Ok I am a doler but i think the bedroom tax is a great thing why should people have spare rooms that they don't really need ? Council properties are not perfect but they do put a roof over your head why can't people just be grateful. I grew up in a 6 bedroom house but my parents worked hard for it and sold it when I left home.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-ta...ns-set-begin-1903281

I disagree.

The complications of getting a suitable person to share a flat are mind boggling.
this is simply government imposing a retrograde tax on those least able to fight it.

I guarantee it will cost more in the long term to implement especially with increased social problems.

The problem is the UK has had fixed rents on council flats whereas in Oz (as in the US) state housing tenants pay a percentage of their income..30%..up until it reaches a market rent. And each person living there pays rent likewise.

But just as mindless clueless ghastly politicians come up these idiotic schemes...the NSW minister (who I've met and wouldn't let her clean my car she is so incompetent)has just announced a 'bedroom tax'.

Ghastly Tories set out to destroy a state housing system that had worked perfectly in the UK for decades while the rest of Europe increased their state housing stock.

there is nothing 'conservative' about Tories..they are vandals

I agree, although I'm by no means a tory. There is a shortage of council houses with 3 or 4 bedrooms, so why should a single person live in a 3 bedroom council house on the state when there are families in need of housing.

Labour introduced a cut in housing benefit in privately owned homes for people with extra bedrooms. This is really just an extension of that, so they can't really winge about it. If labour were in power now, they would be implementing this rule, which was suggested by civil servants.

It would be fine if there was enough properties with less bedrooms for people to move to (and if the moving costs were met) but there isn't. Not even nearly. People who are happy and willing to move have to pay.

It would be fine if it didn't target families with children at university (already against the odds if they are poor)and make the student homeless when they graduate.

It would be fine if children who have to divide their life 50/50 between both parents (on the instruction of the family court) could have a bedroom at each home and not be forced to sleep on the couch or floor like an occasional visitor.

It would be fine if it didn't include couples who are forced to sleep in separate rooms because of health issues, or those who need a bedroom for a carer.

It would be fine if there wasn't social and health implications when people dont have adequate living space. We all know what happens to mammals if they are kept in cages that are too small!
We need bigger houses, not smaller.
Dining rooms are being re-classed as bedrooms for goodness sake! Didn't the government sponsor a campaign to encourage families to eat together only five minutes ago?

robbiex wrote:
I agree, although I'm by no means a tory. There is a shortage of council houses with 3 or 4 bedrooms, so why should a single person live in a 3 bedroom council house on the state when there are families in need of housing.

Labour introduced a cut in housing benefit in privately owned homes for people with extra bedrooms. This is really just an extension of that, so they can't really winge about it. If labour were in power now, they would be implementing this rule, which was suggested by civil servants.

Except it's not quite as simple as that. In my area and in many others there is a huge shortage of one-bed flats, and that's why you have so many single people occupying two-bed properties.

My case is far from unique in my area. I was placed on the housing list at a time when I was extremely vulnerable. I would very happily have accepted tenancy of a one-bedroom flat, but there were none. Like many other single people I accepted a two bedroom place because if I didn't I would be taken off the list and refused housing, so I had no choice. There are many people in my neighbourhood in the
same situation, as there simply were no one bed properties.


And for anyone willing to downsize, there is nowhere to go. The waiting list to downsize to a one-bed flat in my area is between 3-5 years. In the meantime the government know that vulnerable people on very low incomes will have no choice but to pay up. A typical case would mean someone having to pay £13 a week out of their benefits (JSA is £72 week) or from their low income.

The government say that this is about redistributing social housing so the right size households end up living in the right sized properties. That is not the intention at all. If it was, then they would accept the fact that there is a chronic shortage of smaller properties and only charge the bedroom tax to people who had turned down the chance to downsize. But as there is nowhere for people to move to they won't do that, and prefer to take the money from people who are trapped by this tax.

The real reason for the shortage of social housing can be traced back to the Tories' 'right to buy' scheme which allowed millions of people to buy their council properties at a knock-down rate (many of them immediately selling on to make a big profit). That housing stock was never replaced, and councils were actually forbidden from using the proceeds of sales to replenish the housing stock. But as usual, the current government is acting as though the poorest and most disadvantaged in society are the ones that caused the financial crisis, while they let the real culprits in big financial institutions off scott free.

