The flaws of the bedroom tax on housing benefit come april 2013

The tory c**ts with 5 houses and 20 spare bedrooms will of course be exempt from this.

the man that needs more lie ins to get sense in his brain speaks.  he may rise early, but with contributions like this, why does he bother? 

if people have 1 spare bedroom and lose 14% of their state funded rent, and have 2 spare bedrooms and lose 25% of their state funded rent, i would see the penalties as too lax.

there are many working people with no spare bedrooms, and not only no spare bedrooms but will have kids sharing rooms, and parents that might even sleep together.  they are still funding 86% of the rent of people with spare bedrooms.  it isnt fair, plus the country cant afford it.

when government pumps money in, it pushes prices up, whatever the good intentions.  it is why the cost of medicine escalates continuously, why public transport goes up and why whole towns have rents at levels the worker cannot afford.

mr reagan says that (there are many working people with no spare bedrooms)  There are working people on low wages claiming help with their rent they will be affected as well.

well is working people on low wages have taxpayer help with their rent, and it helps pay for a property with spare bedrooms, it makes sense to reduce the taxpayer help.

housing benefit is one of the many manipulations of the housing market sending rents upwards. 

the intentions may be to help the worker, but it works against them.

and it is unsustainable.  lefties may think the rich can pay more tax but the 50% tax rate raised an additional #1billion.  the deficit is $140billion.

it is a nightmare, and i dont think marginal reductions on taxpayer subsidies to people with spare bedrooms is far enough to get us out of the mire.

it is not believable what is happening to us.

i shared bedrooms with my brothers.  my dad shared his beds with grandparents and brothers.

i dont mind if the taxpayer can afford to pay taxes to give people spare bedrooms, but economically the figures dont look like they can.

"i dont think marginal reductions on taxpayer subsidies to people with spare bedrooms is far enough to get us out of the mire."

Of course it isn't.  The concept of someone who can't afford their own place being funded by the state to have an unused bedroom is ludicrous.  Why don't we give them a mansion while we are at it?

Of course, lefties wail about any "savage" cut as if you have just taken the man's clothes of his back and left him naked in the street.  They'll only understand when the country is busto.

it is more blaming the position on the cuts, not that there is not enough wealth or production to fund the current government spending.

live beyond your means and you are destined to live beneath them.  greece is finding this out, as will UK and US.

EMR is so daft, he cant even respond when i set him up telling him my dad shared bed with his grandparents, hoping i would get a product of incest dig.  to give me an excuse to really rell him what i think of his nonsense views.  its like walking on eggshells with these delicate souls worrying about people losing spare bedrooms, funded by taking money off other people by force, other people who may have kids share rooms, or certainly not have spare bedrooms.

i mean spare bedrooms when you have kids IS luxury isnt it?  is that how far the sense of entitlement to other peoples money has got?

They'll only understand when the country is busto.

again wishful thinking.  lefties in Greece blame the cuts, the germans, or american mortgage defaulters.

intellectual lefties like Blanchflower say its because the bailouts have not been big enough.

bust will consolidate their sense of grievance, and send them further to the left.  they will NOT be free market right wingers.

The principle of this is right imv - if you want to have a house with guest facilities and you're getting subsidised for that, then you shouldn't. Of course, there will be some with spare bedrooms which are used for hobbies from cooking up to storing their fishing gear and breeding maggots.
There are problems with the details ( aren't there always ) and as Reagan says, it's cutting at the margins. We had record tax and other receipts in 11/12 and yet the govt still spent close to £130bn more than that paying for the difference with a combination of borrowing and printing.

The change DOES NOT affect people over 61.5 years old. NOR does it affect people getting help with private sector rents. It's only for those in LA owned housing or not-run-for-profit Housing Association properties. There will be many single people, possibly with young grand-children who stay over, or children majority resident with an ex affected. There is very little one-bedroomed housing stock afaik, so they will have to face getting less HB or finding one of the few one-bedroom places. Why they're living on their own at taxpayer expense will be their story, but if they can house-share with an adult friend or even form a relationship again, then their situation will be financially better. What they shouldn't be doing is complaining about bankers or telling UK taxpayers,China, and unborn children to pay for them. But they will.

A far more significant change socially will be the paying of Universal Credit to the claimant rather than the Landlord - there will be some 'thrown on the streets' and 'forced to go on the game' stories over that when the drug and alcohol dependents find that landlords who haven't been paid the rent don't want them.

bongo to me epitomises the true right winger.

a man of actual, real compassion, that lives in the real world.

i am just a loudmouth yob by comparison, giving it big on the magic mushroom.

i found the 3rd para really thought provoking.  people are single parents for many reasons, and must not be judged.  i do agree with that.  the stereotype does not help.  but that does NOT mean it is unreasonable to have a system that promotes adults sharing accommodation, or looking for a partner to help financially, if they cannot stand alone.  i have not seen such a view expressed so reasonably or compassionately before.

