Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:08 am  

El Barbudo wrote: The resources in this case are the dwellings with a smaller number of bedrooms. Those dwellings are, largely, already allocated. Are they? How do you know this? It's pointless telling people to move to a smaller dwelling when those smaller dwellings are already allocated. No one is telling anyone to move Hence people who, by definition, don't have the money in the first place, can't move, have their housing benefit reduced and many will end up in arrears, evicted, become homeless and then the LA will have to house them because they are homeless. How do you know they don't have the money in the first place? Is there actually a lack or provision? Why can't people move? There are many thousands of people who live in social housing who lead very comfortable lives, run cars, have Sky TV & all the other everyday taken for granted items. Why do they require social housing? They aren't in need yet are all in receipt of benefit in the for of taxpayer subsidised rents. I'd suggest these people should be targeted in tandem with a drive to allocate housing on need in order that the cost to the taxpayer be reduced even further. Or, they have to move into the more expensive private sector. How is the private sector actually more expensive? The capital investment doesn't come from the taxpayer, nor does the ongoing maintenance. rents may be higher, but total cost will be far lower. The whole idea doesn't actually take the facts into account ... it is ill-thought-through and vindictive. Foes that apply to those people who were in private rented accommodation who have had to make up the difference or move? Does that mean the claims are wrong? Unless they are supported with irrefutable evidence, yes. As people are re-housed in the private sector, it costs more. Even the DWP admit that... "The growth in the cost of Housing Benefit in the private rental sector has been partly driven by higher rents feeding through to higher Housing Benefit" https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... wr2011.pdf I'll read that link & come back on it. I have alluded to it above. A housing benefit cap is maybe a good idea? You say you've been skint ... but your idea of budgeting is simply to buy cheap food and cut out luxuries. Many are already buying cheap food (to the detriment of their health in many cases) but can't afford the rent, or the gas bill or clothes for growing kids ... etc etc. You seem to be unable to understand that cheap does not mean bad. I think you'll find plenty of kids being fed on McD's during trips to Asda etc & that's not sheap, but it is poop. There are bargains galore & you can eat very well & healthily for less than it costs for fast food if you have an ounce of common sense. What rent can't they afford? Social or private rates? If their income is low they get housing benefit? Are these people who can't afford these gas bills using the gas wisely? If you can't provide for children, don't bring them into the world to suffer because of your selfishness!! You mention the (rather obvious) over-supply of labour as the cause of joblessness. No flies on you Sherlock. A legacy of the last government, of course As the government is concentrating on austerity rather than growth, the jobs will remain hard to find ... isn't that also obvious? Is it somehow wrong to cut the amount you are spending when you cannot afford it? Can you give me some examples of this 'austerity' & how any other government would do it differently? Where & how was this growth supposed to come from & over what timescale?

El Barbudo wrote: The resources in this case are the dwellings with a smaller number of bedrooms. Those dwellings are, largely, already allocated. Are they? How do you know this? It's pointless telling people to move to a smaller dwelling when those smaller dwellings are already allocated. No one is telling anyone to move Hence people who, by definition, don't have the money in the first place, can't move, have their housing benefit reduced and many will end up in arrears, evicted, become homeless and then the LA will have to house them because they are homeless. How do you know they don't have the money in the first place? Is there actually a lack or provision? Why can't people move? There are many thousands of people who live in social housing who lead very comfortable lives, run cars, have Sky TV & all the other everyday taken for granted items. Why do they require social housing? They aren't in need yet are all in receipt of benefit in the for of taxpayer subsidised rents. I'd suggest these people should be targeted in tandem with a drive to allocate housing on need in order that the cost to the taxpayer be reduced even further. Or, they have to move into the more expensive private sector. How is the private sector actually more expensive? The capital investment doesn't come from the taxpayer, nor does the ongoing maintenance. rents may be higher, but total cost will be far lower. The whole idea doesn't actually take the facts into account ... it is ill-thought-through and vindictive. Foes that apply to those people who were in private rented accommodation who have had to make up the difference or move? Does that mean the claims are wrong? Unless they are supported with irrefutable evidence, yes. As people are re-housed in the private sector, it costs more. Even the DWP admit that... "The growth in the cost of Housing Benefit in the private rental sector has been partly driven by higher rents feeding through to higher Housing Benefit" https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... wr2011.pdf I'll read that link & come back on it. I have alluded to it above. A housing benefit cap is maybe a good idea? You say you've been skint ... but your idea of budgeting is simply to buy cheap food and cut out luxuries. Many are already buying cheap food (to the detriment of their health in many cases) but can't afford the rent, or the gas bill or clothes for growing kids ... etc etc. You seem to be unable to understand that cheap does not mean bad. I think you'll find plenty of kids being fed on McD's during trips to Asda etc & that's not sheap, but it is poop. There are bargains galore & you can eat very well & healthily for less than it costs for fast food if you have an ounce of common sense. What rent can't they afford? Social or private rates? If their income is low they get housing benefit? Are these people who can't afford these gas bills using the gas wisely? If you can't provide for children, don't bring them into the world to suffer because of your selfishness!! You mention the (rather obvious) over-supply of labour as the cause of joblessness. No flies on you Sherlock. A legacy of the last government, of course As the government is concentrating on austerity rather than growth, the jobs will remain hard to find ... isn't that also obvious? Is it somehow wrong to cut the amount you are spending when you cannot afford it? Can you give me some examples of this 'austerity' & how any other government would do it differently? Where & how was this growth supposed to come from & over what timescale?

