Bedroom tax, new thread !

[Saltire]

Why should the state pay for any RPSH exhorbitantly high rents that are over and above what people reuqire?

Same difference!!?!?!?!?!?

Strange thinking by yourself!

back to the blood from a stone story, AGAIN, how can someone with not one single penny spare at end of week of bare benefits find ?50 per month just because they have one spare tiny room which is classed as a bedroom ????

They cant work for whatever reason or claim extra benefit for whatever reason (doing the government a favour in other words), how can they pay the money, does it really grow on trees or do you really want to see all these types of people (there are plenty of them) out on the street sleeping rough or overloading homeless units all because of this bedroom tax, tell the truth now, I know you will anyway as its pretty obvious.

[Saltire]

social rents vary within which area you live. I tenant who claims benefits can take in a lodger, but would have to decalre any income to the relevant agency.

We are working on this with the BA to help provide supports to tenants. The scenarios Bulldog mentions are right, however, more people will benefit. In fact everyone will benefit because it i aimed to change the welfare state for the better. Something needs to change. There are not enough larger houses, we aer facing a housing crisis, people who are on benefits shouldnt really have a choice.

I know loads and loads of large houses brand new ready for people to move into (council), its small 1 bedroom houses there are none of, maybe where you live is entirely different from this area, but I can 100% assure you on these facts.

[Saltire]

I work in social housing and have a legal background and hte following is how it is - There is no regulation in Social Housing that defines a bedroom. There only time it is defined is how the property is classed for tenancy, tax reasons etc - exactly the same as in the private sector and is defined by the owner / landlord

Under Section 326 of the 1985 Social Housing Act the following applies 2 people 110 sq ft, 1.5 persons 90sq ft, 1 person 70sq ft and 0.5 person, 50 sq ft.

Under s326(2)(b) the act states a room is available as sleeping accomodationif it is of a type normally in the locality either as a bedroom or living room.

sorry mate, but if people check thier tenenacy agreement they will see it says what accomodation they live in, for example, 4 person, 2 bedroom, I.E - 2 bedrooms and thats all that matters, maybe your area differs ? so much for working for the housing dept eh ? , maybe you picked it up wrong, easy mistake I suppose, .

[allycoops]

back to the blood from a stone story, AGAIN, how can someone with not one single penny spare at end of week of bare benefits find ?50 per month just because they have one spare tiny room which is classed as a bedroom ????

They cant work for whatever reason or claim extra benefit for whatever reason (doing the government a favour in other words), how can they pay the money, does it really grow on trees or do you really want to see all these types of people (there are plenty of them) out on the street sleeping rough or overloading homeless units all because of this bedroom tax, tell the truth now, I know you will anyway as its pretty obvious.

Trying to live on ?18 a week showed the unfairness of the bedroom tax

Left with just ?18 for food after the bedroom tax, my constituents, like me, will have nothing to eat by the end of the week.
By Helen Goodman Published 05 March 2013 16:16

I was so shocked when I began receiving letters from my constituents about the implications for them of the bedroom tax, and about how little they would have left to live on, that I decided two weeks ago to see if I could survive on ?18 a week, which is what they will be left with to buy their food after 1 April.

?18 is based on the experiences of my constituents, in particular women on employment and support allowance who have had to stop working owing to chronic health conditions, perhaps after 20 years of working life. Out of their ?71.70, they have to find ?10 for electricity, ?20 for heating ? gas or coal ??6 for water rates, ?4 for bus fares and ?10 for the bedroom tax, which left them with ?23 for weekly living expenses.

That ?23 has to cover more than food, of course. We did a calculation, and set aside ?5 for all the non-food items everyone has to buy?soap, washing powder, washing-up liquid, toothpaste, loo paper?plus a small amount in order to save ?50 a year for clothes or a pair of trainers, or in case the iron breaks. That leaves ?18.

I therefore took up the challenge of trying to live on that amount. It was extremely unpleasant. I had porridge for breakfast every morning, as I usually do, but whereas I usually make porridge with milk, instead I had to make it with water. I had to eat the same food over and over and over again. Single people are hit particularly hard, because cheap food comes in big packs. I made a stew at the beginning of the week, and I ate the same food four nights a week. I had pasta twice a week. I had baked potatoes. I had eggs on six occasions. It was completely impossible to have fish as well as meat; that was out of the question. It was also impossible to have five portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

I therefore have a message for Anna Soubry, the Tory minister who recently criticised people on low incomes for obesity. Of course they have to fill up on toast and biscuits.

