Bedroom tax/ universal payment

[paulb]

the addage of those in glasshouses should not be in favour of stone throwing contests.

i have no problem with you or even unlink living in social housing. however when unlink is in favour of cutting others rights to social housing its wrong. so are the tory draconian cuts to services and benefits.

 

if council/HA is only going to be for the most deserving poor(a term that i don't like) then its going to ghettoise those in social housing.

 

being in a social house/flat is a right that was dragged in through the failings of the private rented sector during the victorian through to the 1960s.

[unlinkedstudent]

the addage of those in glasshouses should not be in favour of stone throwing contests.

i have no problem with you or even unlink living in social housing. however when unlink is in favour of cutting others rights to social housing its wrong. so are the tory draconian cuts to services and benefits.

 

if council/HA is only going to be for the most deserving poor(a term that i don't like) then its going to ghettoise those in social housing.

 

being in a social house/flat is a right that was dragged in through the failings of the private rented sector during the victorian through to the 1960s.

 

Erm you might actually care to go back and read what I actually put - hey, I'll save you looking as it was on the other bedroom tax thread:-

 

The SIC appeared rather fond of giving larger properties and indeed, the last time I had dealings with them would encourage you to go for say a 2 bed flat as a couple as opposed to a 1 bed flat, even if they had 1 bed flats available. I do feel for those who have taken on a 2 or even 3 bed place simply because that is what the SIC offered them. What was a person meant to do, turn down the offer and then have the SIC say they won't offer them another place?

 

Where there's a shortage of 1 bed accommodation and people were forced by the Councils to take on larger properties then yep, I have a degree of sympathy.

 

But then what about those who did have a 3 bed place but children moved away and now could get by with a 1 bed place (regardless of whether council/housing association/private)? Years ago, nobody battered an eyelid if you had a lodger but back then, Housing Benefit didn't exist. It was common practice to rent out a spare room and in many cities, even if in council accommodation, still is (you just get your landlord's approval).

 

So please tell me, paulb, where I said what you are alleging I said. Also, since when has it been a "right"? If I'm wrong, then tell me but I don't recall anything in statute stating that local authorities had to maintain social housing stock. I think the law might have changed but at one time there wasn't even a legal requirement to have a housing waiting list but merely that if a local authority did keep a housing waiting list that it had to be fair and just - well, that was the situation in England anyway; perhaps Scottish law is/was different during the same time period.

 

Oh, and incidentally, I lived previously in the first 'social housing' estate in London - it was built in 1896 and was social housing. Prior to that, even before the middle ages, there was some form of social housing.

[daveh]

YOU ARE NOT DOING THIS FOR ME OR ANYONES ELSE WHO HAS AN OUNCE OF DECENCY.

You don't speak for me and I am very decent.

If Labour hadn't totally f*cked up the UK economy over 13 years, including doubling the welfare budget, the austerity measures currently being taken would be nowhere near as tough as they have turned out to be. You can't spend what you haven't got and the UK budget currently sees many billions of pounds being spent in servicing the outrageous national debt. Blame it on Labour, not the coalition.

 

Whoever were in government, following the 2010 general election, would have needed to reduce debt, I would have thought. However, Labour have opposed every single public sector expenditure cut and seem to only want to keep adding to the national debt. This is totally unsustainable and, were Labour still in government (god help us !), this country could easily have followed in the footsteps of Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece and/or Cyprus. In fact, when Ed Miliband became Labour's leader, he was still saying that he wouldn't rule out joining the Euro at some point in the future. I don't think he has retractred that since, in fact.

 

Be careful what you wish for !

 

I would definitely

[Ironwithin]

The so called bedroom tax, which is not even a tax, seems like the government is only making things fairer. How is it fair that someone not working and having everything paid for them can have extra bedrooms when someonne whos working and cannot afford them has to do without? Its peverse, no wonder hardly anoyone was at the march.

[owre-weel]

The so called bedroom tax, which is not even a tax, seems like the government is only making things fairer. How is it fair that someone not working and having everything paid for them can have extra bedrooms when someonne whos working and cannot afford them has to do without? Its peverse, no wonder hardly anoyone was at the march.

 

I agree with some of your post, but my concern is for those who want to downsize, but can't as there are not enough smaller properties. They are caught in a net they can't get out of.

