Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Six-O-Clock News.
Couple lose their case regards Bedroom Tax ( Not sure of their names) Bloody marvelous British stupid law! Why, only this week basds that murder someone try to appeal that their H.R has been infringed & are talking of taking it to the European courts, if they can do it why can't the couple and many many other do the same?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by TWR. 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.
The judgement said the tax was not discriminatory against disabled people. Which is probably correct, because it affects EVERYONE.
http://
That does not mean this is a good policy or that it is justified. It just means disable people are not the only ones losing out on this.
http://
That does not mean this is a good policy or that it is justified. It just means disable people are not the only ones losing out on this.
Since 1 April 2013, welfare reforms have cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home. This measure only applies to housing benefit claimants of working age, and is commonly referred to as the bedroom tax, size criteria, under-occupation penalty or removal of the spare room subsidy.
from the Guardian
The bedroom tax – also known under its official names of "spare room subsidy" or "under-occupation penalty" – affects 660,000 housing benefit claimants living in social housing across the UK. Introduced last April, the policy imposes an average penalty of between £14 and £22 a week on working-age tenants deemed to have more bedrooms than they need.
The bedroom tax – also known under its official names of "spare room subsidy" or "under-occupation penalty" – affects 660,000 housing benefit claimants living in social housing across the UK. Introduced last April, the policy imposes an average penalty of between £14 and £22 a week on working-age tenants deemed to have more bedrooms than they need.
When I said it affects EVERYONE I clearly did not mean those not on benefits. The tax is indiscrimate in that anyone on benefit who is disabled, not disabled, male, female, gay, straight, black, white or yellow is affected by it. If any one of those groups tries to claim it is targetting them and not tne others, then they will lose a test case, ad these disabled activists have.
-- answer removed --
I suppose it all depends on your point of view but I won’t get too bogged down with a debate on the previous vs the current administration. Both have enormous faults of varying complexities.
As far as the “bedroom tax” is concerned it is an admirable idea - in principle. Social housing together with Housing Benefit costs an enormous amount of (other people’s) cash to provide and anything that can be done to reduce the outlay must be welcome. The very last thing that should be done is to provide people with considerably subsidised housing far in excess of their needs. The unfortunate thing is that there simply is not the number of smaller properties in the social housing market to enable those affected to downsize.
So I don’t know the answer but one must be found. A good start might be to encourage people to understand that providing a roof over their own and their families’ heads should be their number one priority and it will take up a large chunk of their income. Many people who live in social housing, many with adequate income, sometimes fail to grasp this and seem to be of the opinion that it should somehow be provided almost free of charge.
As far as the “bedroom tax” is concerned it is an admirable idea - in principle. Social housing together with Housing Benefit costs an enormous amount of (other people’s) cash to provide and anything that can be done to reduce the outlay must be welcome. The very last thing that should be done is to provide people with considerably subsidised housing far in excess of their needs. The unfortunate thing is that there simply is not the number of smaller properties in the social housing market to enable those affected to downsize.
So I don’t know the answer but one must be found. A good start might be to encourage people to understand that providing a roof over their own and their families’ heads should be their number one priority and it will take up a large chunk of their income. Many people who live in social housing, many with adequate income, sometimes fail to grasp this and seem to be of the opinion that it should somehow be provided almost free of charge.
Why should those in Social Housing expect to be treated better than those renting privately and claiming Housing Benefit? The latter have their needs assessed and are subsidised accordingly. In both cases where there is a genuine need for a carer and not a bogus claim, there needs to be a way of making exceptional payments. The bogus disability claimants are making things difficult for those with genuine needs.
// considerably subsidised housing //
is an interesting term.
An acquaintance of mine bought his council house (on a mortgage) about 10 years ago and pays £120 a month. His neighbour, who lives in an identical house pays £320 a month rent.
The social housing provider does £100million turnover each year. Many of their tenants will be on some sort of benefit, usually old age pension, and their rent will be paid for them. But locally anyway, the cost of a private house rent is very little more than £320, so I would not call it considerably subsidised.
On a side note, a friend (on benefit) was forced to move from his two bedroom flat because of the "bedroom tax". Ironically, he loves his new place which is more suited to his needs. But it turns out his old flat, has been let to another single person (not on benefit). So the idea that this will solve the housing crisis is extremely flawed.
is an interesting term.
An acquaintance of mine bought his council house (on a mortgage) about 10 years ago and pays £120 a month. His neighbour, who lives in an identical house pays £320 a month rent.
The social housing provider does £100million turnover each year. Many of their tenants will be on some sort of benefit, usually old age pension, and their rent will be paid for them. But locally anyway, the cost of a private house rent is very little more than £320, so I would not call it considerably subsidised.