I found myself waking up in the middle of the night, absolutely ravenous, having to make cups of tea and eat biscuits. I had a headache for five days week, and I was completely lethargic and exhausted by 4pm. Some people are on Jobseeker?s Allowance and are looking for a job. Looking for a job is a job in itself; it takes time and energy. The people whom DWP ministers want to do workfare are being expected to work 30 hours a week, yet they are not going to have enough to eat properly.

Most shocking of all was the fact that come Sunday I ran out of food - there was literally nothing left to eat that night. If ministers are happy with the notion that 660,000 of our fellow citizens are literally not going to have enough to eat by the end of the week, they have no conception of what they are going to do to the people in our constituencies who will be faced with this bedroom tax.

Ministers have been very free and easy in talking about alternatives, such as the fact that people can move. In my constituency, more than 1,000 people will be affected by the bedroom tax but there are fewer than 100 smaller properties to which they could move. In my constituency, it is not possible for all these people to increase the number of hours they work, as seven people are chasing every job; people are in part-time work because they cannot get full-time work.

Of course some individuals or couples have properties that are larger than they need, but the so-called under-occupancy is in one part of the country and the overcrowding is in another. It is simply not credible to suggest that all the large, over-occupying families in London will move up to Durham, particularly given that the unemployment rate there is more than 9 per cent. What would they be moving to?

I made a video diary of my week, so I got a lot of feedback from people affected by this policy. Interestingly, they said, "Yes, this is the reality of our lives. We are not able to survive properly now and things are going to get worse to the tune of ?10 a week from 1 April." In 2006, I did the same experiment under the previous Labour government, living on benefits to see what life was like for young people on the lowest rate of income support. I found that difficult, but there was enough money to get through the whole week. I wish to point out to the minister that we have reached a new low, because the ?21 that people had in 2006 is equivalent to ?28 now, and that should be compared with the ?18 from 1 April.

Government ministers also constantly refer to how discretionary housing benefits can solve the problems created by the bedroom tax. In County Durham, ?5m of income will be taken out of people?s pockets and out of the local economy. The size of the discretionary fund is half a million pounds, so once again there is a huge gap between actual need and the resources being given to people to deal with it.

The bedroom tax is a fundamental attack on the poorest people in this country. People are going to lose between ?500 and ?1,000 over the course of next year, through no fault of their own. But the really disgusting thing is that on the same day that the bedroom tax is being introduced, millionaires are being given a tax cut that will be worth ?1,000?not over the year as a whole, but every single week.

Helen Goodman is Labour MP for Bishop Auckland and shadow media minister

[masur123]

And this is different from people claiming HB with a private landlord now?

[Diddy]

I haven't posted since my little outburst last week (Which is true btw I used to earn a fortune on government projects and hence pay a fortune in tax an NI - Also had a pretty bad drug problem....ALL behind me now but what I was trying to put across was that I have been there and have recieved the councilling and help of mental health professionals and even had the happy pills for about 2 years or so....As I say happily well away from all that now but feel I can at least say I have experienced the shit life that is the struggle of someone on benefits....Did not mean to make it sound as though taking drugs was big/hard/clever it most certainly is not.)
This tax won't effect me as 1. I earn too much to receive any benefit (Self Employed Electrician) and 2. My misses is my fathers carer and we all live in the same council house but anyway I still have to pay the rent due to household earnings ect on my dad's HB form.
I still maintain this is a tax on the poor. I have not seen or heard any reasoning that has convinced me differently.
I see mentioned that private rentals have had to do this for years ect - This is where I differ I suppose because private rentals should imho be restricted, There is a world of difference in tax payers paying the state rents to the state and hence just going back into the states coffers as opposed to the taxpayer paying to make some landlord richer and paying for their BTL mortgages ect ect.
I suppose I am a leftie idealist but there ya go I happily admit to such.
This was all caused by the greedy folk who took up the option to buy council housing,To be fair they didn't have the forward thinking to realise that what they were doing was creating a situation where they were taking housing stock off the market and making the future a bleak place for the generations to follow. The funny thing is in some cases these very same places are being rented to people on benefits paid for by the tax payer funding a landlords property empire....it all seems madness to me.
I believe that more council housing should be built...even if it is a short term fix as has been stated before on this thread so many times....at least its a fix that may just carry us through another decade or even 20 years.....maybe by that time the economy may be able to sustain more workers all in the private sector that everyone is so obsessed with. And surely we will be better placed for the future with all the employment that a building boom would create....people with trades/skills/work ethics.....as I said short term fix maybe but with at least a shot at a long term view.
How to pay for it without borrowing a penny more ? Scrap building trident (the new one). There you go solved in the stroke of one pen....would be enough to sort the whole council housing shortage out.....if I am wrong then cut overseas aid for a few years too....**** me we might even have enough ? left to give the millionaires another % or 2 off their tax bill.

