I'm sorry to take a hard line on this, but I have to get this of my chest: My wife and I have to pay almost £1000 a month for our mortgage, and then I have to see my tax (not inconsiderable) being used to subsidise the rent for council tenants. If our circumstances changed, then yes, we may have to move out, sell some stuff, find somewhere smaller, or even council property, but I'd be glad I had to pay the VERY, VERY reasonable rates to be allowed to do so. Anyone moaning about having to pay council rates of rent for anything needs a reality check. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I work damned hard to pay my own way, and I wouldn't even DREAM of complaining about anything I'd have to pay to live in assisted accommodation if I needed to... I'd be grateful I lived in a country that had such a thing and be happy to pay the tiny amount. I know your situation isn't that simple, but even so...
And the taxes I would be paying, but I would find a reasonable priced accommodation Most of the private houses today used to be council owned so our taxes have already paid for the construction. The landlord claims alot of his taxes back. Yes, for me it isn't a problem I can adapt, but use me as an example, out of £70 a week could you pay your bills, food, essentials and still lose £14 out of that.
Don't worry that's why I posted on this forum, to get everyones view. If someone is working and living in any accommodation and has to pay for the extra rooms than I'm not defending them because they can either claim housing benefit and pay the extra charge or pay the whole rent amount, I'm defending those that will be hit hard. Who will be affected? All claimants who are deemed to have at least one spare bedroom will be affected. This includes: Separated parents who share the care of their children and who may have been allocated an extra bedroom to reflect this. Benefit rules mean that there must be a designated ‘main carer’ for children (who receives the extra benefit) This tells me if someone fights for their child and has the child for a weekend, holidays etc. can't any longer because they will not be allowed the extra bedroom without paying for it. Foster carers because foster children are not counted as part of the household for benefit purposes There isn't enough foster carers at the moment, this will reduce that number. Parents whose children visit but are not part of the household Same as first one.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question here. Could you rephrase it please? It's not that at all. People in private flats pay market rates of rent and they get some of that subsidised by the tax payer because they can not afford to pay their rent. People in council houses pay 1/3rd to at most 1/2 of the market rate, and then on top of that get money off their rent, and on top of that sometimes get houses which are bigger than they need. No, you haven't. If you had, you'd own a house. I get that there are people worse off than you, but the solution is for them to move to smaller properties, and/or the council to reform who it allows to move in with council flat tenants so that they can start assigning spare bedrooms to others who need them. Come on now, lets be grown up about this. There is no way in hell that people are getting 2 and 3 bedroom flats in this country for £300-500 a month and it's not being massively subsidised by the tax payer. Yes, you worked every day of your life, but ignoring the fact that unless you were in the top 3-5% of earners you receive a net benefit from the tax payer over your lifespan, there's the simple fact that all the other people working all their lives and paying taxes who don't live in council houses are subsidising those who do. I'm not doubting that many many people in council houses work, I'm just saying that I don't see why others who work should pay so that some people can have really cheap housing. It seems grossly unfair to me. Firstly, I'd like to say that I have no problem with having a benefits system, nor with supporting those who require support. Secondly, I don't really care about the numbers per se, I care about the principle of it all. Thirdly, so that you do get the numbers right next time for those who actually care: 2.7% of the UK yearly expenditure is spent on housing benefit 7.6% of all tax spent in the UK is spent on direct benefits (Not including housing benefit). 3.88% of all tax spent is spent on debt repayments. Sorry, again, not sure I understand what you're saying here. Wait, so you don't want a council flat if you have to live with someone, but if you can't get a council flat because you have to live with someone else, you'll pay full rent in private? Colour me confused. Be that as it may, they do not own it, and they have no more rights to be there than someone who has rented a flat for 1 year. So what? You have two people in a three bedroom flat, that is clearly more than you need. I don't think you're quite appreciating here that there are people paying most of what they've got each month just to afford their rent on tiny flats, and you appear to be suggesting that you have a right to live in a flat which has three bedrooms for two people despite the fact that other people have to pay for that. I just can't understand how that could appear fair in anyone's head. There is a difference buddy, council houses are subsidised before you even start thinking about housing benefit. The point is, if you're poor and you need benefits fair enough, but people shouldn't expect the state to pay for them to live in houses which are larger than they require when there are plenty of people who do require housing, and plenty of people who're paying the majority of their income each month just to live in a tiny flat somewhere which is barely big enough for them. I would be surprised if your rent is higher than mine, and I live in a 1 bedroom flat shared between 2 people. Anyway, since this is all quite adversarial I would just like to say that despite my disagreement with you on housing, I do think it's extremely admirable that you're looking after your mother in the way you are, and I do understand it must be extremely tough.