Couples will be expected to live in a 1 bed flat. Has for single divorced parents, Fathers/mothers who have their child/children for weekends will be hit by this. Unless their children sleep on the floor.

They could always pay for something themselves

Fathers/mothers who have their child/children for weekends will be hit by this. Unless their children sleep on the floor.

Maybe some of them could think about all this before they have kids and then think again before they split up.

many working couples live in 1 bed places.

i have known working couples still sharing with parents.

it is not the taxpayers issue to fund spare rooms for visiting children not living there, when the taxpayer pays high taxes and the deficit is so big.

if i was 6 and visiting my mum/dad i would gladly sleep with them, or in the living room, or mattress on the floor.  if i was 16, i would just have to deal with it.

RonnieReagan     18 Aug 12 11:12 
the man that needs more lie ins to get sense in his brain speaks.  he may rise early, but with contributions like this, why does he bother? 

if people have 1 spare bedroom and lose 14% of their state funded rent, and have 2 spare bedrooms and lose 25% of their state funded rent, i would see the penalties as too lax.

there are many working people with no spare bedrooms, and not only no spare bedrooms but will have kids sharing rooms, and parents that might even sleep together.  they are still funding 86% of the rent of people with spare bedrooms.  it isnt fair, plus the country cant afford it.

There may be more properties available if some places weren't flooded with immigrants

And you can't build new houses where there is no brown land to build them on

Correct, we've got too many people here, it's not phucking rocket science

Mr & Mrs A lives in a 2 bedroom council house in a quiet area, Mr A has worked for 40yrs and paid all his own rent for that house and has 2 children that has just left home. Mr A has just become unemployed/or finished worked due to illness. During his working life he has kept his home in very good condition. Now Mr A will lose 14% of his housing benefit which he cant afford to make up. He has been offered a 1 bedroom run down flat next to some junkies in a village 10miles from where he now lives due to there being no 1 bed properties in the village where he now lives. If Mr A refuses this property he will not be able to keep up the rent on
his 2 bed home and could be evicted.

the natural progression of that view is other taxpayers fund people living at the same standard as they have enjoyed, at any point in their lives.

it is not sustainable and it is not fair to the taxpayer.

Exactly, if you can't afford something don't assume someone else will buy it for you.

Mr & Mrs A comes to the conclusion that they have no option but to move to that flat. Mr A's health deteriorates due to his illness and he needs constant care. His illness causes him to
have uncontrolled bowel movements and he and his wife finds it hard to share a bed together. There is only a very small lounge in that flat so putting a bed in there is out of the question. So Mrs A sleeps on the sofa every night, Their 2 children and their families live
100 miles from them and cant visit and stay to help their mother due to lack of room. If only they had a spare room.

Do you write for mills and boon?

What a load of sentimental bollox

blackburn, thats a scenerio that going to happen many times after 2013.

he has kept his home in very good condition. Now Mr A will lose 14% of his housing benefit

It's a strange case where a person rents all that time from the council, looks after it ( which usually means prompt reporting of faults to the council ) but doesn't buy, but that was his choice presumably, but having made that choice it doesn't make the home his. It still belongs to the council.
What's being offered is still a cracking safety net even at 86%. They could always speak to the council about accepting a lodger. Still not clear to me why a desirable place ( quiet area ) for 4 people should get the full whack from the taxpayer when 2 people are there.
Take your point about about there being a shortage of suitable 1 bed houses for couples - one hopes that this is something housing associations are getting onto.

EMR

You are amongst friends here so don't feel the need to hide behind letters about Mr A. It brought a tear to my eye when you wrote about your bowel problem.

Or how about taking on a foster child - both unemployed now presumably as we don't know about Mrs A, have a history of responsible parenting and being good tenants, and have the spare bedroom required. Get in.

bongo as usual is spot on, the poor bloke with soiled undies could have bought his house at a huge discount 25 years ago. Of course the simperers like EMR would now be moaning he's got to sell it to pay for care.

blackburn, there could be many reasons why they never bought the house for, maybe they had principles, maybe they could not afford to purchase because they were on low money and raising 2 children, maybe they supported their children through uni etc.

