Bedroom tax/ universal payment

[paulb]

because office clothes are not specific for the job. only clothing that is required for the work counts. ie bin men / nurses. even tesco staff.

 

 

nurses can claim for footwear/socks washing their uniform if the employer does not offer the service. professional bodies and union contributions and journals.

 

so basically you get 20% of the above added on to your tax code. in the wifes case about 70/80 a year.

[JustMe]

Here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-22042328 is one answer to the bedroom tax thought up by an imaginative council. Maybe SIC/Hjaltland ought to think along the same lines.

[janeleask99]

This was the SIC reply when I asked about reclassification of bedrooms in houses.

 

ME - Sent the link to the SIC Policy unit about reclassification

 

SIC - Hi, my understanding is that Housing matters are devolved, so this isn’t something that can apply in Scotland (the same applies to HHA), and, as Anita says, the outcome in the long term, would not be positive. If you’ve got any more questions, could you phone Housing, as I don’t want to get things wrong! Thanks

 

I’ve checked with SIC Housing, and, as you’ll see below, this isn’t possible.

 

Can you please make sure that folk understand this, as the housing service are under a lot of pressure re these changes, already, thanks

 

This has been doing the rounds in English Housing Associations for some time. This is only valid where a landlords rent policy or rent-setting methodology allows for this. For example some charge by number of persons occupying, some by adding % plussages for additional areas or services, so some tenants will pay extra if they have a garden, or a conservatory for example.

 

This is not valid in SIC terms as our rent charging policy is very clear and fairly simple. The basis of our charge is apartment size (ie living room and bedrooms), property attributes (central heating and double glazing) and location (Lerwick or Landward). So we are not charging for any ancillary space like dining rooms etc.

 

If you follow through the logic of this, there would be wider financial consequences potentially of reclassifying rooms in that it could impact on the amount of rent raised, which could require greater rent increases to balance the books, in turn leading to higher rents for tenants at a time when their benefits are reducing.

 

So not something that is applicable to SIC.

 

Thanks

Anita

 

 

 

ME - What would be needed would be a change to the rent charging policy surely. So saying it’s not how it is currently done does not quite follow.

 

However, I get Anita’s point about income from rents.

 

I am sure you are fed up with folk like me banging on about the impact of welfare reforms but just wanted to understand the possible options to help folk who will be affected. Sorry to add to that, it’s not in any way a criticism of the Housing services, I know how hard it is working in the department.

 

Just wanted to clarify - Is the setting of rent policy made at local or government level (see Emma’s comment)? It appears from this article that there are a number of ways the different councils set their rents but it was written in 2003 so not sure if things have changed.

 

Jane

 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/03/16674/19438

[shetlandpeat]

You are in work. Tell us how much it costs you.

 

When I worked in London ????????

 

I was sure I asked about now....as that is what we are talking about.

 

How much do these cost you now in your job you do now.

 

It would be a good reference to how self employed folk who work at home struggle with these costs.

Just out of interest, do you offset some portion of your heat/light/rent costs against your job? The telephone is also for your work, do you have to pay additional tax for using a business connection for private use. Not sure how that works. Do you still do your ebay as well? Selling good quality British made stuff. I would assume that is private as the taxes are paid elsewhere.

Perhaps folks should do more self employed jobs.

 

because office clothes are not specific for the job. only clothing that is required for the work counts. ie bin men / nurses. even tesco staff .

 

If you are required to dress formally at work and specific items were expected, a reasonable employer would give extra for this, I have worked in areas that I had specific requirements on clothing and was compensated in my wages for cleaning, the company did not supply my wear.

[unlinkedstudent]

SP, you're fishing. Put it like this, there are many self-employed people who are struggling. My income is nothing like what it was several years ago. With regard to phone costs and other overheads, you'll find the information you seek on HMRC self-employed section of their website.

 

Edit: And five other virtual PAs/outsourcing agencies I know who did used to earn more than me have gone under/ceased trading.

[go.oot.by.dog]

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/

 

I’ve just been to protest about the bedroom tax at the PM’s 10-bedroom country house

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q799/magnacube/72eba828-208c-4c42-9ae8-2b3948c1d8e5_zps697e0b09.jpg

Together with David Winnick MP and Kelvin Hopkins MP, I’ve just been to protest about the government’s Bedroom Tax at the Prime Minister’s official residence at Chequers in Buckinghamshire. We called on Cameron to pay the Bedroom Tax on his 10 spare bedrooms at Chequers – this is what we said in our letter:

 

The Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP,

Prime Minister,

Chequers,

Near Ellesborough,

Aylesbury,

Bucks.

