New bedroom tax

[time4change2]

it seems this thread is now going on to a different subject view and that's not what is was intended for but for the discussion and advice on the bedroom tax this will effect a lot of people so can we please keep it to the original discussion please

[aw248]

Hi i just saw this.

 

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2013/03/11/government-under-fire-over-bedroom-tax-trap/

[worried33]

Why is it wrong to treat council house tenants the same as private tenants?

 

Most of you on here didnt say a word about the changes to the under 35s.

 

That was in affect also a bedroom tax.

 

Why are people in council housing more deserving of help?

[Nystagmite]

It's nothing to do with being more deserving. Where are all these smaller houses?

 

Apparently, disabled children won't be affected by this. All disabled people shouldn't be affected by this.

[jadeybags]

Why is it wrong to treat council house tenants the same as private tenants?

 

Most of you on here didnt say a word about the changes to the under 35s.

 

That was in affect also a bedroom tax.

 

Why are people in council housing more deserving of help?

 

Good point. The country isn't exactly over flowing with single bedrooms to rent either.

[worried33]

It's nothing to do with being more deserving. Where are all these smaller houses?

 

Apparently, disabled children won't be affected by this. All disabled people shouldn't be affected by this.

 

Well they did it on the under 35s first, almost zero resistance, so that policy is now active and now they that decision to back this next one up so they can state its to bring this in line with that.

 

So I think its relevant to the argument.

[aw248]

Read this

 

 

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2013/03/13/benefit-cut-branded-just-another-poll-tax/

[time4change2]

that report states it does not effect disabled people well it does

 

unless your getting full respite care or a friend (not a family member) gets carers allowance for you rhea you have to pay it regardless of dla awards i was told this face to face by a housing benefit manager my sister will have to pay £15.00 a week i think it is for her second bedroom despite that fact she get 5 days a week sleep over help as she is cared for by family member and not respite care or a friend claiming carers allowance for her she is not entitled to the second bedroom

[id6052]

that report states it does not effect disabled people well it does

 

unless your getting full respite care or a friend (not a family member) gets carers allowance for you rhea you have to pay it regardless of dla awards i was told this face to face by a housing benefit manager my sister will have to pay £15.00 a week i think it is for her second bedroom despite that fact she get 5 days a week sleep over help as she is cared for by family member and not respite care or a friend claiming carers allowance for her she is not entitled to the second bedroom

 

as previously advised...

 

there is nothing in HB regs for extra bedroom that states that you need to be in receipt of Carers Allowance or that the carer can not be a family member - I would advise appealing the decision

[time4change2]

that's what we was told face to face we can apply for a discretion payment if she is on a low income there is so much going on in the press lately and housing benefit are going to go off what they have been told so you dont know what to believe the press contradicts what hosing benefit are saying but at the moment we can only go off what housing benefit states as its them paying and awarding the amount of housing benefit

[fightingback99]

Why is it wrong to treat council house tenants the same as private tenants?

 

Most of you on here didnt say a word about the changes to the under 35s.

 

That was in affect also a bedroom tax.

 

Why are people in council housing more deserving of help?

 

Think Worried has made a good point here. If people in social housing had backed the private renters,there would be a strong untied front, isnteadit looks fractured. Possibly as the gov intneded it to be. And someone faced with looking for a 1 bed private rental might hve the same problem of not being able to find one, and doesn't have the same security..

 

Don't rent myself but trying to appreciate different points of view on this. AS someone not affected I lost some sympathy for social ttenants affected by this change when I read this is what happens in private rentals. And before anyone jumps on my head about lifelong tenancies etc, IB was supposed to be paid regrdless of income. Change happens and thousands have been left £400 worse off each month because a partner earns over £120 or whatever.

[worried33]

Think Worried has made a good point here. If people in social housing had backed the private renters,there would be a strong untied front, isnteadit looks fractured. Possibly as the gov intneded it to be. And someone faced with looking for a 1 bed private rental might hve the same problem of not being able to find one, and doesn't have the same security..