By the way you are describing one of the oldest legal adages perfectly. Hard cases make bad law. It's a bit like the welfare state as a whole. You start off with the best of intentions wanting to help the really difficult cases like that of Mr A. There may be only a few hundred of them in the whole country but compassion overtakes you and you set up a system to help them out. Fast forward a few decades and you now have millions milking the system and you are borrowing hand over fist running to stand still. Worse than that the system which was set up to help those relatively few truly needy has not only ruined everybody by paying for millions but to put a cherry on top of the cake it has resulted in a massive house price boom with people falling over themselves trying to get into buy to let and young couples doing their nuts trying to get a mortgage.

So a house which should cost about £100,000 is now costing £200,000 and the couple are paying out for an unecessary £100,000 portion of a mortgage, money which they are now unable to put back into the economy.

In short don't trust socialists or state interventionists to run anything. There is always something else to spend somebody else's money on.

Eeternaloptist you are right in a way what you are saying, But has you get older a spare room
could make a big differance.

So these kids that were put through uni, what part are they playing in repaying the old man?

bongo wrote, Take your point about about there being a shortage of suitable 1 bed houses for couples - one hopes that this is something housing associations are getting onto.

Thats the problem bongo they are not building them where they need them. And for this change
in april 2013 has come to fast for them to do it anyway.

Haha love the principles bit, why pay for something yourself when some other mug can be found to cough up.

blackburn, dont you know anyone with principles, i know quite a few people who do

Plenty thanks, it seems the hero in your novel doesn't have them though, his only interest is being provided for.

maybe a few on here needs to do some volunteering work in an advice centre, its an eye opener

There is 1 case where social services are in the process of building an extension for a person who suffers with walking difficulties, They are making a room downstairs for him. He lives with his mother and live in a 3 bed council house and with that extension there will be 4 bedrooms in that house. At the moment he gets DLA but that could stop when it changes over to pips. But come april his mother would have 25% of her HB cut because he dont have a non resident overnight carer. But they might be able to claim a discretionary housing benefit off the council if they are lucky.

Care to tell us EMR how much bedroom benefits ( Housing Benefit I mean ) are being paid at the moment to this pair of people. I mean if it's less than £100 / week, then the extra cost is easily covered by the DLA and surely worth it if the downstairs extension meets their requirements. Is the mother claiming Carer's Allowance because of the role she does for him?
This does seem a case of traditional cradle to grave council thinking that you must stay in the house you were previously in and not try to identify one of a more appropriate size and modify that one accordingly.

Early Morning Riser     18 Aug 12 14:04 
Mr & Mrs A comes to the conclusion that they have no option but to move to that flat. Mr A's health deteriorates due to his illness and he needs constant care. His illness causes him to
have uncontrolled bowel movements and he and his wife finds it hard to share a bed together. There is only a very small lounge in that flat so putting a bed in there is out of the question. So Mrs A sleeps on the sofa every night, Their 2 children and their families live
100 miles from them and cant visit and stay to help their mother due to lack of room. If only they had a spare room.

Tell Mr A to black his face up and to the Housing Department, he might get a £2k a week place in London

Just bumping this thread as many councils are currently writing to private sector HB claimants in their boroughs who currently have guest rooms subsidised by the taxpayers many of whom cannot afford such guest facilities themselves
One example .
http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/Axe-looming-Crawley-housing-benefits-claims/story-16826761-detail/story.html
where they feature a Robin Burnham who may be a poster on here ( 'We gave 1.3tn GBP to the banks' ).

I suspect those lucky enough to have big houses with a spare room may well be in the action of sexual exploration

We clearly have a shortage of available housing in many parts of the UK now.

So let’s not forget that this was caused directly by letting too many people in to the country, as a result of unlimited immigration.
Because of that we are now punishing people who have lived here for decades by making them live somewhere else to make room for the extra numbers

It’s the Tories who are getting it in the neck over the measures they are having to introduce to try and ease the problem of housing. But it is the Labour party who are guilty of causing the shortage of housing in the first place.

Good quote from EO at 14:31 – ‘’Hard cases make bad law.’’

Nothing could be truer.

What`s wrong with guests sleeping on the sofa these days.

Sofa beds are fantastic, practical and character building.

Australian outback swag bags will be all the rage soon.( subsidised by the tax payer of course )

Dr Crippen,The Tories are the longest serving political Party since the war(Are they not) so little time to make decisions?

yes they did make decisions, Heath took us into europe,and Maggie sold the oil,BT, and the Cheap Affordable Housing!

We didn't have an acute housing shortage before the golden years that New labour were in power.

You can't blame the Tories for the extra numbers we have to house now.