 

5 April 2013.

 

Dear Prime Minister,

 

We have come to protest at the unjust and cruelly vindictive bedroom tax which you have imposed on 660,000 households in publicly rented housing across the country, up to two-thirds of which are estimated to include a disabled member. You have decided to penalise them because you argue that they all have more bedrooms than they need. As a result these families, amongst the poorest in Britain, will be forced to pay from their own subsistence income extra rent amounting to either about £11 a week or about £20-25 a week or, if they cannot afford this extra rent, will be forced out of their homes to find smaller accommodation which is simply not available currently on anywhere near the scale required.

 

You, on the other hand, are provided by the State for your family’s use with a second home set in 1,000 acres with 10 bedrooms. You have also constantly claimed that “we are all in this togetherâ€. In that case we would ask you to show as much compassion towards Britain’s poorest as you have been shown generosity.

 

We would further ask you, do you not therefore think in these circumstances it would be reasonable, given that most of your 10 bedrooms will remain unoccupied for most of the time, that you make an equally proportionate contribution out of your own income towards the costs of the State in the administration of Chequers?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Winnick MP Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher MP Kelvin Hopkins MP

[owre-weel]

 

An answer could be, oh, let us work this out a little....

 

2 bed social house, say £80/week - 14% due to under occupancy = £68.80

 

Total bill to housing benefit = £68.80

 

1 studio flat (similar to mine) next door £430 a month, or £99.23 a week

 

No under occupancy, so total bill to hb = £99.23

 

So, social tenant moves to private, additional cost to fund by GOV = £ 30.43

 

Now, if every one in Shetland say who were going to be affected (200 reportedly) let us take it simple and all were to loose 14% and were to move to private accommodation, weekly bill to GOV, £6086 on the increase.

A good thing, more money coming into the system and local economy, ah, private landlords are moving on this, a similar flat is at £460 a month down the road.

 

What a load of tosh!

 

If that were the case most would have moved to private housing years ago. The reason they don't is;

1 the private rents are way above that of social housing

2 if you rent a three bed private house and only need one bed, you will only get the rate for a one bed

3 housing benefit rates are set for the area eg single bed is £88.85 if the private landlord wants £100.00 then the tenant has to make up the difference

 

Current maximum rates for Shetland

 

1 Bedroom Shared £60.00

 

1 Bedroom £88.85

 

2 Bedrooms £109.62

 

3 Bedrooms £129.23

 

4 Bedrooms £160.38

 

You will find it difficult to find any private property for rent which could be covered by the above maximum benefits. Those renting from a private landlord will be paying considerably more for rent then they could get in benefits.

 

So I don't think your theory of the 200 affected folk moving to private landlords is likely to happen.

[owre-weel]

Pete you can find all the information on running a business from your home, including what is and what is not legitimate expenses from Revenue and Customs. I think fact sheet 222 should help. I'm sure your more than capable of carrying out a search!

 

I don't think it's right to be asking people on here to discuss their private finances, regardless of how you try to dress up your questions.

[shetlandpeat]

So what, it was about showing there would be an increase to the housing benefit bill. I think I did show that social housing was cheaper.

 

Also, it was an example, not real, just to show there would be the increase, which you also proved with the rest of your figures, except, about £10 less per week, the cost will still be more. So, you are saying that the increase, if folk moved to private would be £20. Still, let us not split hairs, there would be an increase, looking at your tosh

 

Tenants would not move years ago because private rents were dearer, how did that get worked out? Explain? Oh, unless of course you are talking of the increased money into the local economy, I would guess. Unless of course the accommodation was second homes owned by folks off Shetland.

 

But, going by your numbers (this is fun, thanks for playing)

 

housing benefit rates are set for the area eg single bed is £88.85 if the private landlord wants £100.00 then the tenant has to make up the difference

there will be little difference between private and social, the loss is the same £12ish though as a percentage, those in private accommodation are charged less except those in social housing have a spare room, which they do not want but have to pay for. That means they are worse off. If HAs had singles, they would be paid in full on the limits you show. There is also a better chance of gaining a single occupancy unit in the private sector.

 

In a way, those relying on social housing, are paying more.

[peenk]

I am possibly off topic here but in the banking sector they totally discriminate against the people that have a decent income but do not want credit and pay high rents thus reducing their ability to save for a mortgage.

I do not want credit but I do spend my money, that said I live within my means. I do not save very much because I have high rent so the only money I put away is for my pension.