 

Don't rent myself but trying to appreciate different points of view on this. AS someone not affected I lost some sympathy for social ttenants affected by this change when I read this is what happens in private rentals. And before anyone jumps on my head about lifelong tenancies etc, IB was supposed to be paid regrdless of income. Change happens and thousands have been left £400 worse off each month because a partner earns over £120 or whatever.

 

Yes and its actually even worse for under 35s in private rental.

 

Private renting is less secure anyway and the cost of moving is inherintly higher than switching between council properties.

 

Also that the change is more than just 1 less room but going from a 1 bed contained property to shared room rate, the gap on that is huge, eg. in my case it is 36% of my housing benefit. Whilst the predicted hits for this bedroom tax are 14-25% much lower.

 

Everyone should have been united as you say but it seems many people will only moan when they are affected.

 

Been honest I was surprised when it was announced it doesnt already happen, its most defenitly the norm on private rentals.

[RaeUK]

Meanwhile, back to my personal bugbear. On tonight's Question Time, Francis Maude was speaking about the problems of a person living in private rented accommodation and a person in low cost social housing. He said "...you can have tenants living next to each other. One gets the subsidy [for having an extra bedroom] the other doesn't."

Indeed. And under your scheme, as of the beginning of April, I'll be living next to another tenant where 'one gets the subsidy [for having an extra bedroom] the other doesn't'.

Where's the difference? Just because my neighbour can't 'increase their income through work' because they are a pensioner and I 'can't increase my income through work' because I have a degenerative lung disease. Should I really be paying £64 a month more for an identical low cost social housing property?

Harrumph!

 

EDIT: This is a policy that, as the cliche goes, was worked out on the back of a fag packet. Hopefully, this government will bring in plain wrappings for cigarettes - thereby increasing the amount of space they have to work out policies ...

Edited March 15, 2013 by RaeUK

[estellyn]

Meanwhile, back to my personal bugbear. On tonight's Question Time, Francis Maude was speaking about the problems of a person living in private rented accommodation and a person in low cost social housing. He said "...you can have tenants living next to each other. One gets the subsidy [for having an extra bedroom] the other doesn't."

Indeed. And under your scheme, as of the beginning of April, I'll be living next to another tenant where 'one gets the subsidy [for having an extra bedroom] the other doesn't'.

Where's the difference? Just because my neighbour can't 'increase their income through work' because they are a pensioner and I 'can't increase my income through work' because I have a degenerative lung disease. Should I really be paying £64 a month more for an identical low cost social housing property?

Harrumph!

 

EDIT: This is a policy that, as the cliche goes, was worked out on the back of a fag packet. Hopefully, this government will bring in plain wrappings for cigarettes - thereby increasing the amount of space they have to work out policies ...

 

I think we just all need to ensure not to rise to the bait (as the government wants) of being at our neighbours' throats, rather than putting the blame squarely where it is due. I saw queston time and got a very Mr Burns - esque (simpsons) 'release the hounds' vibe from Francis Maude. Cynically I believe that a large part of government policy has the aim of pitting sections of society against each other.

[RaeUK]

Oh, it's no worries. I don't blame my neighbor. I really wish someone could find where the quote 'cannot increase their income through work' came from in relation to pensioners. I'm sure I read it on my local council website as a direct quote from government but cannot find it now. It is a stick to beat the government with. It is the fairness that I have issue with. Use that quote to exclude pensioners then you must use it to exclude all who cannot increase their income through work - the disabled and those with a serious degenerative illness.

There is no social division in my thinking.

Up the revolution!

 

 

(PS: you're in )

[estellyn]

 

(PS: you're in )

 

Thanks!! Don't start without meeee!!

[worried33]

Oh, it's no worries. I don't blame my neighbor. I really wish someone could find where the quote 'cannot increase their income through work' came from in relation to pensioners. I'm sure I read it on my local council website as a direct quote from government but cannot find it now. It is a stick to beat the government with. It is the fairness that I have issue with. Use that quote to exclude pensioners then you must use it to exclude all who cannot increase their income through work - the disabled and those with a serious degenerative illness.

