Brighton politicians hit out over ‘cruel’ bedroom tax (From The Argus)

Steve Bassam's party brought this in for private tenants during their last term of government so where was all the screaming hysteria then?

What was that? It's political posturing? Surely not.

fredaj wrote:
Steve Bassam's party brought this in for private tenants during their last term of government so where was all the screaming hysteria then?

What was that? It's political posturing? Surely not.

No they didn't.

Can Ms Lucas clear up the claim that she and/or her husband have five homes and if this is true are they empty or tenanted and if they are empty does she leave lights and heating on for security reasons when unoccupied.
This claim has yet to be confirmed or denied and will continue to damage this MPs reputation.

Odd bedfellows an old squattor and five homes Lucas who was privately educated at Malvern girls college.

For many people this is not a cruel tax. It is in principle a good idea.

If people have a spare room why don’t they take in a lodger..

The charge for the lodger will also cover the amount the tenant will lose .. The tenant will not have to move..

There is lots of information on the internet including ,

“”"Informing your local authority if you are on means tested benefits -
If you are a Council Tenant or a Housing Association tenant you will probably be allowed to take in a lodger but check with your landlord first.
Informing the Inland Revenue of your extra income in your tax return - you are allowed to earn a basic amount tax free under
the Rent a Room Scheme.””””�
��”

The new rules as I understand them simply impose the same constraints on council tenants as on others. As always there are invariably people who should be exempt and I would prefer we focus on ensuring they are treated fairly as opposed to trying to make out that all council tenant should be able to occupy a house as big as they want.

Andy R wrote:

fredaj wrote:
Steve Bassam's party brought this in for private tenants during their last term of government so where was all the screaming hysteria then?

What was that? It's political posturing? Surely not.

No they didn't.

No, they didn't boo hoo, but they did make changes that mean people in privately rented accommodation only receive benefit to pay for the space they are decreed to need, not the space they have.

It's not a tax. It's a change to benefits.

This is a such a sensible change, giving benefit on what people need, not on what they want, that it is hard to argue against it. Caroline Lucas needs to be wary of issues like this as her knowledge of poverty would be rather hazy given her private education, her property portfolio and her multi-millionaire husband. Lucas is another ‘have’ telling the ‘have-nots’ how to live their lives, like those other politico-hypocrites Milliband, Harman and the nouveau-toff Lord Bassam. She is the Greens’ very own Polly Toynbee.

More 'blame the the poor' legislation from a government cabinet of millionaires. We are seeing something akin to ethnic cleansing in parts of the southeast as the poor are moved out and ghettos created in poor areas.

It's not even as those with extra bedrooms can move to smaller properties at the drop of a hat as the properties do not exist.

wexler53 wrote:
It's not a tax. It's a change to benefits.

No it isn't a change in benefits. It is a cut in benefits for those who are perceived to have a room some pen pusher determines as being spare.

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)
Couples who use their ‘spare’ bedroom when recovering from an illness or operation
Foster carers because foster children are not counted as part of the household for benefit purposes
Parents whose children visit but are not part of the household
Families with disabled children
Disabled people including people living in adapted or specially designed properties.
That means for instance a second bedroom where you have two girls even though one of them might be 15 and the other pre-school age. Or a boy and girl where one is under 10. Or you are a parent with joint custody and have a room for your children when they stay during the holidays and on weekends. It is also that room that you may have that is occupied by a disabled child who requires additional equipment but is held to be under age for being eligible for its own room.

And no again, this is for all those who are eligible for Housing Benefit whether in social housing or private accommodation; the latter covers housing association accommodation as far as Housing Benefit is concerned.

Aside from all the above, there is the additional problem that we do not have sufficient downsized properties available. So say you are forced to either pay for the room designated spare or downsize with your two children to a two bedroom property. There isn't any near the childrens schools ... You end up having to top up your rent from a low income. Alternatively, you find the right size accommodation necessitating the children may have to either travel up to an hour every day to attend school or change schools with all the attendant problems that brings. You are forced to pay additional monies for your daily commute to your low paid place of employment.
Resulting in either low paid families/absent parents who remain where they are and end up paying out an additional 14% every week in rent shortfall.

It is an ill thought out penalising 'tax' on those who are in no position to really absorb the penalty. Try and avoid the 'tax' and you end up penalising your family.


Kids that will do less well at school because they are tired and stressed. You can't give up your low paid job as you will be penalised for making yourself wilfully redundant. So more expenditure just to get to work and the kids to school ... more families in more debt.

mimseycal wrote:

wexler53 wrote:
It's not a tax. It's a change to benefits.