Now to get a mortgage I have been advised (I will not get one) unless I have a credit history, i.e. borrowed money and paid it back.

Now I do not want(or need) to borrow money and pay someone for the privilege.

Now to get a mortgage I have to save nearly 45 grand, borrow money and show I can pay it back.

So banks think I am a bad bet although I have not one missed or late rent payment in over 10 years and also no negative bank statements over the same time (I could go back further but would need to hunt for paperwork). I think we should go back to the old fashioned scheme of your bank manager sussing you out and awarding you a loan/mortgage on how he assessed your ability to pay on rock solid information backed up by your landlord/employer etc. Not computers which can be fooled if you know how to work the credit system.

In short what I am trying to say is now the banks have gone from being reckless to ultra conservative, there need to go back to the late 70s early 80s banking where your bank manager actually knew you and your ability to pay and get people like me out of the catch 22 rented sector and buying/building houses again.

.

[owre-weel]

I am possibly off topic here but in the banking sector they totally discriminate against the people that have a decent income but do not want credit and pay high rents thus reducing their ability to save for a mortgage.

I do not want credit but I do spend my money, that said I live within my means. I do not save very much because I have high rent so the only money I put away is for my pension.

Now to get a mortgage I have been advised (I will not get one) unless I have a credit history, i.e. borrowed money and paid it back.

Now I do not want(or need) to borrow money and pay someone for the privilege.

Now to get a mortgage I have to save nearly 45 grand, borrow money and show I can pay it back.

So banks think I am a bad bet although I have not one missed or late rent payment in over 10 years and also no negative bank statements over the same time (I could go back further but would need to hunt for paperwork). I think we should go back to the old fashioned scheme of your bank manager sussing you out and awarding you a loan/mortgage on how he assessed your ability to pay on rock solid information backed up by your landlord/employer etc. Not computers which can be fooled if you know how to work the credit system.

In short what I am trying to say is now the banks have gone from being reckless to ultra conservative, there need to go back to the late 70s early 80s banking where your bank manager actually knew you and your ability to pay and get people like me out of the catch 22 rented sector and buying/building houses again.

.

 

You make a good point peenk, the old system of your local bank manager knowing your financial history worked quite well.

 

I don't have credit cards, nor tend to borrow money, the only exception is Hp on my car. The last time I went to a garage and considered a new car the finance company, at first, refused me, stating I didn't have a good credit rating. It was only after I got my bank manager involved that they agreed the Hp.

 

It's a sad state of affairs, when you don't lay yourself in debt, and you always pay all your bills on time that you are seen as a poor risk.

[janeleask99]

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.

[owre-weel]

So what, it was about showing there would be an increase to the housing benefit bill. I think I did show that social housing was cheaper.

 

Also, it was an example, not real, just to show there would be the increase, which you also proved with the rest of your figures, except, about £10 less per week, the cost will still be more. So, you are saying that the increase, if folk moved to private would be £20. Still, let us not split hairs, there would be an increase, looking at your tosh

 

Tenants would not move years ago because private rents were dearer, how did that get worked out? Explain? Oh, unless of course you are talking of the increased money into the local economy, I would guess. Unless of course the accommodation was second homes owned by folks off Shetland.

 

But, going by your numbers (this is fun, thanks for playing)

 

housing benefit rates are set for the area eg single bed is £88.85 if the private landlord wants £100.00 then the tenant has to make up the difference

there will be little difference between private and social, the loss is the same £12ish though as a percentage, those in private accommodation are charged less except those in social housing have a spare room, which they do not want but have to pay for. That means they are worse off. If HAs had singles, they would be paid in full on the limits you show. There is also a better chance of gaining a single occupancy unit in the private sector.

 

In a way, those relying on social housing, are paying more.

As you say Pete you gave an example and state its not real. So as I said in my last reply to your post (which seems to have been removed) it is just waffle!

 

I see a lot of posts have been removed overnight, so no doubt I have missed more waffle.

[janeleask99]

 

Mr Osborne says he is making these changes for 'people like you'. I assume he means me (as I work). Well Mr Osborne I don't want you to do this for me thank you. I want you to protect the vulnerable for me, I want you to care for those who need to rely on benefits for me and I will not have you saying you are making all these cuts to benefits for me.

 

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

[Ghostrider]

before you have a go at other people just remember that your living in a council flat.

 

Careful, that could be construed as a threat of some sort.

 

What is the relevance anyway, I live in a council flat (albeit very much against my will), am I not entitled to have any sort of negative opinion or be openly critical of anything to do with it or anyone involved with it in any way?