One final point, the government is leading people to believe that the disabled will not be affected by this. That is blatantly untrue. There are very few cases indeed where disabled people have been able to claim exemption. The worrying thing is that when MPs have been presented of evidence of this, they claim they didn't realise the implications when they voted for it. I despair.

david wrote:
My case is far from unique in my area. I was placed on the housing list at a time when I was extremely vulnerable. I would very happily have accepted tenancy of a one-bedroom flat, but there were none. Like many other single people I accepted a two bedroom place because if I didn't I would be taken off the list and refused housing, so I had no choice.

Notice that this was being introduced was made almost THREE years ago ... you have had plenty of notice (but did absolutely nothing about it?)

robbiex wrote:
Labour introduced a cut in housing benefit in privately owned homes for people with extra bedrooms. This is really just an extension of that, so they can't really winge about it. If labour were in power now, they would be implementing this rule, which was suggested by civil servants.

Indeed they did .... and they will KEEP all of the cuts if they (heaven forbid !) won the next election.

They are extremely grateful that someone else has had to do the cuts that THEY were responsible for and WOULD have done anyway (but can now pretend that they wouldn't have).

It's called loony politics.

btw ... Have (dis)Unite completed the coup and taken over the Labour Party yet ?

Ladies and Gentlemen,I give you Chunky Mark, aka the Artist Taxi Driver.

This man is quickly becoming my new hero

Instinctively I feel this is wrong; a typical example of an idea that sounds fine until you look into it when anyone can see it isn't fair and doesn't work in practice.

Government by simplistic slogan; the tabloid headline mentality of politicians and media today.

What is fair in life ?

JK2006 wrote:
a typical example of an idea that sounds fine until you look into it when anyone can see it isn't fair and doesn't work in practice.



Exactly.

andrew wrote:
What is fair in life ?

If it is ok for it to not be fair then you might as well say it to the people in overcrowded accommodation and not bother at all.
Surely the supposed (in a pigs ear!) point of it was fairness?

Channel 4 News Fact Check: 'Cameron Wrong Again on Bedroom Tax Detail'

“Anyone who needs to have a carer sleeping in another bedroom is exempt from the spare room subsidy.”
David Cameron, 10 July 2013

..........

The Prime Minister has slipped up on the details before, as we found in an earlier FactCheck. Today he was accused of getting it wrong again in response to awkward questions about the plight of disabled claimants and the partners who care for them.

..........

Mr Cameron is guilty, not for the first time, of exaggerating the built-in protections for the most vulnerable claimants. People who use a spare room to store medical equipment or for the occasional accommodation of an overnight carer are not protected.

Carers who look after a spouse or partner but need to sleep in a separate room are also not exempt from the “bedroom tax”."


If the Prime Minister hasn't a clue about his own policies, and makes blatantly untrue statements in parliament, then what hope is there for the rest of us? Incompetent or disingenous?

Apologies for forgetting the link to the Channel 4 Fact Check piece above.

Here it is:

blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-c...oom-tax-detail/13885

JK2006 wrote:
Instinctively I feel this is wrong; a typical example of an idea that sounds fine until you look into it when anyone can see it isn't fair and doesn't work in practice.

The something-for-nothing society would have as many bedrooms as they want if they cost them nothing !

It seems to be working fine in the East Midlands -

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-23248048

These people should be grateful for the (FREE !) assistance that they are given - after all, its these same people (voting for Labour) that caused all the overspend (and cuts) in the first place !!!

People who dont contribute to society should have no part in the voting process.

In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Instinctively I feel this is wrong; a typical example of an idea that sounds fine until you look into it when anyone can see it isn't fair and doesn't work in practice.

The something-for-nothing society would have as many bedrooms as they want if they cost them nothing !

It seems to be working fine in the East Midlands -

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-23248048

These people should be grateful for the (FREE !) assistance that they are given - after all, its these same people (voting for Labour) that caused all the overspend (and cuts) in the first place !!!

People who dont contribute to society should have no part in the voting process.

Do you mean contribute financially or socially? Almost everyone can make a difference in some way, even if it isnt financially, and some people dont contribute financially but are not taking anything either. Why shouldn't these people vote?