Labour let them in, giving them our jobs and housing not the Tories.

you dodge the facts!

just watching the IMF giving a positive spin on Qe3 -4 -5 etc there idea of kicking the can down the road, or taxing the poor i do suggest.

You dodge the obvious.

Take your party political crap and get a life,both political party represent the same agenda.

metro john, do you mean party political crap like this?

Dr Crippen,The Tories are the longest serving political Party since the war(Are they not) so little time to make decisions?

There’s no argument over the cause of the housing shortage, the influx of immigrants happened under New Labour’s watch.
They let then come here without any concern about the possible consequences to the working population.

I call it tyranny, what do you call it?

That was in reply to this~Dr Crippen • September 14, 2012 10:29 AM BST
We clearly have a shortage of available housing in many parts of the UK now.

So let’s not forget that this was caused directly by letting too many people in to the country, as a result of unlimited immigration.
Because of that we are now punishing people who have lived here for decades by making them live somewhere else to make room for the extra numbers

It’s the Tories who are getting it in the neck over the measures they are having to introduce to try and ease the problem of housing. But it is the Labour party who are guilty of causing the shortage of housing in the first place.

You Tory boys make out you never been in power

It was New Labour who welcomed the masses of immigrants with open arms, they wanted to ‘’rub the noses of the right in it.’’

Labour allowed them access to our jobs welfare and housing, and called us racists if we objected.
The Labour party are a disgrace, they only represent themselves and their own MPs.

i would not disagree on that point,but the remarks and even more so given to the Tories who have done just as much on behalf of there American employers!

Yes i remember Clinton coming over here and demanding an end to the irish conflict,just 12months latter it was over, (well done Bill,just a pity you yankees were funding or even controlling the conflict from the start)Who was blowing up ENGLAND?

FEAR make them FEAR

Yes those Americans did not like the socialism of the 60s-70s.

Kids are supposed to share a room?

Two children of different sex have to have separate bedrooms when one of them reaches the age of 10. That was the rule of many councils in the 1970s, no idea about now.

It's 5 now.

.
http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2012-10-17-Council-offering-25k-payout-to-tenants-who-downsize-homes

Something's don't change I suppose - council identifies a problem which is under-occupied larger houses and crowded smaller ones - look at potential options to alleviate the problem - choose the solution which involves throwing money at the problem.

The main flaw is that it's the state stealing from people to give to others.  If it were deemed necessary by those who produced the wealth, they'd do it anyway.

The taxpayer is not actually subsidising the unemployed or the lower paid with Housing Benefit. The people who gain from high rents are the landlords.

SS - How can you say that the taxpayer is not subsidising the Unemployed or lower paid when the tax payer hands them money towards their housing costs? Is that not the definition of a subsidy.

If this state intervention is producing higher rents then it is the tax payer who rents a house who is losing out twice. They pay tax so the unemployed can have a house & then find their rent is higher because of this government intervention.

If the money is actually payed to the landlord then the tenant isn't getting any taxpayers money. Hth.

Nonsensical.  If the governmemt bought new cars from showrooms and gave them to individuals would you say the individuals aren't getting taxpayer money?

Spray - you have a pretty warped definition of what taxpayer subsidy is.

If rent is £1000, tenant pays £500 & taxpayer pays £500 how is that not a subsidy to the tenant?

No it's a subsidy to the landlord.

It is a subsidy to the tenant.

If the landlord got a subsidy then it would not matter how much the tenant earns. The Housing benefit if given to the low paid tenant so they can live in a house.

If rent is £1000, tenant pays £500 & taxpayer pays £500 how is that not a subsidy to the tenant?

Presumably he is making the argument that without the housing benefit then the rent would decrease and thus the landlords are the ones that benefit.  Tenant just wants to live there, and whether it costs £500 from him, or £500 from him + £500 from government doesn't impact him.

However, the reality is if the benefit was taken away then the tenant would suffer.  Rent might go down to £850, but the tenant is out on the street and replaced by private renter.  Tenant has to move to a less desirable area (which seems fair to me).

Agree Java -
The private renter is the guy suffering - he would have got the place for £850 (in your example) but because of the State subsidy he pays more tax and pays more rent.

There is plenty of state intervention in the housing market.

So the private landlord actually gets MORE than the market rent.
Could you explain how this is not a subsidy ?

I'd say in my example they are both subsidised.  At the expense of the private tenant/worker who as Mexico says gets a double whammy.

Ok. I'll settle for that. Progress         

Well done SS - may have taken nearly 5 hours but we now agree your post at 11:55 was incorrect.
The taxpayer is "actually subsidising the unemployed or the lower paid with Housing Benefit".
The landlord also gets a good deal.