 

Not everyone who receives benefits, gets everything paid for them, some are really struggling and not having the option to downsize is costing them valuable pounds they can't afford to lose.

 

I agree something has to be done to get the cost of providing benefits down, and to weed out the scroungers etc. but we have to be careful we don't scoop everyone up in the same net.

 

I would also love to see Ian Duncan Smith living on £54 a week for a while, after reading in a paper that he was trying to claim back a £39 breakfast.

 

£39 is more than some have to buy their weeks shopping. But as they say " were all in it together". That's where the cuts should start.

[paulb]

of course if we are going to look at social care then the first truly social care was supplied by the monasteries which central government put a stop to.

 

this was replaced by arms houses and the first workhouses these were backed up with parish relief. this extended to the speedham system. similar to our tax credits. this resulted in reduced wages and an increased in demand on the poor rate payers.

 

with the onset of the late Georgian early Victorian period the poor were looked on as a threat/ times of revolution. the richer classes and landed folks objected to the rates bill going up and that is how the victorian workhouses came into affect. at the same time the richer people in society had a nice little earner by enclosing the common land. insuring the poor in the country had to head to towns.

 

it was a very good threat to keep the new factory workers in there place. the only alternative to slaving in the factories was the workhouse.

 

strange is it not that its happened time and again. the poor have a reasonable support system and the rightwing clamp down on them and always they come out of it with a lot of the workers assets.

 

we seem to be heading into one of these reactionary periods were you really don't want to be poor.

[Carlos]

Chart all kinds of historic public spending

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1900_2015UKp_12c1li001lcn_F0tG0t

[Ghostrider]

the addage of those in glasshouses should not be in favour of stone throwing contests.

i have no problem with you or even unlink living in social housing. however when unlink is in favour of cutting others rights to social housing its wrong. so are the tory draconian cuts to services and benefits.

 

if council/HA is only going to be for the most deserving poor(a term that i don't like) then its going to ghettoise those in social housing.

 

being in a social house/flat is a right that was dragged in through the failings of the private rented sector during the victorian through to the 1960s.

 

Sorry, but I'm not getting where you're coming from. I'm still reading what you're saying as being that social housing residents should not have/voice certain opinions.

 

While I do have concerns about how the bedroom tax is being implemented, I actually support the principle and idea behind it. Why should anyone expect the taxpayer to cover their housing costs above and beyond what they really need and is reasonably available to them. I also believe that while much about the rights of some social housing residents would benefit greatly from improvements and enhancements, other rights to some social housing residents are over-generous, detrimental to other residents not in circumstances benifitting from them, and should be curtailed or preferably removed. I would have no problem accepting any such cuts should I find myself in the circumstances where they applied. I fail to see how holding any of the above opinions constitutes that I live in a glasshouse and am throwing rocks.

 

I can't comment concerning elsewhere, but in Shetland until not that long social housing was quite signifiantly ghettoised. The general perception of non-social housing residents was that social housing was only for the "most deserving poor", as it seemed only those who could prove that they could neither afford to rent privately or buy managed to obtain one, and consequently social housing residents were stigmatised and to a degree "looked down upon" by those who lived elsewhere, especially those who owned where they resided, as a result. This has diminished somewhat in the last couple of decades, as with social housing properties being sold to residents, and sometimes sold on again, it has become far more difficult to identify who is and isn't in social housing. It has also be helped somewhat by a preception (by some anyway) that Housing Association social housing is slightly higher up the totem than Council social housing, and that it appears anyone regardless of income who is willing to take a social housing property in a "low demand" area, is given one, but the ghettoisation and stigma is still quiet alive and well albeit at a lesser degree. I can't see how a return to the days of only allocating social housing to the "most deserving poor" is going to make a noticable difference to ghettoising and stigmatising social housing residents over the present, the difficulty in identifying who is a social housing resident as opposed to a resident of a privately owned former social housing property will remain as is, and having somehow achieved a "slightly better than Council social housing" reputation, Housing Association housing isn't likely to lose that label overnight.

