MP speaks out on 'bedroom tax' (From This Is Cheshire)

Words fail me on this government. The lib-dems put them into power so they are no different. A family newspaper is not the place for me to express the venom I feel for this government.

Is it right for 1 person to occupy a 4 bed taxpayer subsidised property when it could be put to better use

itme, no its not right, not right at all. its social housing not social homing.

itme, no its not right, not right at all. its social housing not social homing.

Never forget, the Conservatives only help people who have money working for them.

They will never help people who are working to earn money!!

Frankly its about time the welfare system was reformed and housing benefit is just part of it - way too many welfare claimants living a far better lifestyle than the average Joe who pays taxes and does not claim benefits. People need to start accepting that our benefits system should be a safety net and not a lifestyle choice. There are far too many taxpaying workers struggling to find affordable 2 or 3 bed homes because far too many welfare claimants are sitting pretty in oversized homes with the rent fully paid without a care in the world.

The 180000 underoccupied homes paying £524 per year would raise £94.32 million per year.Enough to build 1347 homes a year @ £70000 per home

I agree with the above comments but when a couple have lived in the same house for fifty years and the kids have now left home they are to be penalised or forced to move whilst in their seventies after living in the house all those years.

old-codger wrote:
I agree with the above comments but when a couple have lived in the same house for fifty years and the kids have now left home they are to be penalised or forced to move whilst in their seventies after living in the house all those years.

why anyone should be in council housing for 50 years is the question!

it should be a stop gap until you can buy your own house not a house for life!!

i totally agree! i pay £700 rent a month whilst saving for my own home. why should i have to do all this, yet people can choose to have a council house for life?

if you have a 3 bed house and are only using 1 or even 2 then you should pay more!

old-codger wrote:
I agree with the above comments but when a couple have lived in the same house for fifty years and the kids have now left home they are to be penalised or forced to move whilst in their seventies after living in the house all those years.

This is exactly the sort of self centred response I despair of.
Had Old Codger bought his house then we would not be having this discussion.... instead he thinks that just because he has lived in the same house for 50 years that it his entitlement to stay there !! who ever promised him that ?? .... nobody did - he just assumed. If he values his home and wanted to ensure he remained there for life I'm afraid that he should have taken personal responsibility for his finances years ago and either bought the house or put enough savings aside so he could afford to pay the shortfall now. If he has not done that then I'm afraid I have little sympathy (and in case he says that he could not afford to do either of those things then I would say he should have considered whether he was living above his means all those years and downsized sooner).
Even if Old codger has worked and paid taxes for his working life surely it would be selfish to assume that the state should support him in his old age with anything other than the basic necessities. We all know the state pension is not exactly generous but these are hard times for most people and over indulging people on housing benefit who are living in oversized homes is only hampering the Treasurys efforts to balance the books and (hopefully) come out of this dreadful mess the country is in with a system that is fair but more importantly sustainable.... tough as it may sound those that have not previously done enough to help themselves are inevitably going to be hit hard.

I dont live in a council house, I own my house and have done for years because I could afford to buy. Not everyone can do this due to low income jobs, Nobody keeps me in comfort, I am not on housing benefit I pay full council tax, If
the equaliser open his eyes and read what I said he will note that I didnt say i lived in a council house for fifty years merely someone I knew. A bit too quick to jump down someones throat I think, He must live a sad life

old-codger wrote:
I dont live in a council house, I own my house and have done for years because I could afford to buy. Not everyone can do this due to low income jobs, Nobody keeps me in comfort, I am not on housing benefit I pay full council tax, If the equaliser open his eyes and read what I said he will note that I didnt say i lived in a council house for fifty years merely someone I knew. A bit too quick to jump down someones throat I think, He must live a sad life

I never said that you live in a council house... that was ghostwriter I believe. Yes I did assume that you personally were the subject of your scenario (and were either a council or a private tenant) but the facts still remain that the "person you knew" should look at his own part in this and ask whether he is being fair to expect the taxpayer to subsidise his old age when he could have done more to help himself.