[thered]

Trying to live on ?18 a week showed the unfairness of the bedroom tax

Left with just ?18 for food after the bedroom tax, my constituents, like me, will have nothing to eat by the end of the week.
By Helen Goodman Published 05 March 2013 16:16

I was so shocked when I began receiving letters from my constituents about the implications for them of the bedroom tax, and about how little they would have left to live on, that I decided two weeks ago to see if I could survive on ?18 a week, which is what they will be left with to buy their food after 1 April.

?18 is based on the experiences of my constituents, in particular women on employment and support allowance who have had to stop working owing to chronic health conditions, perhaps after 20 years of working life. Out of their ?71.70, they have to find ?10 for electricity, ?20 for heating ***8212; gas or coal ***8212;?6 for water rates, ?4 for bus fares and ?10 for the bedroom tax, which left them with ?23 for weekly living expenses.

That ?23 has to cover more than food, of course. We did a calculation, and set aside ?5 for all the non-food items everyone has to buy***8212;soap, washing powder, washing-up liquid, toothpaste, loo paper***8212;plus a small amount in order to save ?50 a year for clothes or a pair of trainers, or in case the iron breaks. That leaves ?18.

I therefore took up the challenge of trying to live on that amount. It was extremely unpleasant. I had porridge for breakfast every morning, as I usually do, but whereas I usually make porridge with milk, instead I had to make it with water. I had to eat the same food over and over and over again. Single people are hit particularly hard, because cheap food comes in big packs. I made a stew at the beginning of the week, and I ate the same food four nights a week. I had pasta twice a week. I had baked potatoes. I had eggs on six occasions. It was completely impossible to have fish as well as meat; that was out of the question. It was also impossible to have five portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

I therefore have a message for Anna Soubry, the Tory minister who recently criticised people on low incomes for obesity. Of course they have to fill up on toast and biscuits.

I found myself waking up in the middle of the night, absolutely ravenous, having to make cups of tea and eat biscuits. I had a headache for five days week, and I was completely lethargic and exhausted by 4pm. Some people are on Jobseeker***8217;s Allowance and are looking for a job. Looking for a job is a job in itself; it takes time and energy. The people whom DWP ministers want to do workfare are being expected to work 30 hours a week, yet they are not going to have enough to eat properly.

Most shocking of all was the fact that come Sunday I ran out of food - there was literally nothing left to eat that night. If ministers are happy with the notion that 660,000 of our fellow citizens are literally not going to have enough to eat by the end of the week, they have no conception of what they are going to do to the people in our constituencies who will be faced with this bedroom tax.

Ministers have been very free and easy in talking about alternatives, such as the fact that people can move. In my constituency, more than 1,000 people will be affected by the bedroom tax but there are fewer than 100 smaller properties to which they could move. In my constituency, it is not possible for all these people to increase the number of hours they work, as seven people are chasing every job; people are in part-time work because they cannot get full-time work.

Of course some individuals or couples have properties that are larger than they need, but the so-called under-occupancy is in one part of the country and the overcrowding is in another. It is simply not credible to suggest that all the large, over-occupying families in London will move up to Durham, particularly given that the unemployment rate there is more than 9 per cent. What would they be moving to?

I made a video diary of my week, so I got a lot of feedback from people affected by this policy. Interestingly, they said, "Yes, this is the reality of our lives. We are not able to survive properly now and things are going to get worse to the tune of ?10 a week from 1 April." In 2006, I did the same experiment under the previous Labour government, living on benefits to see what life was like for young people on the lowest rate of income support. I found that difficult, but there was enough money to get through the whole week. I wish to point out to the minister that we have reached a new low, because the ?21 that people had in 2006 is equivalent to ?28 now, and that should be compared with the ?18 from 1 April.

Government ministers also constantly refer to how discretionary housing benefits can solve the problems created by the bedroom tax. In County Durham, ?5m of income will be taken out of people***8217;s pockets and out of the local economy. The size of the discretionary fund is half a million pounds, so once again there is a huge gap between actual need and the resources being given to people to deal with it.

The bedroom tax is a fundamental attack on the poorest people in this country. People are going to lose between ?500 and ?1,000 over the course of next year, through no fault of their own. But the really disgusting thing is that on the same day that the bedroom tax is being introduced, millionaires are being given a tax cut that will be worth ?1,000***8212;not over the year as a whole, but every single week.