[go.oot.by.dog]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-affect-17000-blind-1816065

 

Bedroom Tax will affect 17,000 blind people

6 Apr 2013 21:00

 

Blind people targeted by the hated Tory measures will have to abandon their friends and neighbours

 

At least 17,000 blind people face being wrenched from their homes because the Government’s appalling Bedroom Tax lumps them in with scroungers, the Sunday People reports .

 

The stark choice for many of the most vulnerable people is to move or lose a chunk of the meagre amount of cash they live on.

 

Blind people targeted by hated Tory measures will have to abandon friends and neighbours.

 

The Royal National Institute for the Blind’s Steve Winyard said: “The Bedroom Tax could be really distressing for them.

 

“They could be forced to move. They will have to completely relearn how to navigate around their new home and relearn the local area they’ve moved to.

 

“Both things can take a long time. It could mean losing local support networks which are so vital to leading an independent life.â€

 

Research carried out by the RNIB on behalf of the Sunday People shows the vicious impact of the Government’s new tax.

 

At least 420,000 disabled people are being affected by the benefits changes. An estimated 17,000 registered blind face a forced move.

 

The National Housing Federation’s David Orr said: “This ill-conceived policy will cause hardship and distress for hundreds of thousands of families, including the blind and other disabled people.â€

 

Mr Winyard added: “A local authority may have spent money on rehabilitation services to a newly blind person to live in their home.

 

“If they are then forced to move because of the Bedroom Tax this will be wasted.â€

 

As a child Siobhan Meade was partially sighted but she has been completely blind since she was 16 and gets about with the help of her guide dog Mac.

 

Now she faces being uprooted. Siobhan, 29, said: “If I had to move I’d face weeks in isolation, unable to step outside the front door because it’s too dangerous.

 

“It’s a long process to learn a new area. I’d have to wait for a trained guide to teach me the roads.â€

 

Trainers plot routes from blind people’s homes to shops and bus routes.

 

They take people out as many times as they need to feel confident.

 

But funding cuts mean there is a long waiting list for trainers. It can take months to be assigned one.

 

Moving from her two-bedroom flat in Gorleston, Norfolk, would throw up so many problems that Siobhan feels she has no choice but to pay the Bedroom Tax.

 

She will lose £15.16 a week to stay in the home she was placed in two years ago because of her disability.

 

And she will have to pay £62.40 a year in council tax, also under benefit rules that came in last week.

 

Siobhan said: “That has to pay for my fuel and heating so I’ll have to make changes.â€

 

The one-bedroom flat she was offered was no good.

 

“Living in a tower block is virtually impossible for a visually impaired person,†she said.

 

“Walking up flights of stairs where somebody could leave a pram of bicycle is dangerous.

 

“I was moved here especially because I have a garden space for Mac to use. I was scared to use a communal space at night. I’m independent but the Bedroom Tax threatens to take that away.â€

 

She has lived in Gorleston since 2006. Her previous flat there had two bedrooms. The area has a shortage of one-bed properties.

 

Siobhan has no carer but relies on technology to get by.

 

“I need the space for my equipment,†she explained.

 

I have a braille printer and a scanner so I can read my post.

 

I need to store Mac’s things too. I’d feel very uncomfortable and uneasy having to move to a different place.

 

“It takes a long time to learn your area. It’s unfair to put somebody under that pressure.

 

“I’m fairly out­going but it could ruin someone’s confidence.â€

 

The reviled Bedroom Tax came in last week and will cost people in social housing an average of £14 for having a “spare†room. It will hit 660,000 households.

 

Since the Sunday People began campaigning to fight it, the Government has back-tracked by exempting foster families and members of the armed forces.

 

Thousands have signed our online petition and scores of MPs have put their names to a Commons motion condemning the tax.

 

Last week we reported how the Tory who dreamed it up – Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith – has FOUR spare bedrooms in the £2million country house where he lives rent-free.

 

He claimed he can “live on £53 a week†but has remained silent in the face of calls to “prove itâ€.

[daveh]

As I suggested earlier, I have absolutely no problem with "social housing" being allocated to those who need them. "Those" would include folks in poor housing and low incomes who would not be able to afford to live in the private sector.

What I do and have always objected to, is the concept of the social housing being regarded as theirs for life. To be given such subsidised housing facilities is a privilege and not a right. In my opinion, the ability to be able to "swap" such accommodation around the UK is also wrong as tenants should satisfy local social housing criteria as set out by the relevant local authority and housing association. I have no problem, however, with folks swapping within the same area as this is natural downsizing and "upsizing" as families change.