On a side note, a friend (on benefit) was forced to move from his two bedroom flat because of the "bedroom tax". Ironically, he loves his new place which is more suited to his needs. But it turns out his old flat, has been let to another single person (not on benefit). So the idea that this will solve the housing crisis is extremely flawed.
I am a little vague on this issue so please enlighten me. Does it apply to all council tenants or only council tenants who are also receiving extra benefits from the state? Bearing in mind that people who own their own house who have to go into elderly residential care may have to sell their house to pay for their care, & people who live in rented accommodation will pay nothing for that service, who in this day & time is the better off ?
Ron.
Ron.
Your analogy is equally interesting, Gromit.
Your friend’s mortgage repayments suggest that, unless he has an extremely short-term agreement, he has an ultra-low loan of probably less that £25k. So his experiience is hardly an appropriate comparison bearing in mind that he probably got a considerable discount on his purchase, house prices have increased considerably in the last ten years and that the average house price in the UK is now approaching ten times that sum. All it does demonstrate is that your second friend would have been better off concentrating his mind on buying his house if he were able to.
Better then to concentrate on your other friend who is paying rent of £80pw. I believe South Yorkshire is one of the cheapest areas to rent property in England and a quick search on “Right Move” suggests that you would not be able to rent a two-bed roomed terraced house there for much under £150pw and in fact £200 is probably nearer the mark for a decent place of that size. So I call £80pw for a house - even a small one - quite a bargain and it fits my description of “considerably subsidised”.
Your friend’s mortgage repayments suggest that, unless he has an extremely short-term agreement, he has an ultra-low loan of probably less that £25k. So his experiience is hardly an appropriate comparison bearing in mind that he probably got a considerable discount on his purchase, house prices have increased considerably in the last ten years and that the average house price in the UK is now approaching ten times that sum. All it does demonstrate is that your second friend would have been better off concentrating his mind on buying his house if he were able to.
Better then to concentrate on your other friend who is paying rent of £80pw. I believe South Yorkshire is one of the cheapest areas to rent property in England and a quick search on “Right Move” suggests that you would not be able to rent a two-bed roomed terraced house there for much under £150pw and in fact £200 is probably nearer the mark for a decent place of that size. So I call £80pw for a house - even a small one - quite a bargain and it fits my description of “considerably subsidised”.
this is actually hitting many poor, or not so well off, down size, fine, to where exactly. not to mention that my rent has gone up quite considerably, not to mention that it's not just the rent you pay but the extras they add on including the bedroom tax, or call it what you will, and i am not talking of council tax, that is a separate issue, not to mention councils not upholding their part of the bargain on maintaining council homes, only so much you are able to do yourself, not to mention that some just think it's all lovely, forgetting the fact that many have paid their rents throughout their lives, but didn't have the capital to fund a mortgage, and now that chance is slipping away moment by moment.
Having been whacked for more money from the council and doubling my gas payments, and electricity bills, i wonder how i will manage.
Having been whacked for more money from the council and doubling my gas payments, and electricity bills, i wonder how i will manage.
"...does this apply to the likes of Bob Crow and i think Labour MP Frank Dobson. if not why not. "
If they are tenants of a council or a housing association (which I think they are) and if they claim Housing Benefit (which I suspect they do not) then yes. Otherwise no. Bear in mind that it not a tax. It is a reduction in benefits which I contend (and have done since this matter first hit the headlines) is a different matter entirely. Although the net result is the same for those affected, a tax is money paid in to the Exchequer whilst a reduction in benefits is less money paid out by the Exchequer.
If they are tenants of a council or a housing association (which I think they are) and if they claim Housing Benefit (which I suspect they do not) then yes. Otherwise no. Bear in mind that it not a tax. It is a reduction in benefits which I contend (and have done since this matter first hit the headlines) is a different matter entirely. Although the net result is the same for those affected, a tax is money paid in to the Exchequer whilst a reduction in benefits is less money paid out by the Exchequer.
some seem to think it ok that the likes of Bob Crow live in council property, so accordingly that rent won't be market, it will be council, why didn't he buy it, and the same applies to Dobson, not sure if he still lives in council property but he did once.
i now have to pay considerably more for the privilege of living here, and if i were to pay market rent, i wouldn't be able to live anywhere in the borough, nor in the capital, our rents are being jacked up daily, and not just for private tenants.
i now have to pay considerably more for the privilege of living here, and if i were to pay market rent, i wouldn't be able to live anywhere in the borough, nor in the capital, our rents are being jacked up daily, and not just for private tenants.
