Bedroom tax

[Captain Sensible]

If they cannot afford to have kids, why should the state subsidise them? In very general terms, their children have a greater chance of being the next generation who require support as well. Obviously, there will be some exceptions to this. IF you live in a private house, paying your mortgage, then you have to wait for a familiy if you cannot afford the rent without the wife's wages. Either that, or you have to be able to afford child-care.

I agree in way but life just isn't like that. You are sensible and live to your means, so do I. But what if you lost ur job and had to make do on less money and suddenly you can't pay for the life you have made? Plenty of people are in this same situation but in a different way. The coalition are cutting the benefit without having an alternative home to move to, there's the problem. If they did have alternative (decent) housing, the idea is a good one.

 

[pork pie]

Many people having their housing benefit cut who started off working but lost jobs only to then get jobs that paid less. one such example I am working with is a family on a low wage who will lose £14 a week of their housing benefit whilst in work because their 7 year old daughter died of cancer in January so their bedroom is now "spare". Hard to plan for eh?

Maybe they should have tried harder at school? Or are they professionals subjected to a big downturn in the "going rate" for their skills in the private sector since LAbour ruined this Country?

Like everything, there is no "one size fits all" solution to our welfare overexpenditure. I am sure we can all see the need for some sensitivity in the case you mention. At least in the short term. However, you, like most moaners, use extreme examples like this to suggest that the overall plans are wrong. In my opinion, they are long overdue. I have not checked, but have they changed the stupid rule that makes people on benefits entitled to a seperate room for each child? If not, they should have. Not everyone who pays for their own homes can afford that - far from it!

 

[clippedgull]

Many people having their housing benefit cut who started off working but lost jobs only to then get jobs that paid less. one such example I am working with is a family on a low wage who will lose £14 a week of their housing benefit whilst in work because their 7 year old daughter died of cancer in January so their bedroom is now "spare". Hard to plan for eh?

I have no idea in what capacity your work with this family entails, but I have seen on the Internet a similar situation and bereaved people that find themselves subject to the bedroom tax through a death are protected for a period of 52 weeks from the date of death.

Legislation is here: (12BA Para 5)

The Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012

It's a load of legalise but for anybody that knows their legal stuff, CAB types for example should be able to decipher it.

Hope this may help in some way.

 

[pork pie]

I don't know if they're on housing benefit but I'd say they probably are. Thing is, I honestly think they wouldn't have a problem downsizing but there isn't anywhere to move to. The places that might become available, are used as temporary solcial housing for immigrants etc and you wouldn't put a dog in there!
The coalition should have invested more since their election in building modern social housing and then implemented the system. It's all back to front, and as I said encourages some to have kids to keep the benefit or to move to a bigger place. Kids they probably can't afford.

THAT I totally agree with. It would have stimulated job grown in the construction industry as well. It is things like that that that they should be doing to create jobs on a greater scale than their "pet projects" to get things moving with people having "real jobs". Instead, what do they do? Slash interest rates to enable the banks to get cheap money, but still charge everyone high rates that wants to borrow from them, simply making the banks rich again, and rewarding them for their failure. The money is needed in the working man's pocket, so he can spend it to get the economy moving again. That was Labour as well.

 

[pork pie]

I agree in way but life just isn't like that. You are sensible and live to your means, so do I. But what if you lost ur job and had to make do on less money and suddenly you can't pay for the life you have made? Plenty of people are in this same situation but in a different way. The coalition are cutting the benefit without having an alternative home to move to, there's the problem. If they did have alternative (decent) housing, the idea is a good one.

I totally agree. That is why, in my opinion, benefits should reflect what people have paid as "Social Security" payments. But sadly, the way things work is that the people who pay the most in, get the least out in their time of need.

 

[geodavies]

I don't know if they're on housing benefit but I'd say they probably are. Thing is, I honestly think they wouldn't have a problem downsizing but there isn't anywhere to move to. The places that might become available, are used as temporary solcial housing for immigrants etc and you wouldn't put a dog in there!
The coalition should have invested more since their election in building modern social housing and then implemented the system. It's all back to front, and as I said encourages some to have kids to keep the benefit or to move to a bigger place. Kids they probably can't afford.

 

[Bakero]

If they work, they should have no need to claim housing benefit. This is not actually a tax as such you know?

With the minimum wage at such a high level, there should not be any "working poor", only people who think they can live beyond their means at everyone else's expense.

Minimum wage for 18-20 years olds is £4.98 p/h. For 21+ it's £6.19. (Unless it's just gone up).

So for a 35 hour week that's £174.30 or £216.65. Seeing as a one bedroom flat in Brighton costs around £150 a week it's hard to say that minimum wage is at such a high level.

 

[pork pie]

Minimum wage for 18-20 years olds is £4.98 p/h. For 21+ it's £6.19. (Unless it's just gone up).

So for a 35 hour week that's £174.30 or £216.65. Seeing as a one bedroom flat in Brighton costs around £150 a week it's hard to say that minimum wage is at such a high level.

Who gets away with only working 35 hours a week and expects their own place? If people cannot get a job on more than minimum wage, and cannot afford their own home in Brighton (which is an expensive place to live) then they can always move somewhere cheaper. 18 - 20 year old should not expect their own home anyway, if they can afford one, then lucky them. It is very unlikely though, as the clever ones will be at Uni still getting an education, or training for a trade. Either way, they should not expect enough for their own place. If they are working full time for a minimum wage, then it is their stupid fault for not trying to make more of their life.

