General Discussion
Housing benefit challenge dismissed by High Court
Disabled families have lost a court challenge to social housing benefit cuts for residents with spare bedrooms in England, Wales and Scotland.
All of us who work in the lobbying and campaigning sector will continue to campaign against these new benefits.
We need a peoples revolution Linda like the poll tax revolt, this Govs actions are despicable!!!! They are brainwashing a lot of people into believing their actions are right, the last person who committed this sort of persucution was hitler
Brazilnut, I cannot believe you are comparing a small reduction in money given to people by the Govt, to the actions of someone like Hitler
I have just watched a report on BBC News interviewing someone who was part of the action to take the Govt to court over this. Her reason for needing a spare bedroom? She needs a different mattress on her bed and a different bed to her husband - so apparently this means they need 2 rooms. Why can't they just have 2 beds in one room like plenty of other people do? Her husband also complained that this "tax" doesn't affect millionaires so that makes it unfair. Well duh, the reason it doesn't affect millionaires is because THEY DON'T CLAIM THE BENEFIT because THEY PAY THEIR OWN WAY! As do millions of others of us who are currently subsidising people to live in bigger properties than they actually need. It still boils down to the fact that if you are living on handouts, you have to live within the rules whatever they are. If you don't like it, then pay your own way.
As said before on here - people who are 100% relient on benefits and have been long term need to ask themselves one question.
If I lived in a country like Africa without any state benifits, what would I do then?
I firmly believe in a benifit system based soley on what an individual has put in and now needs in later life as a result of injury or simple old age. Not the one we have at the moment with less contributors than claimers. Pay nothing in get nothing out seems fair to me.
On the subject of Hitler - transit camps for the so called homeless with DIY type mobile homes would solve the problem of many, not brand new affordable houses handed out for nothing.
yes Brazilnut, you clearly have been brainwashed. Brainwashed into thinking that this life is all about something for nothing. You may be happy to live that way, plenty of others aren't and THEY are rebelling at having to pay for the lifestyles of those who won't do anything to help themselves.
Ive worked all my life and have not claimed HB and yes the minority do get to me sometimes but Im not so blinkered that I cant see what is happening to this Country. The majority of HB claimants work on a low wage (figures have proved this) I might god forbid develop an illness tomorrow which would mean giving up work and yes then I would be reliant on HB, I might get made redundant and yes would be reliable on Hb, there is so many scenarios. The majority of housing benefit is paid to private landlords. If this country wants to reduce its HB build more smaller social housing for the tenants who are underoccupying to move into. Affordable housing is not the answer, Birmingham and certain London Boroughs are snapping up en bloc new affordable homes in our county to transfer their tenants too, they will still be their landlords but will not have such a big benefit deficit.
just watched Love Your Garden, a woman who was healthy 3years ago struck down with Motor Neurone disease, see you never know what is around the corner or when you might need to rely on benefits, its only a small minority of work shy who take the piss
AGREE WITH YOU 100%People who work for a living have to live in accomodation that they can afford, why should a person who's rent is paid for by the taxpayer feel they have the right to live in whatever accomodation they choose regardless of the size and price.
I know 2 single people who have 2 bed ''council'' flats, they had the choice to move or contribute towards the rent, one person moved the other contributes to the rent now as his HB was reduced, they consider it fair as they admit they don't need 2 bedrooms.
If you work you HAVE to live within your means!!!! and wouldn't be loking for a bigger place to live in that you could afford or need, this has to apply to benefit claimants as well.
Wriggler you are missing the point, blinkered!!!Tax payers money as you put it goes to the landlord :- landlords subsidy http://www.torbay.gov.uk/index/yourservices/benefits/benefitchange s/benefitchangesapril2013.htm
http://welfarenewsservice.com/bedroom-tax-judgment-will-increase-demand-for-scarce-emergency-payments/#.UfvdS-5wY1g I suggest you read this wriggler
I don't see how this can be regarded as a subsidy to landlords - that would only be the case if Councils were paying a higher than market level rent, and in my experience that is unlikely to be the case.
http://www.wigantoday.net/news/local/families-bedroom-tax-woe-1-5914236 note in this report people are handing in their keys and moving to smaller properties in the private sector which is costing approx £700 more per annum per claimant, who is receiving that money? private lanlord hence landlord subsidy. After reading this you tell me who this bedroom tax is benefiting tax payer? Gov? or private landlords?
The quote from the council official states of people handing in their keys: 'And these people will be go (sic) into the private rent sector which on average will cost them £700 more per annum.' This sounds to me like speculation. And it does not detract from my point that a landlord provides a service/product fo which he is entitled to receive payment, as surely if it were Sainsburys selling a tin of beans. It is a commercial transaction and not a subsidy.
Yes, agree private sector landlords provide a service/product for which they are entitled to receive payments but what I think B'nut is suggesting is that if those who rent in the private sector need HB in order to be able to pay their rent then that HB, which is paid for by the public purse, ie taxpayers, is a landlord subsidy.
And private sector rents are higher than rents found in the social housing sector.
A rough guide is as follows:
Social rent - is approx 60% of the local market rate
Affordable rent - is approx 80% of the local market rate
And the amounts charged for rents (social, affordable, private) will, of course, vary around the country.
Yes I agree the same applies to HAs. But HAs charge lower rents (social and affordable) and their purpose in being is to provide accommodation for those who cannot afford to rent in the private sector. It would be great if all tenants whether paying a social, an affordable, or a private rent could pay all of their rent themselves. But many can't. Therefore the need for HB. Personally I don't have a problem with HB going to HAs. I can't say that I feel the same though about HB going into the hands of private landlords.
If a tenant in the private sector is claiming HB then it is the tenant who is receiving a subsidy, not the landlord! The landlord is only receiving an economic rent for the service provided - it is paid to him on behalf of his tenant. As we know there is a housing shortage in this country and the landlord could readily find another tenant at the market price if he so chose.
Solution= Build the 2million Social Homes we need to solve the housing crisis and lets see how these property investors survive then
And who ends up with the taxpayer funded HB? The Landlord! Ergo landlord subsidy.
And yes I agree there is a housing shortage in this country. Our old friend supply and demand again. And what happens when demand for a good or service exceeds supply? Prices rise (or, as in this case, rents).
Even more paying out by the taxpayer to private sector landlords then?
Sorry Lynne, this still isn't right. The Government is careful in the way it administers benefits in that they are paid to an individual, or on occasion, on behalf of an individual. Consider; benefit recipient buys beans in Sainsburys with his benefit - Sainsburys is clearly not receiving a subsidy, the benefit recipient is spending of his free will. Claimant spends all his money on drugs? Nothing to do with the government, it's the claimants money to do with what he will and indeed his supplier cannot be in receipt of a government subsidy as he is paid by the benefit recipient. And at the end of the line the same applies to our landlord - he is being paid by, or on behalf of, the benefit recipient not the government and it is therefore not a subsidy.
I Disagree . A benefit recepient has the (very limited) choice of how they can spend their money. An HB recepient does not. If they don't pass on their HB to their landlord they get into rent arrears. Right? And the consequence of that is? HB is exactlywhat it says on the tin. Housing benefit (paid for by the taxpayer that gets passed on to the landlord).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-big-lie-behind-the-bedroom-tax-as-families-trapped-with-nowhere-to-move-so-cannot-avoid-new-penalty-for-having-spare-room-8745597.html just what we have been trying to get over to most of you