I forgot what I was trying to say It's the same, housing benefit is worked out by taking your rent, your income and the number of people living there, it's worked out the same for private or council property. But if your matching sizes of property, flat to flat, house to house and they were being helped out differently even though they have the same income, rent and location then you have a point. Your original quote Originally Posted by specofdust Yes, but since council houses are paid for by the taxpayer, what you appear to want is for the taxpayer to allow you to keep your extra room while providing you with housing benefits. Then 22 years of taxes I should have paid for my houses, from your quote. My whole life in the work force, I have never received any benefit from the tax payer, no help with rents, no tax credits or refunds. So I was paying my taxes and rents, which means I've paid my own way in life and there was nobody in private was helping me live in my homes. Cheap or not that's down to the landlord, a council house in Keighley aren't at the same rate as an house in Bradford. I said your tax, which everyone who complains about taxes really mean, face it you don't care how much or what other people tax state is, unless they are paying less than you. Originally Posted by specofdust Firstly, they should have savings, and not having them severely disinclines me toward caring. Secondly, the government should keep people fed and watered until they do find a new job. I've got no problem with people being kept alive on benefits until they get onto their feet again. Wasn't hard If I was forced into joint accommodation (because something happened to my mother) I wouldn't take it, I would find private or council, as I would be paying full rent. I wasn't talking so much about the length of time there more the attachment, knowing your neighbours, where places are etc. My mother and me in a three bedroom house, their used to be three of us. So you think one extra is too big? I have never said I have a right to anything. But your saying we should move because you don't like it? The council gave them this house when they had to move them out of their two bedroom flat as they knocked all the flats down in their area. Our rent is £94 and some pence per week. Thanks, as I said I'm not taking any of this personal I'm actually having fun with a good debate I haven't had in ages
No, because I've paid 20 years of taxes too, and I don't have a house to show for it either; I still had to buy my own. It doesn't matter how you compare it: if you lived in council housing your rent was subsidised by the tax payer. A comparable private property in the same area would cost substantially more. Then what is your problem? No, he is saying you should move because taxpayers should not have to pay for more rooms for you to live in than you actually need. If you pay for it yourself, you can have however many rooms you want. If others are subsidising it, you can only have as many rooms as you need. The real unfairness is that you are being underpaid to be your mother's carer, compared to what it would cost the government to fork out for her social and health care if they had to employ professionals to do it. But in terms of housing, that's your lot.
I don't have a problem as my mother is a disabled pensioner, and as she isn't of working-age she will not be classed, and it's her tenancy. I will be putting my name on the tenancy so if anything happens to her I will still keep the house and she will know someone is looking after her pets. And I expect to pay towards the rent. What I was trying to do was defend the very poor and those that are too old to be moving.
Just to clarify, I don't have any issue with necessary social housing. I have an issue with people who use subsidised housing to boost their disposable income. I know there are plenty of people out there that have been allocated council properties during times of hardship, or inherited such properties - and then continued to live there long after they were able to move into privately rented (or even bought) homes. Those people are taking the piss out of the taxpayer. I'm not rude enough to ask what you earn JPClyde, but if it's enough to live in a privately rented home then I'd urge you to do exactly that.
I suppose the problem also lies in the ever increasing cost of housing in the private sector which is beginning to hit ridiculous levels.
JOClyde earns a carer's allowance is £58.45 a week. On top of that his mom gets attendance allowance for him which I gather is at the higher rate, coming in at £77.45 a week. So together his income is £132,90 a week or £531.60 a month. Of course his rent is covered through his mom and his mom has her own state pension (£107.45 a week or about £429.80 a month). So the combined household income is £961,40 a month, with rent already covered by housing benefits. A bit tight to live on, but manageable.
There is also the shortage of housing in this country. The number of people are increasing but the number of homes being built is nowhere near enough. Whether it's because people are living longer and less homes coming onto the market or more immigrants.