That is fair comment, The tenency agreement he has with the council (golden gates housing trust) Promises homes for life, From the cradle to the grave so what are people expected to believe. They believe what they are told. Today a lot of people cant afford to rent never mind buy.

old-codger wrote:
That is fair comment, The tenency agreement he has with the council (golden gates housing trust) Promises homes for life, From the cradle to the grave so what are people expected to believe. They believe what they are told. Today a lot of people cant afford to rent never mind buy.

Just because a social housing provider has promised a house will be available for the life of the tenant (if that was the case ? - I do not know) that is immaterial as it is not the issue we are discussing here. All that GG housing will have been promising (if that was the case) was that they were not going to ask the tenant to give the house up or force them to leave ... (unless of course the terms of the tenancy are breached). So long as the tenant carries on paying the rent and fulfils their side of the contract then I am sure that this remains the case. It is the tenants responsibility to pay the rent in full as they have the contract with GG and just because the Housing benefit rules may change does not mean that GG should suffer a shortfall in rental income as the tenant is perfectly entiltled to make up the shortfall themselves from other sources of income or savings. GG has a long list of applicants who would be happy to pay the rent in full if thay were given that same house.

This is precisely why I said earlier that the tenant would have been wise to take control of their finances earlier and either bought their home or put money aside so they could ensure they could stay in their home for life.

old-codger wrote:
I agree with the above comments but when a couple have lived in the same house for fifty years and the kids have now left home they are to be penalised or forced to move whilst in their seventies after living in the house all those years.

I have to agree with old codger on this one.people dont want to be upping sticks in later life,and if they have been paying rent all that time then they have bought the house several times over.
And equaliser..people have paid rent and scraped by over the years,and not been able to put extra aside for their old age.maybe if all the income tax etc these people have paid over the years wasnt wasted on keeping others who cant be bothered to get a job,then people wouldnt have to rely on a little help with their rent..

annie1275 wrote:

old-codger wrote: I agree with the above comments but when a couple have lived in the same house for fifty years and the kids have now left home they are to be penalised or forced to move whilst in their seventies after living in the house all those years.

I have to agree with old codger on this one.people dont want to be upping sticks in later life,and if they have been paying rent all that time then they have bought the house several times over. And equaliser..people have paid rent and scraped by over the years,and not been able to put extra aside for their old age.maybe if all the income tax etc these people have paid over the years wasnt wasted on keeping others who cant be bothered to get a job,then people wouldnt have to rely on a little help with their rent..

If, as you say,people have "scraped by over the years,and not been able to put extra aside for their old age" then they were obviously NOT living within their means and NOT taking responsibility for their long term finances and should have considered downsizing sooner.
Have you stopped to think what the effect this is having on the younger generations? ie. those that have young families NOW and could do with an extra bedroom or two? Simple fact is ....... people staying put in oversized houses puts increased demand on housing of this type and simple market forces determine that the cost of such housing goes UP.... please explain just how this helps todays young families ???? Unless we challenge peoples assumptions and get people to see the wider picture then our society will perpetually have housing shortages.
I a not advocating that downsizing should be made compulsory once a tenants family has grown up and gone or their need for a larger house has ended - I am merely advocating that staying put is a choice that does have financial consequences and if they value living in a larger home for life then they should make provision that they can personally meet that additional cost... otherwise downsize, preferably sooner rather than later.
On your arguements that renters pay for their properties several times over this is nonesense. Social housing (council / GG etc) is often much cheaper than paying a mortgage and with no risk and no maintenance bills. The average buyer pays for their bought house several times over too if you tot up the mortgage interest they pay.... its just the way it is in the real world.

What i mean is not everyone has got well paid jobs,maybe they couldn't cut down anymore on what they were spending.
And if i went into council property now i would be paying quite a bit more than i pay on my mortgage.
There is no homes for the couples who are starting out as married couples who have to live apart because they cant get on the property ladder,but knock out a few kids and hey presto,heres a house???