 

Obviously the concept of people choosing to be on benefits rather than go to work has been around for ages and I feel that such choices were actually encouraged by the Labour government as a vote-winner and hence the welfare budget mess that the coalition inherited and is attempting to tackle. I do feel that, periodically, those in social housing should be "means-tested" to see how their income and outgoings have changed since being allocated with the property. If their income has increased to certain levels, then they should relinquish the property and go to the private sector. It it morally wrong to see your income rise to decent levels and choose to spend it on cars, holidays etc whilst being subsidised and denying a needy family access to the property.

 

Leftie union leader, Bob Crow, is such an example. He has a £145k per annum package yet boasts about the fact that he lives in subsidised social housing. He can "crow" about the fact that government ministers go on holidays but he must stash his money away somewhere rather than spend it on unsubsidised accommodation. The whole scenario stinks and I am in favour of the coalition seeking to sort the problem out.

[daveh]

go.oot.by.dog - you have copied and pasted from the Daily Mirror thus presume it to be true. Rubbish ! That newspaper is a joke.

Witness the fact that George Osborne's driver parked in a disabled bay which brought the story headline front page news despite the fact that we are about to be nuked by North Korea. Yesterday, it had front page news about Nick Clegg going on a skiing holiday and an inside story showing a photo of another disabled parking space where George Osborne was alleged to have parked on a previous occasion. There was absolutely no mention in the paper that the totally incompetent Ed Balls had been nicked for speeding and had his licence endorsed; something potentially more injurious to the public than a bit of mis-parking.

 

As regards the number of bedrooms in Ian Duncan Smith's house; so what? I am fairly confident that there are many on the Labour front bench who have spare rooms in their houses but haven't taken homeless or under-privileged people in from off the streets. These are the same under-privileged and homeless people who would have been in the same situation under 13 years of a Labour government.

[oddtablet]

FROM THE NO2BEDROOMTAX GROUP

 

This is a mantra that I will repeat and repeat.

 

Political power is not just at Westminster and Holyrood. The greatest and most powerful political power is when communities unite and the the collective power they have.

 

I urge you to either join a local no2bedroomtax branch or create your own branch. Over the weekend we will be produce an FAQ for creating local groups.

 

We will give you as much support as you need. But it is important that YOU take the first step.

[go.oot.by.dog]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

 

Benefits in Britain: separating the facts from the fiction

 

How many people are dependent on welfare – and do families where three generations have never worked really exist?

 

What percentage of the UK's adult population is dependent on the welfare state?

 

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q799/magnacube/d25b24f9-0b6e-4443-8b3a-57d75efdce9f_zpsc3b1b304.jpg

 

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

 

The graphic shows this broken down. Importantly, families experiencing long-term worklessness remained committed to the value of work and preferred to be in jobs rather than on benefits. There was no evidence of "a culture of worklessness" – values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependence – in the families being passed down the generations. The long-term worklessness of parents in these families was a result of complex problems (particularly related to ill-health) associated with living in long-term and deep poverty. In an already tight labour market, multiple problems combined to place people at the back of a long queue for jobs.

 

For 2011-12 it is estimated that 0.8%, or £1.2bn, of total benefit expenditure was overpaid as a result of fraud. This is far lower than the figures widely believed by the public, as revealed repeatedly in opinion polls. A TUC poll recently revealed that people believe 27% of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently.

 

Hard to judge, and hard to generalise. There is a lot of movement in and out of work, so many Job Seekers Allowance claims are very short. More than 80% of claimants never go near the work programme because they aren't on the benefit for long enough. A lot are off it in under six months. For disability benefits, there are a lot more long-term claimants, of course. In 2012, 18% of working-age households were workless; in only 2% had no one ever worked. More than half of adults in households where no one has ever worked were under 25. So although the proportion of households where no one has ever worked has increased recently, it is likely to be a manifestation of high and rising young adult unemployment.

 

What proportion of the welfare bill goes on benefits to the unemployed? And how has this changed?