There is no social division in my thinking.

Up the revolution!

 

 

(PS: you're in )

 

Yes this constant protection of pensioners is a big issue, because they cost the most money yet are excluded, that fact alone shows up the policies for the farce they are.

 

Also Estellyn is right, a wise head. The government is trying to play society against each other. Its hard to resist that tho.

[jadeybags]

There are lots of people that can't increase their hours, not just the elderly or disabled. People aren't seeing that there are no extra hour jobs, quite often people are having to work part time. Long before I left Sainsburys a year ago they stated they wouldn't be taking on full time staff in the online dept anymore, rather than give one person a full time job they will be giving 2 people part time jobs.

And then there is the extra tax people pay if they do manage to get a second job.

Never understood why that happens. Why should the tax band go up if you work harder....

[osdset]

There are lots of people that can't increase their hours, not just the elderly or disabled. People aren't seeing that there are no extra hour jobs, quite often people are having to work part time. Long before I left Sainsburys a year ago they stated they wouldn't be taking on full time staff in the online dept anymore, rather than give one person a full time job they will be giving 2 people part time jobs.

And then there is the extra tax people pay if they do manage to get a second job.

Never understood why that happens. Why should the tax band go up if you work harder....

 

It's a fact we are taxed to death in this country, income tax, council tax,VAT, vehicle tax, bedroom tax, TV licence (indirect taxation but a tax nevertheless).

 

Why not scrap the lot and just levy a heavier tax on goods? The more expensive the item the more tax is collected, that way at least the well off will be paying proportionally, it would be a fairer way and no one evades tax.

[citizenB]

It's a fact we are taxed to death in this country, income tax, council tax,VAT, vehicle tax, bedroom tax, TV licence (indirect taxation but a tax nevertheless).

 

Why not scrap the lot and just levy a heavier tax on goods? The more expensive the item the more tax is collected, that way at least the well off will be paying proportionally, it would be a fairer way and no one evades tax.

 

This is something I would agree with.

 

It was my understanding that vehicle tax and the fuel duty was for the building of new and repairing of old roads.

 

That the duty on cigarettes was to go to the very people who nagged until it was hiked up, the NHS.

 

That Council Tax was for the benefit of the people who paid it.

 

The lottery is just another way of taxing people..

[worried33]

There are lots of people that can't increase their hours, not just the elderly or disabled. People aren't seeing that there are no extra hour jobs, quite often people are having to work part time. Long before I left Sainsburys a year ago they stated they wouldn't be taking on full time staff in the online dept anymore, rather than give one person a full time job they will be giving 2 people part time jobs.

And then there is the extra tax people pay if they do manage to get a second job.

Never understood why that happens. Why should the tax band go up if you work harder....

 

I think the answer to that quesiton is obvious, the more you earn the higher the ability you have to pay into the system.

 

Obviously many debate whether thats fair or not, but thats the basic principle behind it, a flat rate band would mean it will be higher for those who earn less.

 

When I was working I never ever complained about taxes, and cetianly now comparing the 2 situations, working and paying tax is far preferable to living of social security.

 

When people talk about higher rates of income tax they talk as if the government is taking all their extra wages and they ware worse off, when its far from the truth. Now the government is scared to tax income anymore because there is so much public opossition to what is probably the most fairest tax we have.

 

The higher tax band is set at quite a high level one has to be earning over 32k a year to pay it and then only the part of the salary above 32k is taxed at the higher rate. 32k a year is a lot of money.

[worried33]

It's a fact we are taxed to death in this country, income tax, council tax,VAT, vehicle tax, bedroom tax, TV licence (indirect taxation but a tax nevertheless).

 

Why not scrap the lot and just levy a heavier tax on goods? The more expensive the item the more tax is collected, that way at least the well off will be paying proportionally, it would be a fairer way and no one evades tax.