What's this the Twilight Zone?

''If rent is £1000, tenant pays £500 & taxpayer pays £500''

This fantasy land, LHA can be claimed by people on a low income who qualify.

I'd like to see proof of some of these sort of arrangements.

Meanwhile here's some genuine LHA rates that are being paid, and with a link.

''The LHA rates applicable from 1 April 2012 are shown below, these rates will apply until April 2013:-''



Property                     Worcester North    Birmingham    Black Country    Solihull
                   
1 Room Rate shared facilities      £58.50            £55.00       £60.00             £69.05
1 Room Rate                      £91.15            £96.92             £86.54             £114.23
2 Room Rate                     £114.23            £115.38        £103.85             £144.23
3 Room Rate                     £126.92            £126.92             £115.38    £167.31
4 Room Rate                     £173.08            £161.54             £150.00    £230.77
             
http://www.bromsgrove.gov.uk/cms/advice-and-benefits/benefits/housing-benefi...

The LHA rate for any area, is taken by calculating the  average private rental rate for the area, and then taking off about another ten per cent.

It’s not the demand for LHA that forces up the rents, it’s the demand for private rentals that does that.
Private rentals move up and down irrespective of what is happening to the LHA.

A while back the government knocked about ten percent off the LHA across the country.

The following year they had to put the LHA rates up again because private rentals had risen despite the cuts which had led to many DSS tenants being evicted, and under 35s single people disqualified from renting their own place.
In he main LHA rates are only of interest to landlords with properties at the bottom end of the private rental market.

Let's add the Camden money-spunkers to Dr Crippen's tabulation:

Property                     Worcester North    Birmingham    Black Country    Solihull            Camden ( Central ) Camden ( Inner North )
                   
1 Room Rate shared facilities      £58.50            £55.00       £60.00             £69.05        £123.50           £88.50
1 Room Rate                      £91.15            £96.92             £86.54             £114.23   £250.00           £250.00
2 Room Rate                     £114.23            £115.38        £103.85             £144.23      £290.00           £290.00
3 Room Rate                     £126.92            £126.92             £115.38    £167.31          £340.00           £340.00
4 Room Rate                     £173.08            £161.54             £150.00    £230.77          £400.00           £400.00

It looks to me that working people in Worcester North, Birmingham and Black Country are subsiding people in nice Solihull and exciting Camden to have better houses or lifestyles than they can currently aspire to. OK so between 1/5th and 1/6th of HB claimants are working - the fact that they are even eligible for HB indicates just how much and how soon they are being taxed ( why the feck are UK workers paying 44% tax when income goes over 8105 is a mystery but that's where we're at today with PAYE, employer and employee NICs ).

What's also galling is that almost every non-disabled person in Solihull is in reasonable travel distance of say cheaper Birmingham and could maintain their friendships if they were so committed, but they are currently allowed to stay put in the nice bits.

And the savers are  subsidising the home-owners and Let2buy mortgage payers.

The DWP have published some survey data to get an idea of the challenges ahead when Universal Credit comes in:

I like IDS - he wants people on full and partial housing benefit to take more responsibility for themselves, he wants to pay them directly and let the tenant pay the landlord, he wants to pay them monthly as well like most working people.

The summary is at .
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/summ2011-2012/822summ.pdf
and it looks like the average housing benefit claimant is in a sorry state -
Currently 'in the majority of cases, Housing Benefit is paid directly to landlords'
'Almost four in ten said it would be ‘difficult’ to ‘manage their finances’ if Housing Benefit was paid directly to them'
'25 per cent of all tenants had run out of money before the end of the week or month ‘very often’ during the previous year'

There are plans to give people money management counselling but -
'money management and budgeting support provided to tenants by landlords and local agencies. However, this support is likely to be relatively resource intensive'
Too right, meaning it will be intensive with a 'substantial minority' of tenants reckoning they'll need their metaphorical hand holding for them long-term.

There is now an option to back out and go back to direct payments to landlords - 'the Government is designing UC to include support for tenants (including assistance with budgeting and money management) and safeguards for landlords (for example, a mechanism for ‘switching back’ the payment of Housing Benefit to the landlord, or exemption from direct payments for people particularly vulnerable to accruing arrears)'

In Northern Ireland it's already been decided that the housing element of Universal Credit will go direct to landlords, and that claimants can be paid fortnightly rather than monthly, but in NI people behind on rent would get treated in a special way not customarily available to GB landlords and this is best avoided.

It looks to me a fair bet if it was available that the DWP will go down the NI route for the mainland too at some point, but I still think promoting more responsible financial planning is worth a try.