise it all comes crashing down around us ...Triple dip recession anyone ?

I agree systems ****ed our economy is basically made up by consumer goods and banks. It is on its arse, and i cant imagine what it will be like in 50 years, consumer items largely dont even benefit this country most food is sourced abroad and most goods sold come from abroad, or the cheap parts do and they get assembled here.

Its a merry go round of debt,never ever getting back what is been spent

Back to housing the solution you propose has been done before it was ok when people had jobs ( not government ones) and everything was paid for. When the jobs went to developing countries we started getting to where we are today.

Government was left with lots of council homes it could not afford to run, they started to fall behind in maintenance so the right to buy was introduced to try and get rid of the houses and maintenance problems.

It worked to a point, but still they made losses so now i think most council homes if not all are ran by companies who provide maintenance and new equipment. The rents since then have doubled since i had my first council house about 14 years ago. The organisations are supposed to be none profit and merely invest what they receive in wages rent and housing benefit.

We have more public sector than ever so if it didnt work before why will it work now??