No it isn't a change in benefits. It is a cut in benefits for those who are perceived to have a room some pen pusher determines as being spare.

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)
Couples who use their ‘spare’ bedroom when recovering from an illness or operation
Foster carers because foster children are not counted as part of the household for benefit purposes
Parents whose children visit but are not part of the household
Families with disabled children
Disabled people including people living in adapted or specially designed properties.
That means for instance a second bedroom where you have two girls even though one of them might be 15 and the other pre-school age. Or a boy and girl where one is under 10. Or you are a parent with joint custody and have a room for your children when they stay during the holidays and on weekends. It is also that room that you may have that is occupied by a disabled child who requires additional equipment but is held to be under age for being eligible for its own room.

And no again, this is for all those who are eligible for Housing Benefit whether in social housing or private accommodation; the latter covers housing association accommodation as far as Housing Benefit is concerned.

Aside from all the above, there is the additional problem that we do not have sufficient downsized properties available. So say you are forced to either pay for the room designated spare or downsize with your two children to a two bedroom property. There isn't any near the childrens schools ... You end up having to top up your rent from a low income. Alternatively, you find the right size accommodation necessitating the children may have to either travel up to an hour every day to attend school or change schools with all the attendant problems that brings. You are forced to pay additional monies for your daily commute to your low paid place of employment.
Resulting in either low paid families/absent parents who remain where they are and end up paying out an additional 14% every week in rent shortfall.

It is an ill thought out penalising 'tax' on those who are in no position to really absorb the penalty. Try and avoid the 'tax' and you end up penalising your family.


Kids that will do less well at school because they are tired and stressed. You can't give up your low paid job as you will be penalised for making yourself wilfully redundant. So more expenditure just to get to work and the kids to school ... more families in more debt.

If people want all the things you list they they need to be prepared to pay for them in the exact same way people who do not receive benefits have to.

If I cannot pay my mortgage then I have to move or I have to take in a lodger and I see no reason why those who are in receipt of benefits should not have to make the same hard choices should they wish to remain in accommodation that is outside of their financial means and bigger than their needs.

So, it is a change in benefits then?

I actually agree with this change, speaking from experience.........
i have an aunt who lives alone in a 4 bedroom council house, never worked a day in her life while i know of hard working familys living in a bedsit how can that be right or fair and if this change helps to change this then im all for it

Don't get me wrong ... As my children moved out, I looked for a smaller house. I am a council tenant BTW. First I moved into a three bedroom place and then, when the last three left home, I eventually moved into a one bedroom place. I chose to do so in both instances as I agree that it is ludicrous that a small family should occupy a large family home and then later that I as a sole occupant should rattle around in a home that could house a small family.
But it wasn't easy finding a smaller place that I could move to. It took a long time and I fail to see why I should be penalised financially for the lack of smaller properties in the vicinity.

But this is not going to solve the issue of people like Where is the common sense aunt. Oops that should be sence but I avoid misspelling wherever possible.

Instead of addressing the problem of under-occupation it is addressing the symptom of insufficient choice in low rent properties. And ultimately it will only cause other problems which will be far more complex and far more costly to address.

It is a sticky plaster approach which gives the illusion of fixing a problem by papering over it.

Where is the common sence wrote:
I actually agree with this change, speaking from experience.........
i have an aunt who lives alone in a 4 bedroom council house, never worked a day in her life while i know of hard working familys living in a bedsit how can that be right or fair and if this change helps to change this then im all for it

Just like your Mum never did a day's work bringing you up either.

HJarrs....ethnic cleansing. The current Green council is doing exactly the same with its shocking policies which punish the elderly and poor and feather the nests of their coterie of white, middle class, wealthy voters.
Open your eyes. Tories hiding behind green cloaks.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
HJarrs....ethnic cleansing. The current Green council is doing exactly the same with its shocking policies which punish the elderly and poor and feather the nests of their coterie of white, middle class, wealthy voters.
Open your eyes. Tories hiding behind green cloaks.

More of your usual rubbish. Which is the first administration in a generation to build council houses in B&H?

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
HJarrs....ethnic cleansing. The current Green council is doing exactly the same with its shocking policies which punish the elderly and poor and feather the nests of their coterie of white, middle class, wealthy voters.
Open your eyes. Tories hiding behind green cloaks.

Though I try and avoid personal attacks whenever possible ... someone certainly needs to look up the term 'ethnic cleansing' and I am not referring to you Maxwell's Ghost.

Gravy train to shed more carriages...

How refreshing to know that another reduction in benefits will soon be upon us and as usual we have HJarrs spouting all things ridiculous and wrong.

The UK will be a much better place when the gravy train days are over and the Greens and all their puppets have gone.

