2015 Election

[pcstru]

In the end I voted Green. I would have strongly considered Labour, but there was no candidate.

[Garacesh]

I agree with this subsidy, why should I pay as a tax payer (although technically I am not a tax generator as I work in the public sector) for someone on benefits to live in a 3 bedroom house when they do not need to and a 2 bedroom would suffice.

You're shouldn't. You're right. But that's in a perfect world, and buddy, we ain't in one.

 

The problem with the bedroom tax/subsidy/whatever is that A) Parents that have their children come stay with them for weekends etc are still getting taxed, even though they do need that bedroom and B) People who don't ever really need those rooms (for example, child has left home, or family got moved into a larger house than required initially, for whatever reason) are also not offered to move to a smaller house (and often there aren't any smaller houses available) but they still get their benefits docked because of it. Bit unreasonable, no?

 

Remember, nobody gets a council house just because they felt like it. I've been in a few (anecdotal, I know), having quite a poor upbringing at times. You are assigned to a council house by the council. The best you can do is request an area. You don't ask for a three bedroom house when you only need two, you're just given 'a house'. It's not like the families are there because of greed, rubbing their hands together and cackling maniacally as they relish the thought of you having to pay for a room they never used.

[LeMarchand]

I agree with this subsidy, why should I pay as a tax payer (although technically I am not a tax generator as I work in the public sector) for someone on benefits to live in a 3 bedroom house when they do not need to and a 2 bedroom would suffice.

 

People "on benefits" doesn't just mean the stereotypical "would rather stay home on benefits than work" crowd. Many working people are affected, too.

 

However the main problems are that many people can't just afford to move (even if it's a short distance away) and (more to the point) that housing isn't available for them to move into. (Sometimes housing may be available counties away from their job/life/family). So they are forced to pay extra through no fault of their own.

[E_G_R2]

I agree with this subsidy, why should I pay as a tax payer (although technically I am not a tax generator as I work in the public sector) for someone on benefits to live in a 3 bedroom house when they do not need to and a 2 bedroom would suffice.

 

Why should someone have to move from their home just because maybe their family has grown up and moved. You'd not be happy if it applied to you and it was your home. Just because someone is renting social housing dosn't mean its not their home.

[sparkeh]

Because there isn't a 2 bed house to move into?

Exactly. Many people are caught up in the situation where they have a spare room but there are no smaller houses to move to, solution: make them cough up for having an extra room. Its plain idiocy.

[StevieM]

In the end I voted Green. I would have strongly considered Labour, but there was no candidate.

 

Was this a postal vote or have you come back from the future?

[Andrew_C]

Or you have children who stay weekends?

 

Or grand children who stay so their parents can work?

[Gatt]

Build more 2 bed houses to move them in to and charge someone not on benefits extra rent for bedrooms they don't use, then we can talk!

 

The problem: Not enough houses.

 

Tory Solution: Tax people for living in those house - create homelessness. Housing stock now freed up (to be sold as on the open market since its now surplus).

 

Crazy.

 

They aren't taxing them!!

It's a subsidy that has been withdrawn - big difference between a subsidy and a tax!

 

Because there isn't a 2 bed house to move into?

 

So.. you guys would be happy to pay for me to have a penthouse at the top of the Beetham Tower in Manchester, even though I'm not going to live in it?

No probably not... So why should we, as tax payers, be happy to let people have a house with more bedrooms than they actually need?

[tmcd35]

Or you have children who stay weekends?

 

Or grand children who stay so their parents can work?

 

Just playing devils advocate on this one (no I don't agree with what I'm about to type)...

 

...It could be argued the childs parents/other parent/who they live with mon-fri should pay you for the spare room. (I feel dirty thinking like a Tory).

[E_G_R2]

They aren't taxing them!!

 

So.. you guys would be happy to pay for me to have a penthouse at the top of the Beetham Tower in Manchester, even though I'm not going to live in it?

No probably not... So why should we, as tax payers, be happy to let people have a house with more bedrooms than they actually need?

 

Yes like those social housing options are open to you

 

What about my ex's Grandfather in Harpurhey Manchester (you'll know it's reputation). Three bed house from when he had family living with him. Neighbours provide much needed friendship and support. shall we up root him from his 'home' to another area just because successive governments failed to build enough social housing for the population?

[tmcd35]

They aren't taxing them!!