If theres a shortage of housing ,then why have we got the right to buy.
If social housing is for people who cant afford to buy and there is a shortage of houses why sell them off?
Yes Annie i see where your coming from on this one,we are not all born with a silver spoon in our mouths.
Theres a lot of people out there now who are struggling to make ends meet,are they expected to go hungry or not keep warm so they can "take responsibility for their long time finances"
Get in the real world people.

mrbaxter wrote:
If theres a shortage of housing ,then why have we got the right to buy. If social housing is for people who cant afford to buy and there is a shortage of houses why sell them off? Yes Annie i see where your coming from on this one,we are not all born with a silver spoon in our mouths. Theres a lot of people out there now who are struggling to make ends meet,are they expected to go hungry or not keep warm so they can "take responsibility for their long time finances" Get in the real world people.

I think you are missing a point here Mr.Baxter (the clue is in the phrase "long term"). Times are undoubtedly tough at the moment and everyone is feeling the pinch - admitedly some more than others. I am saying that the vast majority of people who will potentially be hit by these changes have in previous years been better off than they are now and could have done more THEN to protect their futures but did not. Harsh as it sounds society has to change its belief that its OK for everyone to be fully and geenerously subsidised by the taxpayer in old age as that would simply not be sustainable. Challenging that belief has to start somewhere.
Whilst the state has a moral responsibility to ensure its pensioners do not starve or freeze I question whether it has a moral reponsibility to pay their housing costs when their home is larger and more expensive than their needs.

Whether you live in a council house or one you bought by a mortgage, moving house after you haved lived in it for along time is one of the most stressful things you will experience.

HuffPuff wrote:
Whether you live in a council house or one you bought by a mortgage, moving house after you haved lived in it for along time is one of the most stressful things you will experience.

I'm sure it is but whats the alternative ??
Are you suggesting that just so these people are to be spared a bit of stress the taxpayer expected to foot the bill - get real - there are a million and one more important things for the govt to be spending money on than paying to keep Jack and Doris in an oversized house just so there is a spare room for the sewing machine !!

the equaliser wrote:

HuffPuff wrote:
Whether you live in a council house or one you bought by a mortgage, moving house after you haved lived in it for along time is one of the most stressful things you will experience.

I'm sure it is but whats the alternative ??
Are you suggesting that just so these people are to be spared a bit of stress the taxpayer expected to foot the bill - get real - there are a million and one more important things for the govt to be spending money on than paying to keep Jack and Doris in an oversized house just so there is a spare room for the sewing machine !!

I don't recall arguing for or against expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill for Jack and Doris' spare room. I just remarked that moving house was stressful. Nor do I believe that most people who have survived and triumphed all the hurdles of buying their houses with a mortgage, in the main expect the government to come to their aid with handouts to help them remain in houses that may now be too large for their needs in retirement.

As long as governments are prepaired to fork out tax payers hard earned money on subsidising other countrys and other currencys I dont think anyone can complain about a bit of subsidy for people on pensions 30% lower than the european average. Not everyone can afford to buy a house and not everyone can afford to put aside for old age as we live in a rip off britain and have had governments who spend billions on the welfare of other countrys residents. WHY NOT OURS. Only a tory minded person would think otherwise.

old-codger wrote:
As long as governments are prepaired to fork out tax payers hard earned money on subsidising other countrys and other currencys I dont think anyone can complain about a bit of subsidy for people on pensions 30% lower than the european average. Not everyone can afford to buy a house and not everyone can afford to put aside for old age as we live in a rip off britain and have had governments who spend billions on the welfare of other countrys residents. WHY NOT OURS. Only a tory minded person would think otherwise.

I fully agree that many aspects of our govt spending is questionable (to say the least) but two wrongs do not make a right.
You ask "why not ours"... please do not be obtuse about this - our benefits system leaks like a sieve and costs us MANY billions a year, far more than many of our Eurropean neighbours and many times more than our govt spends an the welfare of other countries residents. You say that our pensions are 30% lower than the european average but that fails to take account of all of our other welfare benefits that many of our pensioners get SUCH AS HOUSING BENEFIT. Try claiming for a 3 bed villa in Spain and see how far you get !!

Many pensioners dont get housing benefit as they own their own homes and pay council tax. Some also have villa,s in Spain, I have a four man tent, I have a bus pass, Do you want to remove that as well as the swimming pass that was take off us,, What other benefits am I entitled to, Please do tell, I agree what you say about benefit fraud and benefit scroungers but please dont have a go at old people who have never had the money to buy or put away for old age, It wasnt always posible. Most of these people came through the war with nothing and ended up with less.