Helen Goodman is Labour MP for Bishop Auckland and shadow media minister

Dunno where this is pasted from any woman with chronic condition on ESA

Will get either ?99 a week or ?105 depending on how bad this "chronic" condition is, if its a condition thats serious they will be in the support group and not have to attend any job centre, if its not to bad which they usually arnt they will be expected to go to dhs, once a month to see what you are capable of doing, and maybe found a job that suits your "chronic" condition


Doesnt say what the condition is shame? wonder why?



Plus they may get disability allowance and ESA premium which could take it to more closer to ?200 a week

If you cant live on ?100 a week for gas,electic, water and food and afford the extra ?12 "bedroom tax " there is something seriously wrong with what you are doing with your money

Many working families do not have this ?100 a week spare for the same things, yet have to manage


BTW many millionaires btw pay near ?10,000 per week per million its hardly a break is it??


We all go to school, we all get the oppurtunity to dig in and make a career maybe go to uni, how is it anyones fault that someone decided to spurn the oppurtunities given

[masur123]

I haven't posted since my little outburst last week (Which is true btw I used to earn a fortune on government projects and hence pay a fortune in tax an NI - Also had a pretty bad drug problem....ALL behind me now but what I was trying to put across was that I have been there and have recieved the councilling and help of mental health professionals and even had the happy pills for about 2 years or so....As I say happily well away from all that now but feel I can at least say I have experienced the shit life that is the struggle of someone on benefits....Did not mean to make it sound as though taking drugs was big/hard/clever it most certainly is not.)
This tax won't effect me as 1. I earn too much to receive any benefit (Self Employed Electrician) and 2. My misses is my fathers carer and we all live in the same council house but anyway I still have to pay the rent due to household earnings ect on my dad's HB form.
I still maintain this is a tax on the poor. I have not seen or heard any reasoning that has convinced me differently.
I see mentioned that private rentals have had to do this for years ect - This is where I differ I suppose because private rentals should imho be restricted, There is a world of difference in tax payers paying the state rents to the state and hence just going back into the states coffers as opposed to the taxpayer paying to make some landlord richer and paying for their BTL mortgages ect ect.
I suppose I am a leftie idealist but there ya go I happily admit to such.
This was all caused by the greedy folk who took up the option to buy council housing,To be fair they didn't have the forward thinking to realise that what they were doing was creating a situation where they were taking housing stock off the market and making the future a bleak place for the generations to follow. The funny thing is in some cases these very same places are being rented to people on benefits paid for by the tax payer funding a landlords property empire....it all seems madness to me.
I believe that more council housing should be built...even if it is a short term fix as has been stated before on this thread so many times....at least its a fix that may just carry us through another decade or even 20 years.....maybe by that time the economy may be able to sustain more workers all in the private sector that everyone is so obsessed with. And surely we will be better placed for the future with all the employment that a building boom would create....people with trades/skills/work ethics.....as I said short term fix maybe but with at least a shot at a long term view.
How to pay for it without borrowing a penny more ? Scrap building trident (the new one). There you go solved in the stroke of one pen....would be enough to sort the whole council housing shortage out.....if I am wrong then cut overseas aid for a few years too....**** me we might even have enough ? left to give the millionaires another % or 2 off their tax bill.

Whilst I hear your point about private landlords, it does sound like you think that if you arent lucky enough to get a council house then you have to pay the extra, and tough titties. Hardly the claimants fault is it?

So, again my point is, if those unfotunates who didnt get a council house have to do it and get by, what makes a council tenant any different?

[Diddy]

Whilst I hear your point about private landlords, it does sound like you think that if you arent lucky enough to get a council house then you have to pay the extra, and tough titties. Hardly the claimants fault is it?

So, again my point is, if those unfortunates who didnt get a council house have to do it and get by, what makes a council tenant any different?

Hence my "fix" of building more council housing of ALL shapes and sizes to better reflect today's society and needs.We must remember when all these council houses were planned and built people traditionally had larger families than we see in general today. I am more for dragging the people out of private and into social housing rather than dragging those in social down to the pitiful conditions of the private sector. Surely we do't strive for a race to the bottom do we ? I would much rather see those in the private sector afforded the same rights and terms as those in the social housing sector.
We are where we are so to speak - It's just the way of dealing with it is crucial imho.

[jordigirl]

social rents vary within which area you live. I tenant who claims benefits can take in a lodger, but would have to decalre any income to the relevant agency.

