Shopping & Style13 mins ago
"bedroom Tax" - Why......
83 Answers
....has it picked up this annoying and innacurate name? It's not a tax is it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
em 10 "who wants to really live in a small one bed, where do you put your possessions, a lifetime of memories. no one wants to put up grandchildren, children on the sofa"
I have to live in a one bedroom flat em. I don't particularly want to but it was all I could afford when I downsized. All my possessions wouldn't fit in here so I gave to charity what was surplus, after children and friends had taken what they wanted. Memories? Mostly in my head plus a little box and some photographs. My flat isn't large but it's lovely and in a good area. So you tell me why, when I can't afford to have an extra room, I should pay for others to do so.
I have to live in a one bedroom flat em. I don't particularly want to but it was all I could afford when I downsized. All my possessions wouldn't fit in here so I gave to charity what was surplus, after children and friends had taken what they wanted. Memories? Mostly in my head plus a little box and some photographs. My flat isn't large but it's lovely and in a good area. So you tell me why, when I can't afford to have an extra room, I should pay for others to do so.
Oh this sounds like what people used to call 'the politics of envy'
I'm not sure the problem here is to do with people luxuriating in extra-space but in the very uncompromising and sudden way in which it's being implemented.
If you have been in a council house for many years you're very unlikely to find that there is a one bedroom flat available - so you're being forced into the private sector where you may have difficulty finding a deposit or you're fined.
Your children leave home, you're fined.
If this had been implemented in a more sensitive way it might not have been so contraversial but it has all the hall-marks of a policy designed to punish those who are unlikely to vote Tory.
It's a real screw-you piece of legislation
I'm not sure the problem here is to do with people luxuriating in extra-space but in the very uncompromising and sudden way in which it's being implemented.
If you have been in a council house for many years you're very unlikely to find that there is a one bedroom flat available - so you're being forced into the private sector where you may have difficulty finding a deposit or you're fined.
Your children leave home, you're fined.
If this had been implemented in a more sensitive way it might not have been so contraversial but it has all the hall-marks of a policy designed to punish those who are unlikely to vote Tory.
It's a real screw-you piece of legislation
If a room is reserved for someone who is serving in the forces then the room is not counted for the ' Bedroom Tax' the same applies to a child's room while are away at university / collage/ school.
In the first place this was not thought of and it had to be hastily added as an amendment. I believe people who have to sleep in separate rooms due to medical problems and rooms for overnight carers are exempted as well now . All goes to show that this law was rushed through with out being thought out fully.
In the first place this was not thought of and it had to be hastily added as an amendment. I believe people who have to sleep in separate rooms due to medical problems and rooms for overnight carers are exempted as well now . All goes to show that this law was rushed through with out being thought out fully.
jakethepeg wrote
//If you have been in a council house for many years you're very unlikely to find that there is a one bedroom flat available - so you're being forced into the private sector where you may have difficulty finding a deposit or you're fined. //
fined? no one is being 'fined'. These are able bodied people under retirement age who are claiming housing benefit, they are not being fined but having their handout reduced. Maybe this could be an incentive to go try and get a job, or would that be too much to ask?
//If you have been in a council house for many years you're very unlikely to find that there is a one bedroom flat available - so you're being forced into the private sector where you may have difficulty finding a deposit or you're fined. //
fined? no one is being 'fined'. These are able bodied people under retirement age who are claiming housing benefit, they are not being fined but having their handout reduced. Maybe this could be an incentive to go try and get a job, or would that be too much to ask?
having just patched in i see that the usual suspects have jumped in with oh my gosh you are so lucky, why are you moaning, well i wasn't, i know i am, and have paid up, just as i did before. Of course i remember what it was like to be squashed in two rooms, did you think that we had a mansion when growing up, we had pretty much what all the families had, a top floor flat with no lift, with 5 sharing two rooms, so thanks for the lecture. i can't believe i am having to defend the situation of wanting to stay in my home of 40 plus years. I won't do so again believe me, at least not on this topic.
em10 as I'm fairly new on here I can hardly be called a 'usual suspect', whatever that means. As this is a public forum you have to expect differences of opinion but my own comments were not directed at you as I do not know of you or your circumstances but they were generalisations. However, if you have been in your council home for 40 years you must surely be getting to retirement age so will be exempt from loss of benefit. If you can't work because of disability you will be exempt, so, if you are under retirement age, physically or mentally able, then why are you on housing benefit?