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:17 am  

BiffasBoys wrote:

...The discussion isn't about whether or not housing benefit should be awarded.

No, it's about the reduction in benefit, which you appear to have forgotten.

You seem to question every point made but make sweeping statements of your own such as these ...

BiffasBoys wrote:

...Clearly the social provision basis is failing because of the level of allocative inefficiency...

Why clearly?
Are there enough smaller dwellings to allow "allocative efficiency"?
Can you provide stats for that please?

BiffasBoys wrote:

... There are I'm sure huge numbers of people in social housing who can afford to live without the rent subsidy they receive...

How many ... and on what basis can you state that?

BiffasBoys wrote:

... If these people were moved into the private sector, plenty of social housing stock would be freed up..

Well obviously ... but the cost of housing benefits would rise as the demand in the private sector rose.
You haven't thought that through ... or maybe you have but are being disingenuous.

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:30 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

No, it's about the reduction in benefit, which you appear to have forgotten.

You seem to question every point made but make sweeping statements of your own such as these ...

Why clearly?
Are there enough smaller dwellings to allow "allocative efficiency"?
Can you provide stats for that please?

How many ... and on what basis can you state that?

Well obviously ... but the cost of housing benefits would rise as the demand in the private sector rose.
You haven't thought that through ... or maybe you have but are being disingenuous.

If people who don't require all the rooms they have in these properties, the system is failing because of allocative inefficiency. The resources are not being allocated on actual need. Exactly the same applies to those who can afford not to live in social housing, yet do. Not based on need that they have social housing.

The proposed housing benefit cap would address that, but look at the uproar that caused. Rents would only rise if there was no capacity in the private sector, but there is no shortage.

Again i'll point out that though private sector rents may be higher, there's no capital investment & ongoing spend so the total cost is actually far less.

Should the spare room subsidy apply in private rented housing? Fairness? To whom?

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:48 am  

BiffasBoys wrote:

If people who don't require all the rooms they have in these properties, the system is failing because of allocative inefficiency...

Repetition is not proof.

BiffasBoys wrote:

...Rents would only rise if there was no capacity in the private sector, but there is no shortage...

Moving people to private sector would, by definition, increase demand.
If demand increases beyond the current spare capacity, rents will rise purely due to supply and demand.
Are you saying there is sufficient spare capacity lying empty to be able to cope?

BiffasBoys wrote:

Again i'll point out that though private sector rents may be higher, there's no capital investment & ongoing spend so the total cost is actually far less...

Of course there is capital expenditure and ongoing cost.
You say the cost is less ... how much less?
Numbers please.

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:30 pm  

BiffasBoys wrote: I'd be interested to know where your 80& statistic comes from... Shed load of stats and data on benefits here. More here More. More The above includes a variety of sources. Via social media a few months ago, I did, incidentally, ask a Conservative councillor whether he knew that so many recipients of housing benefit were in work (he was doing the old 'benefit scroungers' line). He replied, curtly, that he did. He didn't dispute it – just subsequently refused to respond to any further questions about why he damned people in work as being different to the "hard working" people who didn't receive benefit. BiffasBoys wrote: How relevant is that statistic to the issue of the spare room subsidy? That is, how many in work in receipt of housing benefit will be affected? It is relevant for a number of reasons, but not least because it illustrates that benefits are not simply paid to the 'scroungers and skivers', as the government's propaganda pretends, but a vast amount are paid to those who are in work, but cannot afford to live on the wages they are paid, primarily because those wages are too low to meet the cost of housing in the UK. At present, as a direct result of ideologically-inspired government policy, the taxpayer is subsidising the private rented sector, but not addressing the core of the problem, which is the paucity of affordable housing, the building of which was stopped (again for reasons of political ideology) back in the 1980s, and which no subsequent government has seen to address properly. There are not enough one-bedroom properties in the country for people to downsize to where that would be appropriate (let's forget, for the moment, the cases where it would be inappropriate) and, until this is addressed, penalising people for that situation, when they are already on low incomes, is, quite apart from any ethical consideration, economic illiteracy.