Old Codger - Please do not get me wrong here - I have no problem with housing benefit being paid - my issue is that it should be recognised that living in an oversized home incurs an ADDITIONAL cost and the taxpayer should not have to pay this additional amount - perfectly fair to me, the claimant has a choice and always has. Just because they chose to live in property when they worked that was bigger than their needs and was a financial stretch it does not follow that the taxpayer should indulge them with paying for them to stay in the same oversized property throughout old age. This arguement is futher justified when you look at the amount of young families struggling in undersized or inappropriate accomodation who really need access to the very type of social housing that is being underoccupied by the elderly.

And - for the record - I have absolutely no problems with free bus passes and free swimming to all pensioners.

the equaliser wrote:
Old Codger - Please do not get me wrong here - I have no problem with housing benefit being paid - my issue is that it should be recognised that living in an oversized home incurs an ADDITIONAL cost and the taxpayer should not have to pay this additional amount - perfectly fair to me, the claimant has a choice and always has. Just because they chose to live in property when they worked that was bigger than their needs and was a financial stretch it does not follow that the taxpayer should indulge them with paying for them to stay in the same oversized property throughout old age. This arguement is futher justified when you look at the amount of young families struggling in undersized or inappropriate accomodation who really need access to the very type of social housing that is being underoccupied by the elderly.

And - for the record - I have absolutely no problems with free bus passes and free swimming to all pensioners.

Well if people havent got enough bedrooms in a house then perhaps they should stop having kids.?

So correct me if I am wrong,if you have 2x3 bedroomed houses,and say an old lady lives in one and a couple with a few kids have the other one,and at the minute we will say the rent is £80.Its fair that the old lady should pay "a bedroom tax"and pay more for her house than the family??Even though the old lady pays all her rent and the family get theirs paid by housing benefit.Cant see owt fair in that can you??

Ok, To put an end to this problem they need to stop selling council houses to under occupied tenants in the first place. I know there is over a million people on the housing list and very few new houses being built, One of my points is that someone who has lived for fifty years in a two bedroomed house is now expected to pay a penalty of £10 per week or move to a one bedroom property at a saving of only £5 per week. People cant downgrade until the kids leave home and by then they dont have the heart to move to save £5 per week in rent. I understand what you say and I understand what you mean but it isnt always posible, If you force people out at this age its not healthy and sometimes a death penalty, Its a home where they built a family and where they want to leave this life. Under new tenancy agreements what you want is already built in and will be abided by because they will spend the next xxx years knowing they will have to move when the time comes. They wont be penalised they will be moved by court order to comply with the tenancy agreement. But all this takes time it wont happen tomorrow.

What this government are trying to do is force old people on housing benefit to pay a penalty or move, If they paid a proper pension like the rest of europe they could afford to pay the rent in full like the rest of europe. That is my point. We will have to beg to differ as this topic will vanish of the pages before much longer.

annie1275 wrote:

the equaliser wrote: Old Codger - Please do not get me wrong here - I have no problem with housing benefit being paid - my issue is that it should be recognised that living in an oversized home incurs an ADDITIONAL cost and the taxpayer should not have to pay this additional amount - perfectly fair to me, the claimant has a choice and always has. Just because they chose to live in property when they worked that was bigger than their needs and was a financial stretch it does not follow that the taxpayer should indulge them with paying for them to stay in the same oversized property throughout old age. This arguement is futher justified when you look at the amount of young families struggling in undersized or inappropriate accomodation who really need access to the very type of social housing that is being underoccupied by the elderly. And - for the record - I have absolutely no problems with free bus passes and free swimming to all pensioners.

Well if people havent got enough bedrooms in a house then perhaps they should stop having kids.? So correct me if I am wrong,if you have 2x3 bedroomed houses,and say an old lady lives in one and a couple with a few kids have the other one,and at the minute we will say the rent is £80.Its fair that the old lady should pay "a bedroom tax"and pay more for her house than the family??Even though the old lady pays all her rent and the family get theirs paid by housing benefit.Cant see owt fair in that can you??

