mrmadcap

Its a great thing because a lot of immigrants have large families so it makes sense that they need the biggest properties to live in.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Obviously that is tragic but I dont think the rest of society owe someone the right to dedicate a room in social housing as a shrine, people die every day, if everyone dedicate a room there would be very few left after a few years, rooms are for the living.

I remember my great gran living in a huge three, possibly Four bed council house, she lived in just the ground floor as she couldnt do stairs so, all those rooms for twenty or so years were wasted. I can see why they need to do this, to encourage people to move to more suitable accomodation so they can use the housing more effectively.

It does need to be done with some delicacy though, even though people dont own the house, it is still their home and may have been for decades, they may uproot people from communities and drop them in another, imagine being an elderely white widow and getting plonked in an area that is mainly young ethnic minorities.

I can see the point but there are so many individual circumstances it is difficult to see the possible impact.

theboy

That was my point, i was in no way sticking up for her. I have extended family that are work shy and it makes my blood boil that they get paid to go to the centre to sign on every 2 weeks.

chopperman

It's not just the unemployed that live in social housing. Some peope who live in council houses have well paid jobs and could afford to buy there own but choose the cheap rent and maintenance instead. Council houses were supposed to be for people in need.
It use to wind me up when i first bought a house. I was young and under the Thatcher government got stitched up with interest rates. I tried to do the right thing in buying a house and that left me without a pot to p1ss in each month. I would see all the nice new cars parked on the council house driveways as they enjoyed cheap rent. Then the real kick in the teeth was the "right to buy" that came out. These same people were offered there council houses at a fraction of the private market price. Many of these people took up the offer only to sell later on for market value and make a fortune, while i still struggled with continuing mortgage interest rate rises. I knew one person who bought there large council house with huge front a rear garden for 11k. This plot must have been half an acre. A couple of years later she sold up to a developer for 200K.

chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

The above is what irks me. People either get the cheap council rent with a well paid job and don't move, when it is there for low earners/low income families to help them. Or they receive benefits and have a nice new/performance car outside

How does that work as I'd have thought a means tested system would only allow people with low income to live in social housing. Obviously people are free to spend their earnings on whatever they want but that isn't the point I'm trying to make

Leslie

As I understand it, if they are living in social housing then the subsidised rent will increase if one bedroom is not in use.

Not a tax officially but it is for all practical purposes.

Les

Jamz3k

I know less than nothing about this situation but will the scummers not just have more kids and fill the rooms they have and possibly upgrade costing the "tax payer" more money in the long run because of this? Meaning yet again the people at work and those who are using the benefit system correctly are the ones losing out?

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

It seems like that to me. I can just see how this will hit people on low incomes in social housing, yet the ones who choose a life on benefits and see kids as a means to an end will just carry on as they were. They are not going to be plunged into poverty, so how will this work with people on full benefits/no income? You can't take what they don't have.....

I'm all for benefit reforms, but even I don't think this is a good idea.

tubbytommy

iTrader: (20)

its just one of many of the reforms to get the lazy ******* back to work.

having 15 kids is no longer an option as they have now capped benefits too.

also the new test for the "bad back" claimants are having some effect as a large majority of these lazy ***** didnt even bother going to be assesed so will have their benefits cut.

boomer

It is not a tax, it is a reduction in benefits - that are paid for by others, who are, wait for it - tax payers!!!

mb

Suresh

Bedroom tax and subsidised fossil fuels are two sides of the same coin, which is being minted by the 'bank of left wing lies'

Chip

Being a millionaire is irrelevant to how much tax you pay , the tax paid will be based on income, not what you already have

scunnered

iTrader: (1)

They got it completely wrong in my opinion.

It shouldn't go by the number of rooms, but by the amount of housing benefit.
With these new rules, somebody living in a high rent area in a one bedroom flat getting lets say £1000/per month in housing benefit won't have to pay anything.
However somebody living in a low rent area in a two or three bedroom house receiving £400/month in benefit will have to pay.
Looks to me that the better the area the less they have to pay back.
I reckon if they put a cap on benefit instead, then pay back a percentage for anything above the cap, it would be so much fairer.

Leslie

Seems to me that you are splitting hairs Chip

I assumed that if you were being paid a millionaire's salary than it was pretty likely that is what you can be classed as being.

Les

Chip

In answer to your earlier question , no its not true anyway