We are working on this with the BA to help provide supports to tenants. The scenarios Bulldog mentions are right, however, more people will benefit. In fact everyone will benefit because it i aimed to change the welfare state for the better. Something needs to change. There are not enough larger houses, we aer facing a housing crisis, people who are on benefits shouldnt really have a choice.

why shouldn't people on benefits have a choice???

as far as i am aware if you live in a council or social housing your not allowed to sublet. so can't take in a lodger,

if you do decide to share with someone does this affect the benefit you are entitled to ??

[Bulld0g]

Definately not, I am a socialist and not a tory....

Why should someone who is single get to live in a four bed house and the state pay the increase in housing benefit, when they dont work, cant work, wont work?

The ethos behind it is right. Should we (the state) go on forever paying housing benefits for things people dont need which causes a shortage for others that do need?

Can you tell me why you are against it?

Certainly. As i said in an earlier post #322 it has not been thought out. It's not balanced, it's unfair. Apart from the reasons i stated there is also the fact that an unemployed family renting from a private landlord will be unaffected even though private landlords often charge a much higher rent which is paid by the state.
How you can say everyone will benefit is beyond me. How can someone who was living in a nice area is then moved to a one bedroomed flat and the block is filled with smackheads and alchies benefit?
Take in a lodger? Yea he might be a paedo or thief but who cares as long as the rent is paid eh?

Like i said, in principle it could be a good thing but it hasn't been thought out by the Tories and chaos will ensue.

[tshirtman]

Re: Bedroom tax, new thread !

if this policy is so fair why is it only effecting those who rent,
what about those with a mortgage, there interest is being paid, are they having to pay anything towards there housing benefit, of course not, because that will hit tory voters.

[thered]

.
I suppose I am a leftie idealist but there ya go I happily admit to such.
This was all caused by the greedy folk who took up the option to buy council housing,To be fair they didn't have the forward thinking to realise that what they were doing was creating a situation where they were taking housing stock off the market and making the future a bleak place for the generations to follow. The funny thing is in some cases these very same places are being rented to people on benefits paid for by the tax payer funding a landlords property empire....it all seems madness to me.

So the greedy folk bought council houses

So we need to build more so that

Greedy folk can stay in their homes that are too big forever, at no extra cost, are they not forward thinking enough to realise they are taking housing stock away from the generations that follow and making the future a bleak place

Class



Approx 20% of bought ex council houses are in private sector now, a lot are people who been evicted for non payment of mortgage, its then went to auction its usually where private landlords step in

I suppose they dont pay interest, maintenance money, employ people and tax either

They give a percentage back, just as building more houses would

If the economy grew rapidly and the country could make billions on exports it would probably be a good idea

But it doesnt, the country is funded on borrowed money, and a lot of british money goes overseas for food, clothes and electrical items. We do not really make anymore, we consume and we import. We need to consume more british made things made with british grown/ made parts and import less and export more goods.

Its not easy british goods tend to be more expensive so it costs the buyer more money catch 22 so buyer has even less cash to spend

If we can find a way that changes this, and provides "real" money to the UK, exports maybe new drugs and technologies and it sources more of its own resources instead of importing then maybe we can think about mass public funded projects and new infrastructures. Problem is you have all the developed world doing the same thing, you have to be the best. Bit like the Germans who are renowned for quality and reliability.

Too many cheap countries undercut us, china and korea are proving year on year their standards are improving, and you never know we may have to go full circle and be china's bitches in the future as they will face what we face one day

Their country will develop into a country that stops producing and consumes, it will move again to somewhere else where labour is cheaper, probably not in my lifetime but it will happen

Cameron mentioned this week there is no cash tree, tbh he is right its ok shotting money at everything but if you dont have the resources coming in to pay it back it then becomes very short sighted and the future, for the future generations will look much bleaker than now

[tshirtman]

@thered, I hope you're going to stop ridiculing the mentally ill now, after another tragic killing in Birmingham by a Schizophrenic,
and this is going to be repeated once April comes, do you have any idea how many of these type of people are living in the community,
once these dangerously ill people are made homeless who's going to monitor them, and take action when they become psychotic.

[jordigirl]

@thered, I hope you're going to stop ridiculing the mentally ill now, after another tragic killing in Birmingham by a Schizophrenic,
and this is going to be repeated once April comes, do you have any idea how many of these type of people are living in the community,
once these dangerously ill people are made homeless who's going to monitor them, and take action when they become psychotic.

maybe they can share with another unsuspecting person,

tories don't care aslong as it don't affect them