 

You know I'm using the word Tax to wind you up, right (also it best describes the net effect of the policy on those it effects)

[E_G_R2]

Poll tax

[Gatt]

Poll tax

Was actually better than the current Council Tax

 

**waits for the inevitable....**

[E_G_R2]

Was actually better than the current Council Tax

 

**waits for the inevitable....**

 

Stands behind you waiting for the missles but the concept was OK, it was the execution that let it down IMO

[Gatt]

Stands behind you waiting for the missles but the concept was OK, it was the execution that let it down IMO

 

Indeed.

Under poll tax - the more of you in the house = more resources use *water/waste/etc* so the more you should have to pay for the upkeep, etc of those services

Under council tax - a married couple uses less resources than a family of 4 or 5, BUT the married couple have to pay the SAME rate as the larger family next door..

[StevieM]

Indeed.

Under poll tax - the more of you in the house = more resources use *water/waste/etc* so the more you should have to pay for the upkeep, etc of those services

Under council tax - a married couple uses less resources than a family of 4 or 5, BUT the married couple have to pay the SAME rate as the larger family next door..

 

AND the married couple have to pay a 'subsidy' for the 'spare' bedroom that only gets used when the children from a previous relationship come to stay!

[LeMarchand]

Exactly. Many people are caught up in the situation where they have a spare room but there are no smaller houses to move to, solution: make them cough up for having an extra room. Its plain idiocy.

 

No, it's cunning and evil and proof for whoever it was who wanted it that the Tories do hate the poor.

 

So.. you guys would be happy to pay for me to have a penthouse at the top of the Beetham Tower in Manchester, even though I'm not going to live in it?

 

I'm hoping that councils don't buy penthouses for social housing. If you found yourself in the sort of situations posited by many respondents (such as divorced and needing a room for the kids when they visit) whilst on minimum wage I don't think the said respondents would begrudge you the spare room.

[Disease]

Why should someone have to move from their home just because maybe their family has grown up and moved. You'd not be happy if it applied to you and it was your home. Just because someone is renting social housing doesn't mean its not their home.

2 bedroom housing availability is a another issue, if tax payers are paying for your subsistence there should be no room for sentiment. I think that there should be a grace period before imposing the tax to give people down on their luck time to get back on their feet but if you are long term unemployed\unemployable tough.

[Gatt]

AND the married couple have to pay a 'subsidy' for the 'spare' bedroom that only gets used when the children from a previous relationship come to stay!

That's a bit naughty, assuming all couples have already been in a relationship and have children from said relationship.. Tut Tut

[sparkeh]

why should we, as tax payers, be happy to let people have a house with more bedrooms than they actually need?

Because we have a little compassion?

 

I don't imagine that people living in social housing are rubbing their hands together and laughing at us mugs who have exactly the right amount of bedrooms we need.

 

My Great Aunt and Uncle have lived in the same council house their entire married life. They are now in their late 80s. They are frail. They have family and friends nearby to help them do things like get out of bed in the morning, wash, walk to the shop and do some shopping. However, they have an extra room than they strictly need. Here's an idea, let's move them away from all that support that keeps them going and enjoying life and dump them in house far away (as that's all that's available) and let them get on with it. Or tax them from the meagre amount of money they receive.

 

Does that really make us a fair society? I guess some people are more interested in making sure no one else it 'getting one over' on them than showing a little human kindness and it makes me sad

[seacider]

The poll tax was never going to work fairly. At that time I was in the RAF. I wasn't in the country for long after it started, but I still had to pay a months charge of £70, for a shared room in a barrack block. The local council must have been laughing at us. by the time I returned to the UK it was gone.

[StevieM]

That's a bit naughty, assuming all couples have already been in a relationship and have children from said relationship.. Tut Tut

 

Only as naughty as your assumption that all couples are married.

[Gatt]

Only as naughty as your assumption that all couples are married.

Ok I'll give you that one

[StevieM]

Ok I'll give you that one

 

Jolly decent of you, sir. Your turn to serve.

 

*Assuming you're a sir! Now that is naughty.

Edited April 30, 2015 by StevieM

[Theblacksheep]

So why should we, as tax payers, be happy to let people have a house with more bedrooms than they actually need?

 

Are smaller houses in the area actually available?

 

Who's to say they dont need them? We've had couples who have been judged to only require one room, when one is disabled and requires a special bed that take up too much of the (small) bedroom. Reduction in benefits and cannot afford heating.

 

Landlords have seen debts by tenants increase by 30%. Is it fair on them?