As stated many times, this is a proposal that looks great on paper but takes little consideration of the realities. Eddie has stated that those on low wages will be hit hard as will the disabled, the scenarios go on though, the government tates that two children under a certain age must occupy the same room , fine on paper - but the reality is that one child is autistic and hyperactive through the night, keeping the other awake.
I could list many more such cases, looks good on paper - but people are more than words on a page.
I could list many more such cases, looks good on paper - but people are more than words on a page.
We seem to have gone off topic a bit here (how unusual!).
Tora’s question was about terminology and the use of the word “tax”. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the policy (and I happen to believe it has not been very well though through if for no other reason than that there are few smaller properties available) this is a reduction in benefits, not a tax. Most definitions of the word “tax” include something like “a sum of money paid to the government”. This is not money being paid it is money that is not being received. You may say that the PAYE system is therefore not “tax” but I would argue differently. The PAYE system is just a convenient (for the taxman) way of ensuring he gets the money he wants to take from your salary. If you provide someone with cash but then reduce that allowance you are not taxing them; you are reducing the amount you pay them.
All a bit academic I know, because the effect is the same. But it’s still not a tax.
Tora’s question was about terminology and the use of the word “tax”. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the policy (and I happen to believe it has not been very well though through if for no other reason than that there are few smaller properties available) this is a reduction in benefits, not a tax. Most definitions of the word “tax” include something like “a sum of money paid to the government”. This is not money being paid it is money that is not being received. You may say that the PAYE system is therefore not “tax” but I would argue differently. The PAYE system is just a convenient (for the taxman) way of ensuring he gets the money he wants to take from your salary. If you provide someone with cash but then reduce that allowance you are not taxing them; you are reducing the amount you pay them.
All a bit academic I know, because the effect is the same. But it’s still not a tax.
There is an issue all by itself. If an 'ordinary worker' can not afford the cost of accommodation in London then they ought not live there. If they also can not afford to commute in to work in London then they should look for employment elsewhere in the country where the market has dictated a more sensible balance. When the London area realises there are no workers to do the necessary tasks then the place starts to deteriorate, so prices come down to stop the haemorrhage away from the place. Eventually the market finds a sensible balance between prices and wages. If one subsidises then one props up a poor system allowing those renting to gain much and pass much of it on to authorities. Of course the natural market activity is frowned upon with folk complaining that workers don't want to work and should be grateful to have an offer of employment at a non-living wage. Should not go getting above their station but remember who they are. But the reality is that workers are not there to be abused, the reward should be commensurate to the value/effort, which if they are not forced to take unsuitable remuneration for the place they work because they have no option, allows the labour market to work (as well as any market does that is).
@Tora - I am late to this particular conversation, but - if not the bedroom tax, what else - what other shorthand term - would you favour innstead? I have not seen one proposed.
I would agree that it is not a tax, and that Labour coined the term for political advantage.
I would also agree with NJ - For me at least, its not the fact that benefits are being reduced for under-occupancy, since we do have a limited housing stock, so the expectation should be to move to accomodate the list - its the way it has been introduced.
The governments own figures show that while there are approximately 180,000 homes that are being under-occupied, There are nationally only 70.000 1 bedroom social homes. Better to have offered a longer lead in time for this proposal, to allow for the problems with locating suitable alternatives, and they should have been much better at publicizing the financial help that is available...
I would agree that it is not a tax, and that Labour coined the term for political advantage.
I would also agree with NJ - For me at least, its not the fact that benefits are being reduced for under-occupancy, since we do have a limited housing stock, so the expectation should be to move to accomodate the list - its the way it has been introduced.
The governments own figures show that while there are approximately 180,000 homes that are being under-occupied, There are nationally only 70.000 1 bedroom social homes. Better to have offered a longer lead in time for this proposal, to allow for the problems with locating suitable alternatives, and they should have been much better at publicizing the financial help that is available...
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Strands #269 “Come Fly With...
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