Thats not what I believe is being proposed. I think the MP has confused things by refering to this as a "tax". The rent is (for instance) £80 whether or not the tenant is on housing benefit and is the same in both cases. The family MAY be entiltled to the full £80 housing benefit on grounds on low income / no savings etc. but the pensioner (even if they were on basic state pension with no savings) would be deemed to be underoccupying only get what she would be entiltled to for a smaller property in the same area (lets say thats £65) - she would be expected to pay the £15 difference - or move to the smaller / cheaper property.

old-codger wrote:
Ok, To put an end to this problem they need to stop selling council houses to under occupied tenants in the first place. I know there is over a million people on the housing list and very few new houses being built, One of my points is that someone who has lived for fifty years in a two bedroomed house is now expected to pay a penalty of £10 per week or move to a one bedroom property at a saving of only £5 per week. People cant downgrade until the kids leave home and by then they dont have the heart to move to save £5 per week in rent. I understand what you say and I understand what you mean but it isnt always posible, If you force people out at this age its not healthy and sometimes a death penalty, Its a home where they built a family and where they want to leave this life. Under new tenancy agreements what you want is already built in and will be abided by because they will spend the next xxx years knowing they will have to move when the time comes. They wont be penalised they will be moved by court order to comply with the tenancy agreement. But all this takes time it wont happen tomorrow.

who said anything about new tenacy agreements ?

the equaliser wrote:

old-codger wrote:
Ok, To put an end to this problem they need to stop selling council houses to under occupied tenants in the first place. I know there is over a million people on the housing list and very few new houses being built, One of my points is that someone who has lived for fifty years in a two bedroomed house is now expected to pay a penalty of £10 per week or move to a one bedroom property at a saving of only £5 per week. People cant downgrade until the kids leave home and by then they dont have the heart to move to save £5 per week in rent. I understand what you say and I understand what you mean but it isnt always posible, If you force people out at this age its not healthy and sometimes a death penalty, Its a home where they built a family and where they want to leave this life. Under new tenancy agreements what you want is already built in and will be abided by because they will spend the next xxx years knowing they will have to move when the time comes. They wont be penalised they will be moved by court order to comply with the tenancy agreement. But all this takes time it wont happen tomorrow.

who said anything about new tenacy agreements ?

Think if you read it properly it means you need new tenancy agreements in which states you know you will have to move when the time comes.

annie1275 wrote:

the equaliser wrote:

old-codger wrote: Ok, To put an end to this problem they need to stop selling council houses to under occupied tenants in the first place. I know there is over a million people on the housing list and very few new houses being built, One of my points is that someone who has lived for fifty years in a two bedroomed house is now expected to pay a penalty of £10 per week or move to a one bedroom property at a saving of only £5 per week. People cant downgrade until the kids leave home and by then they dont have the heart to move to save £5 per week in rent. I understand what you say and I understand what you mean but it isnt always posible, If you force people out at this age its not healthy and sometimes a death penalty, Its a home where they built a family and where they want to leave this life. Under new tenancy agreements what you want is already built in and will be abided by because they will spend the next xxx years knowing they will have to move when the time comes. They wont be penalised they will be moved by court order to comply with the tenancy agreement. But all this takes time it wont happen tomorrow.

who said anything about new tenacy agreements ?

Think if you read it properly it means you need new tenancy agreements in which states you know you will have to move when the time comes.

I think it is you that is misunderstanding here Annie 1275....... when Old Codger refers to "new tenancy agreements" these are only applicable to new tenancies (and it will take years before most of these tenants needs change and they may be deemed as under occupying). Tha situation in place for tenants facing this immediate issue today are bound by older agreements which will allow them to stay so long as they fulfil the terms. The issue for these people is that the proposed changes to housing benefit rules mean that the full amount of the rent will not be covered, so long as they meet the shortfall in rent they will be able to stay in their homes.

Come on the equalizer you have had more than enough postings on this topic to explain precisely your point of view. Why do you have to keep correcting "misunderstandings" of the other contributors?