Only a complete tool could draw any kind of comparison between genocide and benefit reform. Once again Hjarrs sends himself up and wonders why no one takes his opinions seriously.
Grow up mate.

HJarrs wrote:

Maxwell's Ghost wrote: HJarrs....ethnic cleansing. The current Green council is doing exactly the same with its shocking policies which punish the elderly and poor and feather the nests of their coterie of white, middle class, wealthy voters. Open your eyes. Tories hiding behind green cloaks.

More of your usual rubbish. Which is the first administration in a generation to build council houses in B&H?

Er , the Tories were before they lost the administration at the last local elections.

redwing wrote:

Where is the common sence wrote:
I actually agree with this change, speaking from experience.........
i have an aunt who lives alone in a 4 bedroom council house, never worked a day in her life while i know of hard working familys living in a bedsit how can that be right or fair and if this change helps to change this then im all for it

Just like your Mum never did a day's work bringing you up either.

coming from someone who has named themselves after a sexual act during a woman's period I'm sorry if I'm not offended your name is worse then what you said...... moron

and for the record my parents both worked from the age of 14 and still do to to this day and own their own home....

And on the heels of that bit of gratuitous information I could have happily remained ignorant of ... It seems Brighton MPs aren't the only ones.

Children launch legal challenge to ‘bedroom tax’ (See more here: http://www.insidehou
sing.co.uk/tenancies
/children-launch-leg
al-challenge-to-‘b
edroom-tax’/652599
2.article)

Disabled people mount legal challenge to bedroom tax (See more here: http://wearespartacu
s.org.uk/disabled-mo
unt-legal-challenge-
bedroom-tax/)

Although I think people should downsize if they are rattling around in a council property, the bedroom tax will end up costing more than it saves. A scheme to gradually move tenants into smaller homes on a case-by-case basis could work, bearing in mind their particular circumstances - eg. disabilities, carers etc.

To try and do this en masse will lead to chaos. If your council house has been adapted due to your disability, then you will need to have the next place adapted. Potentially the improvements you had in the place you were originally living in will need to be ripped out before the next tenant moves in. There may not be enough housing stock with the right number of bedrooms in your area. Kids will have to move schools. The list goes on and on and all these things cost money.

MP's get second homes paid for by the taxpayer and some of them are even renting homes out to other MPs and still claiming attendance allowance - but let's focus on the poor because it's their fault the country is in financial ruin. Not the bankers, or the politicians riding the gravy train, or the corporations avoiding billions in tax.

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Although I think people should downsize if they are rattling around in a council property, the bedroom tax will end up costing more than it saves. A scheme to gradually move tenants into smaller homes on a case-by-case basis could work, bearing in mind their particular circumstances - eg. disabilities, carers etc.

To try and do this en masse will lead to chaos. If your council house has been adapted due to your disability, then you will need to have the next place adapted. Potentially the improvements you had in the place you were originally living in will need to be ripped out before the next tenant moves in. There may not be enough housing stock with the right number of bedrooms in your area. Kids will have to move schools. The list goes on and on and all these things cost money.

MP's get second homes paid for by the taxpayer and some of them are even renting homes out to other MPs and still claiming attendance allowance - but let's focus on the poor because it's their fault the country is in financial ruin. Not the bankers, or the politicians riding the gravy train, or the corporations avoiding billions in tax.

Your final paragraph is bang on the money.

Its benefit grabbers and lowest common denominator thinkers like you that are holding our country back. The sooner we flush you and parasites likes you out of the system, the better for all of us.

Somethingsarejustwro
ng wrote:

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Although I think people should downsize if they are rattling around in a council property, the bedroom tax will end up costing more than it saves. A scheme to gradually move tenants into smaller homes on a case-by-case basis could work, bearing in mind their particular circumstances - eg. disabilities, carers etc.

To try and do this en masse will lead to chaos. If your council house has been adapted due to your disability, then you will need to have the next place adapted. Potentially the improvements you had in the place you were originally living in will need to be ripped out before the next tenant moves in. There may not be enough housing stock with the right number of bedrooms in your area. Kids will have to move schools. The list goes on and on and all these things cost money.

MP's get second homes paid for by the taxpayer and some of them are even renting homes out to other MPs and still claiming attendance allowance - but let's focus on the poor because it's their fault the country is in financial ruin. Not the bankers, or the politicians riding the gravy train, or the corporations avoiding billions in tax.

Your final paragraph is bang on the money.

Its benefit grabbers and lowest common denominator thinkers like you that are holding our country back. The sooner we flush you and parasites likes you out of the system, the better for all of us.

Let's hope for your sake that there aren't any cuts to mental health services.