That is very similar to what I have left to live on after rent. I'm not knocking the OP's choice to give up work and care for his mother, that's incredibly noble and something many of us would probably choose to do if circumstances required and allowed it. But the assuming someone like the OP will go back to paid work at some point in the future, my beef is with the fact that he will be able to pay the bedroom "tax" with ease. Surely as most have alluded to already in this thread that is abuse of the philosophy behind social housing? There are thousands of needy families on waiting lists because they are crammed in tiny properties - quite literally living in squalor - yet rather than force the tenants of underpopulated houses to downsize the government are simply paying them slightly less in benefits. JPClyde please note that I don't know anything about your personal circumstances over and above what you have said above, and I won't judge you. My points are more generalised.
You have that completely wrong. I'll tell you why later as I don't have time right now. shirty, like I said earlier I'm not talking about me, I'm using my status as an example, I'm trying to defend others that will find it harder than me.
I understand what you are trying to do, I was making a point about those who abuse the system. Those at the bottom of the pile will unfortunately have to downsize or lose the £13-14 a week, their lives won't be any easier at all but most of the population has had to tighten its belt since the recession started. As spec says, benefits were never designed to make life easy, merely possible. They should be a last resort for anyone. I will agree that the disabled, elderly and genuinely disadvantaged deserve more help than the terminally workshy and incompetent, but I'd suggest a large proportion of the latter group will be able to mysteriously find the money to pay their bedroom "tax" anyway
We will, if we have to pay the tax I will find the money somehow, even if it means doing some work from home. For the fiddlers, I don't have time for them.
But what does that mean? Surely - if you feel that is the case, then you would happily downsize into a property that is of fitting size for you and your mother, ie, a 2 bedroom house. Having an extra room is a bit of a luxury, in my house we are down a room as we opted to have a studio in one of the small box rooms and use the lounge as a bedroom - so we don't have a lounge in my house. It's not a problem, its just the way it is. But you get a spare room and are complaining about potentially having to pay 14% tax on it? To me, that's a bit unfair. I am down a room (though admittedly through choice), and paying £1150 a month for privilege. I think, if the people who could afford to not live in council houses, and instead rented privately (as there is a huge number of vacant private properties) then the housing situation would be a damn sight better. But unfortunately in this country there are alot of short sighted selfish people who really are only in it for themselves. Which is stupid, as, in the bigger picture that's a pretty destructive attitude. At the end of the day, I'm not really bothered, if I think about some things on the bigger picture it could make me quite angry. I have never claimed anything off the state (except the NHS) as far as I'm aware, when I have been out of work I have relied on the saving's I accumulated whilst I was in work, though cumulatively since I have been old enough to work I have only been out of work for 2 months, and that was when I was doing some exams at uni and I needed the time. That's a choice thing though, same way with everything, just alot of people in this country making the wrong choice.
I don't have a dog in this fight regarding the way that the UK subsidises housing but, economically speaking, when the government intervenes in the market, the supply is decreased (shortages) and prices rise. Nothing makes the supply of something rise more in a market than demand assuming the people responsible for increasing the supply are able to do so and be compensated for it. Artificially manipulating the price of anything will cause ill effects. A shortage, by definition, is the result of an artificial intervention in a market this has been proven in multiple studies on rent controls in various cities around the world. Blaming it on longevity or an inflow of immigrants is avoiding the cause.
Can't blame the immigrants, I'm afraid. If they can find (and afford) housing, then so can the locals. That's quite possible. I find the benefits system practically impenetrable. And of course I don't expect you to account for your exact household income; that is a private matter.
I seem to be repeating myself, I am not complaining about this tax, I will find the money one way or another, I am trying to defend those that aren't here who can't afford the extra money they have to pay and for those who can't move to a smaller accommodation. I posted to see what people thought about this tax. So your saying to help the housing market I have to move (or anyone in the same position), there isn't enough housing of any size in the country, the councils will not tie up all the house with sub-lets then there will not be any for big families, and as landords are increasing their rents people have no choice but apply for council. The council do not give property to the first person that comes along, they first goto the homeless then for families, and if after that there are no takers then a single person can live there. I would love to live in a £1000 a month house, but my income as never been high enough to do so. It's choice at the moment of either going private and having to claim housing benefit to help pay the rent or go council and paying the full rent. Can't blame the immigrants, I'm afraid. If they can find (and afford) housing, then so can the locals. I wasn't talking about the cost of housing I was talking about the availability of property. People are living longer so there are less housing coming onto the market.