 

I dont agree on sales taxes, it defenitly wont be proprotional either, wealther people are more likely to horde cash so dont necessarily spend that much more money than poorer people, VAT eg. is known to over affect the poor and be a let off for the rich. Especially if you are a business owner where you can just bypass VAT by buying it under the company name.

 

If it were my choice I would make VAT luxury goods only, so no longer on utilisty bills, drinks, food etc. Reduce the rate to 5%. Then increase income tax to compensate.

[dyfed]

Meanwhile, back to my personal bugbear. On tonight's Question Time, Francis Maude was speaking about the problems of a person living in private rented accommodation and a person in low cost social housing. He said "...you can have tenants living next to each other. One gets the subsidy [for having an extra bedroom] the other doesn't."

Indeed. And under your scheme, as of the beginning of April, I'll be living next to another tenant where 'one gets the subsidy [for having an extra bedroom] the other doesn't'.

Where's the difference? Just because my neighbour can't 'increase their income through work' because they are a pensioner and I 'can't increase my income through work' because I have a degenerative lung disease. Should I really be paying £64 a month more for an identical low cost social housing property?

Harrumph!

 

EDIT: This is a policy that, as the cliche goes, was worked out on the back of a fag packet. Hopefully, this government will bring in plain wrappings for cigarettes - thereby increasing the amount of space they have to work out policies ...

 

The government should of asked us if we thought the difference between a private landlord or social housing was fair.

 

This is how I saw it. When I rented I had a choice. I could either;

 

A) rent private. Yes it may cost more than social housing but I could have a choice of where to live. Private tended to be in better condition. I could rent partly furnished.

 

B) rent social. Cheaper than private in most cases where I live. Add my name to a waiting list. Have to get points to move me up the list quicker. When offered housing I would have a very limited choice of where to live. The location of social housing tended to be in rougher areas running the risk of moving next door to rowdy yobs or drug takers. (This is true to my area of the country. There are many decent people who live in social housing and I do not imply that everyone in social housing is a yob or drug user).

The state of the property in social housing I think is worse than private. You may not have a choice, either you take that run down flat in a rough area or you move back down the waiting list.

 

You get what you pay for.

I grew up in social housing. Later I lived in private housing. I now live in my own house. I have been a landlord.

Many of my family members live in both social and private accomidation.

[dyfed]

I dont agree on sales taxes, it defenitly wont be proprotional either, wealther people are more likely to horde cash so dont necessarily spend that much more money than poorer people, VAT eg. is known to over affect the poor and be a let off for the rich. Especially if you are a business owner where you can just bypass VAT by buying it under the company name.

 

If it were my choice I would make VAT luxury goods only, so no longer on utilisty bills, drinks, food etc. Reduce the rate to 5%. Then increase income tax to compensate.

 

The mega rich tend to spend or invest abroad.

[jadeybags]

I think the answer to that quesiton is obvious, the more you earn the higher the ability you have to pay into the system.

 

Obviously many debate whether thats fair or not, but thats the basic principle behind it, a flat rate band would mean it will be higher for those who earn less.

 

When I was working I never ever complained about taxes, and cetianly now comparing the 2 situations, working and paying tax is far preferable to living of social security.

 

When people talk about higher rates of income tax they talk as if the government is taking all their extra wages and they ware worse off, when its far from the truth. Now the government is scared to tax income anymore because there is so much public opossition to what is probably the most fairest tax we have.

 

The higher tax band is set at quite a high level one has to be earning over 32k a year to pay it and then only the part of the salary above 32k is taxed at the higher rate. 32k a year is a lot of money.

 

I'm not talking about a higher earner, i'm talking about someone that has one job of say 25 hours a week in a supermarket, & also an evening job of 14 hours per week scrubbing bogs. Sorry but I don't see why they should have to pay a higher tax than someone working 39 hours in one job? No, I don't get it...