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q799/magnacube/GU-2-001_zpsb6f8ac64.jpgIt's rising – but we've seen such movements before. At 13% between 2009-10 and 2011-12, the proportion of gross domestic product devoted to benefits is at an all-time high, but this is not the result of a long-term upward trend. Levels in the 1990s to 2008-09 fluctuated between 10% and 12%. The recession resulted in a substantial increase and the overall level has not fallen since. This mirrors the recession in the early 1990s, when the proportion of GDP spent on benefits increased by slightly more at around 3 percentage points.

 

Between 2001/02 and 2011/12, spending on "social protection" benefits – help given to those in need or at risk of hardship – increased from £156bn to £210bn. This £54bn growth was after inflation, a rate of 34%. At an increase of £24bn, pensioner incomes made up the largest share of the change, around nine-tenths of the growth, reflecting their size within the budget. Housing benefits spending grew at the fastest rate, 62%, because of increases in the number of claimants and the average cost of the benefit. Claimant numbers rose from 3.8 million in 2002 to 5 million in 2012, while average weekly benefit increased from £52 to £87.

 

If unemployment benefits are reduced, do more claimants find work?

 

They may stop claiming – but not necessarily go to work. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has carried out a systematic review of international research on the impact of benefit sanctions. This finds, mainly from US research, that sanctions are successful in getting people off benefits, but this may be because they are dropping out of the system altogether, rather than going into decent work. European studies show that the use of sanctions is likely to lead to worse employment outcomes (lower pay and more likely to be back on benefits) than if sanctions are not used. This is because the threat or use of sanctions makes people take lower-quality jobs than if they had been allowed to wait for a better opportunity.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click on link for full article.

[go.oot.by.dog]

go.oot.by.dog - you have copied and pasted from the Daily Mirror thus presume it to be true. Rubbish ! That newspaper is a joke.

 

http://www.carersuk.org/newsroom/item/3058-carers-uk-warns-of-human-cost-as-bedroom-tax-comes-into-forceGovernment figures show ‘bedroom tax’ cuts to Housing Benefit for those in social housing will affect 420,000 disabled people, their families and carers.

 

http://www.mencap.org.uk/news/article/mencap-urges-bedroom-tax-rethink

 

Government figures show that the ‘bedroom tax’ will affect 420,000 disabled people, their families and carers. Mencap wants the government to exempt disabled people and their families from the new size criteria where they have been assessed as needing an additional bedroom.

 

Are the above figure "all a joke" as well and "rubbish" as you call it?

 

Anyone who is happy about the fact there are going to be 420,000 disabled people affected by a cruel bedroom tax and possibly face homelessness should be ashamed of themselves! These people are not living a life of luxury and they are not scroungers.....

 

Witness the fact that George Osborne's driver parked in a disabled bay which brought the story headline front page news despite the fact that we are about to be nuked by North Korea. Yesterday, it had front page news about Nick Clegg going on a skiing holiday and an inside story showing a photo of another disabled parking space where George Osborne was alleged to have parked on a previous occasion. There was absolutely no mention in the paper that the totally incompetent Ed Balls had been nicked for speeding and had his licence endorsed; something potentially more injurious to the public than a bit of mis-parking.

 

As regards the number of bedrooms in Ian Duncan Smith's house; so what? I am fairly confident that there are many on the Labour front bench who have spare rooms in their houses but haven't taken homeless or under-privileged people in from off the streets. These are the same under-privileged and homeless people who would have been in the same situation under 13 years of a Labour government.

 

The difference being we can not change history, We can however make changes in the present that will affect the future and unfortunately that is what the ConDems have done, they have made a very bleak future for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

 

 

A large majority of the Labour front benches may have spare rooms however they did not enforce the bedroom tax. Nor did they approve a tax cut which will give on average an extra £45,000 to the bankers who have a lot more to answer for this crisis than any disabled person does.

 

We are "NOT ALL IN THIS TOGETHER"

[daveh]

^^

Would you not agree that Labour wrecked the UK economy and any other party coming to power, in 2010, was going to have to tackle the mess that they inherited.

Would you not agree that Labour created many hundreds of thousands of public sector non-jobs in order to keep their union paymasters sweet?

 

If Labour were so wonderful in their policies, of steering the UK towards the mess that Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Cyprus experienced, how is it that they lost the 2010 general election?

 

Get real ! You can't spend what you haven't got.