BiffasBoys wrote: I'd be interested to know where your 80& statistic comes from... Shed load of stats and data on benefits here. More here More. More The above includes a variety of sources. Via social media a few months ago, I did, incidentally, ask a Conservative councillor whether he knew that so many recipients of housing benefit were in work (he was doing the old 'benefit scroungers' line). He replied, curtly, that he did. He didn't dispute it – just subsequently refused to respond to any further questions about why he damned people in work as being different to the "hard working" people who didn't receive benefit. BiffasBoys wrote: How relevant is that statistic to the issue of the spare room subsidy? That is, how many in work in receipt of housing benefit will be affected? It is relevant for a number of reasons, but not least because it illustrates that benefits are not simply paid to the 'scroungers and skivers', as the government's propaganda pretends, but a vast amount are paid to those who are in work, but cannot afford to live on the wages they are paid, primarily because those wages are too low to meet the cost of housing in the UK. At present, as a direct result of ideologically-inspired government policy, the taxpayer is subsidising the private rented sector, but not addressing the core of the problem, which is the paucity of affordable housing, the building of which was stopped (again for reasons of political ideology) back in the 1980s, and which no subsequent government has seen to address properly. There are not enough one-bedroom properties in the country for people to downsize to where that would be appropriate (let's forget, for the moment, the cases where it would be inappropriate) and, until this is addressed, penalising people for that situation, when they are already on low incomes, is, quite apart from any ethical consideration, economic illiteracy.

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:00 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Repetition is not proof.

You yourself have used an example of a family whose kids have grown up & left. All the apparent cases of people having to pay more as a result of a reduction in benefits, owing to excess capacity, aren't claims made by me.

Moving people to private sector would, by definition, increase demand.

No flies on you

If demand increases beyond the current spare capacity, rents will rise purely due to supply and demand.

Big ifs. What is the capacity? Why should those who are in social housing & not in receipt of housing benefit not be moved into the private sector? or charged more so that taxpayer subsidy is removed?

Are you saying there is sufficient spare capacity lying empty to be able to cope?

There are thousands of empty properties all over the country, hundreds of stalled housing developments

Of course there is capital expenditure and ongoing cost.

That is reflected in the rent

You say the cost is less ... how much less?

Build cost is funded by private capital, as are the ongoing costs. Not by taxpayers. Housing benefit is taxpayer funded. You say the cost is more. How much more?

Numbers please.

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:07 pm  

Learn to quote FFS.

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:22 pm  

Mintball wrote: Shed load of stats and data on benefits here. More here More. More The above includes a variety of sources. None of them back up your 80% of those on housing benefit are in work. Your sources aren't government departments. They are surveys, not official statistics. Via social media a few months ago, I did, incidentally, ask a Conservative councillor whether he knew that so many recipients of housing benefit were in work (he was doing the old 'benefit scroungers' line). He replied, curtly, that he did. He didn't dispute it – just subsequently refused to respond to any further questions about why he damned people in work as being different to the "hard working" people who didn't receive benefit. Nice, if irrelevant anecdote It is relevant for a number of reasons, but not least because it illustrates that benefits are not simply paid to the 'scroungers and skivers', as the government's propaganda pretends, but a vast amount are paid to those who are in work, but cannot afford to live on the wages they are paid, primarily because those wages are too low to meet the cost of housing in the UK. It has no relevance, nor does your introduction of something no one has said e.g scroungers & skivers. Got any figures n what wages are & what rents are? What's the split in housing benefit paid to those in social housing against those in private housing? Given the application of the spare room subsidy to private rented accommodation - something that not one left wing politician, think tank or pressure group objected to - I'd guess it's not this one. At present, as a direct result of ideologically-inspired government policy, the taxpayer is subsidising the private rented sector, but not addressing the core of the problem, which is the paucity of affordable housing, the building of which was stopped (again for reasons of political ideology) back in the 1980s, and which no subsequent government has seen to address properly. What is the problem with benefit money going into the private sector? Why is it preferable to simply circulate this money within government departments? Aren't all governments policies ideological? Affordable housing, a term often used but never actually quantified. There are not enough one-bedroom properties in the country for people to downsize to where that would be appropriate (let's forget, for the moment, the cases where it would be inappropriate) and, until this is addressed, penalising people for that situation, when they are already on low incomes, is, quite apart from any ethical consideration, economic illiteracy. Is there a shortage of one bedroomed properties? Why just this category? You mention low incomes, again without quantifying what that is. Did you object when the spare room subsidy was applied to the private rented sector? That was done to prevent resource waste. Why is it any different with the social sector? Was it unethical, ideology driven & economically illiterate then? On what basis is it economically illiterate? Why should anyone receive a subsidy for what they don't need?