 

[Bakero]

Who gets away with only working 35 hours a week and expects their own place? If people cannot get a job on more than minimum wage, and cannot afford their own home in Brighton (which is an expensive place to live) then they can always move somewhere cheaper. 18 - 20 year old should not expect their own home anyway, if they can afford one, then lucky them. It is very unlikely though, as the clever ones will be at Uni still getting an education, or training for a trade. Either way, they should not expect enough for their own place. If they are working full time for a minimum wage, then it is their stupid fault for not trying to make more of their life.

That's a little harsh. There are plenty of graduates working for minimum wage. Even in a shared house rent will take away a sizeable portion of income for someone on minimum wage. Perhaps you work more than 35 hours a week, but not everybody has that opportunity. Remember that people on minimum wage do not get paid for their breaks. So, 35 hours is a 9-5 job. Second jobs aren't that easy to come by.

Yeah, of course they could all move to a ex-mining village where the rents are cheap. No, issues there at all.

 

[pork pie]

That's a little harsh. There are plenty of graduates working for minimum wage. Even in a shared house rent will take away a sizeable portion of income for someone on minimum wage. Perhaps you work more than 35 hours a week, but not everybody has that opportunity. Remember that people on minimum wage do not get paid for their breaks. So, 35 hours is a 9-5 job. Second jobs aren't that easy to come by.

Yeah, of course they could all move to a ex-mining village where the rents are cheap. No, issues there at all.

At under 20? Summer jobs or other part time jobs maybe, but a three year degree started at 18... ... well, you do the maths. My point is that at just 35 hours people should not expect a home of their own anyway. Even top managers have to work much longer hours for what they get.

Hardly a need to move to an ex mining village, most of Sussex is cheaper.

 

[Bakero]

At under 20? Summer jobs or other part time jobs maybe, but a three year degree started at 18... ... well, you do the maths.

Obviously not. As I wrote before, the rate for over 21s isn't much higher.

 

[Gullys Cats]

I can't make my mind up, the rules have changed, people who have made a home for themselves spent money and time and love on a home but if you moved in today you would know the rules!

 

[Mackenzie]

I understand the logic in this legislation, but I have a feeling it will do to this conservative government what the 'poll tax' did for Maggies. We'll see.

 

[Butch Willykins]

It's not a tax.

The Government is not TAKING anything away. It's just GIVING less.

 

[clippedgull]

I see the bedroom tax affects 660,000 households but there are only 175,000 smaller properties available. Well thought out policy. NOT!

Still it's good to see that some councils (including Brighton) are not going to be evicting tenants who genuinely cannot afford to pay.

Brighton and Hove City Council’s ruling Green Party administration has pledged to not evict any council tenant who cannot afford to pay the controversial bedroom tax.

Housing committee chairman, Cllr Liz Wakefield, said the Government’s new tax, which has prompted protests around the country, was ‘immoral’.

‘I will therefore be bringing proposals that seek to ensure no household will be evicted from a Brighton and Hove City Council owned home as a result of spare room subsidy rent arrears, accrued solely from that household’s inability to pay this unjust bedroom tax,’ she said.

 

[pork pie]

Obviously not. As I wrote before, the rate for over 21s isn't much higher.

No, but does it make it the Govenment's problem? People should work long hours, or live within their means. Too many around EXPECT something for nothing. Just because someone has a degree, they think they should walk into a well paid job. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The last Labour Goverment have made it so easy that they are two a penny. It is still important for graduates to "have something about them" and a degree in something that suits the career they wish to pursue. There are too many with degrees that have no worth in the real world what so ever. In the old days these used to be deemed to show the level of intelegence of people, now, if they have nothing to do with the job they are applying for, they are worthless to employers.

Let us be brutally honest, even with a good law degree for a reasonable Uni, people are hard pressed to get a job that will eneble them to become solicitors. What good to anyone is a 1st in English Literature?

 

[mikeyjh]

At under 20? Summer jobs or other part time jobs maybe, but a three year degree started at 18... ... well, you do the maths. My point is that at just 35 hours people should not expect a home of their own anyway. Even top managers have to work much longer hours for what they get.

Hardly a need to move to an ex mining village, most of Sussex is cheaper.

People on minimum wage do need to live near to where the jobs are though, otherwise the transport costs become prohibitive......

The bedroom tax is an awful, nasty piece of legislation. Are we really at the stage of forcing teenagers to share boxes while giving £££s back to the richest? It seems so.

 

[pork pie]

I see the bedroom tax affects 660,000 households but there are only 175,000 smaller properties available. Well thought out policy. NOT!

Still it's good to see that some councils (including Brighton) are not going to be evicting tenants who genuinely cannot afford to pay.

That should be interesting if the tree huggers break the law! I hope they get locked up.

 

[pork pie]

People on minimum wage do need to live near to where the jobs are though, otherwise the transport costs become prohibitive......

The bedroom tax is an awful, nasty piece of legislation. Are we really at the stage of forcing teenagers to share boxes while giving £££s back to the richest? It seems so.

That is yet another matter. It does not make the topic we are discussing wrong though.

This Governments reduction in the top rate of tax at this time simply shows how out of touch they really are. The only reason for reducing it now could be justified is to be very aggressive over "tax loopholes" to get the money that way. As a matter of principle, the "rich" will still pay more tax than others, and so long as it is on ALL of their income (like everyone else has to via PAYE), it is fair that there is not a higher rate. They earned it in the first place - good luck to them!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

My point is that at just 35 hours people should not expect a home of their own anyway. Even top managers have to work much longer hours for what they get.

Have to agree with others that you're being overly harsh ! My partner used to have a good, reasonably paid job but got made redundant. After six months unemployed she finally managed to get another job but it's only part time and almost minimum wage - she wants to work full time but despite what the government says about an extra million jobs being created it's not that easy to get a full time job.