Mintball wrote: Shed load of stats and data on benefits here. More here More. More The above includes a variety of sources. None of them back up your 80% of those on housing benefit are in work. Your sources aren't government departments. They are surveys, not official statistics. Via social media a few months ago, I did, incidentally, ask a Conservative councillor whether he knew that so many recipients of housing benefit were in work (he was doing the old 'benefit scroungers' line). He replied, curtly, that he did. He didn't dispute it – just subsequently refused to respond to any further questions about why he damned people in work as being different to the "hard working" people who didn't receive benefit. Nice, if irrelevant anecdote It is relevant for a number of reasons, but not least because it illustrates that benefits are not simply paid to the 'scroungers and skivers', as the government's propaganda pretends, but a vast amount are paid to those who are in work, but cannot afford to live on the wages they are paid, primarily because those wages are too low to meet the cost of housing in the UK. It has no relevance, nor does your introduction of something no one has said e.g scroungers & skivers. Got any figures n what wages are & what rents are? What's the split in housing benefit paid to those in social housing against those in private housing? Given the application of the spare room subsidy to private rented accommodation - something that not one left wing politician, think tank or pressure group objected to - I'd guess it's not this one. At present, as a direct result of ideologically-inspired government policy, the taxpayer is subsidising the private rented sector, but not addressing the core of the problem, which is the paucity of affordable housing, the building of which was stopped (again for reasons of political ideology) back in the 1980s, and which no subsequent government has seen to address properly. What is the problem with benefit money going into the private sector? Why is it preferable to simply circulate this money within government departments? Aren't all governments policies ideological? Affordable housing, a term often used but never actually quantified. There are not enough one-bedroom properties in the country for people to downsize to where that would be appropriate (let's forget, for the moment, the cases where it would be inappropriate) and, until this is addressed, penalising people for that situation, when they are already on low incomes, is, quite apart from any ethical consideration, economic illiteracy. Is there a shortage of one bedroomed properties? Why just this category? You mention low incomes, again without quantifying what that is. Did you object when the spare room subsidy was applied to the private rented sector? That was done to prevent resource waste. Why is it any different with the social sector? Was it unethical, ideology driven & economically illiterate then? On what basis is it economically illiterate? Why should anyone receive a subsidy for what they don't need?

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:41 pm  

Please learn to use the quote function. It isn't difficult, but not using it correctly makes coherent discussion more difficult.

Therefore, at present, I'll respond only to your final point:

BiffasBoys wrote:

Why should anyone receive a subsidy for what they don't need?

I look forward to your comments on the subsidies that the taxpayer makes to the profits of large companies by way of in-work benefits to employees. They don't "need" them. Then again, most companies who get tax breaks don't "need" them either – for fracking, for instance.

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:45 pm  

BiffasBoys wrote:

If people who don't require all the rooms they have in these properties, the system is failing because of allocative inefficiency. The resources are not being allocated on actual need. Exactly the same applies to those who can afford not to live in social housing, yet do. Not based on need that they have social housing.

The proposed housing benefit cap would address that, but look at the uproar that caused. Rents would only rise if there was no capacity in the private sector, but there is no shortage.

Again i'll point out that though private sector rents may be higher, there's no capital investment & ongoing spend so the total cost is actually far less.

Should the spare room subsidy apply in private rented housing? Fairness? To whom?

I'll pick this post of yours to quote from because if everyone continued quoting as you do then it would only be a matter of minutes before one reply filled the whole page, in any case you're only repeating yourself in each one...

Clearly there is a shortage of suitable two or one bedroom council housing because THAT is the simplest solution, if there were hundreds of smaller units available within each council area then there would be no problem for the council would simply have to offer the smaller dwelling or the reduction in benefit and the choice would be the tenants own - and no sympathy would given if they chose to stay in the larger house.

Clearly though that is not the issue and there have been plenty of reports in the press from various councils and housing associations to suggest that the availability of smaller dwellings is miniscule compared to the numbers of tenants who require them after applying the bedroom tax - this even led to Leeds City Council reclassifying hundreds of their own houses as two bed instead of three where the third bedroom was the typical "box room", a nett loss to the council but a problem solved in the long run for them with no legal costs or debt collection involved - ultimately it angered the local Tory councillors as its not quite how they envisaged the solution to work, I believe it was one of these councillors that Mintball emailed to ask if, given his quoted comment in the press, he was aware that most housing benefit recipients were IN work, he skulked off at that point and was clearly annoyed that anyone should doubt his word or question his knowledge.

Its not an under investment issue from LA's and HA's over the past couple of decades - its non-investment in social housing from all shades of government, but its only this current coalition that has highlighted this as a claw-back exercise that will do them no damage politically,