Just sat watching the news to hear about this new 'bedroom tax'.
Frankly,after just watching the news and not reading into it, I'm amazed that the government could even consider imposing this tax on people who are already on benefits.I can't believe it.
Just how can this go towards helping the poor?

The reason as I see it,
There is a massive shortage of affordable housing in this country and the counsel housing stock (due to being bloody sold off) is shall we say limited.

We have many many people tied up in the system with houses far bigger than they need now the children have grown up and left, we have young family's stuck in smaller houses struggling for space as there is nothing for them to move in to (with in counsel stock). I believe the system they are putting in place rightly or wrongly is to aid the re-distribution of stock but still gives people the option to stay if they stump up the money.

I believe this system helps every one as a hole and is not a "bedroom tax" but an intensive to get people to move.

There is a strange sense of entitlement with in some of the gammont of council tenants. No, its not your house, the state is doing you a favor by subsidizing your housing and imop should be treated the same way as any other private renter.

And no, im not a snob, I was brought up in council houses and I have family still in them and if it gets them in to a smaller house so a family can breath then I think its fair and right.

I don't see any real looser's to the system if you take a cold hard look at it. - there may be

I understand all of the above and wouldn't call you a snob at all Sam.

On the news they were stating that there is a severe lack of smaller properties for these people/families etc to downsize to.Probably,as you stated, caused by the councils selling the properties off in the first place.Also, maybe there just aren't enough to begin with to contend with the rising number of single parents?
I can see why it could be an incentive.Yet one of the examples used on the broadcast I saw was a disabled woman living with her full time carer husband in a two bed house adapted for her disability.The husband sleeps in the spare room due to the bed/equipment required in the room and sleeping behaviour of his wife...To stay there, they will be needing to stump up £80 a week.....Now in my mind , someone who has no other income other than benefits such as this family is going to struggle with finding the extra £320 a month.You could argue that they could move into a special care facility..yes, they could, but what then are the costs of that?

For others, there is also the option to move in with family..but in reality how often is this going to happen?

I'll openly admit that I'm not particularly au fait with benefits and housing policies etc etc, but on the face of it . I'm not convinced . Especially after it was stated that there's a lack of property required and at the costs as mentioned in the example above.In some cases the 'tax' required on one room is pretty much half a mortgage payment.....for one room....really?

It's taken as a percentage of the rental cost, 14% for one room, two or more rooms come in at 25%

To be loosing around £80 a week that means the rental price would be around £571 a week? which is £2284 a month. Them numbers smell wrong to me. I think its more possible they are down £80 for the month?

There are always going to be exceptions, that's the problem with any general rule but something needs to give some where.

I'm with Sam on this one, but only if there is the right to appeal for extenuating circumstances. I also saw the news item about the disabled lady and it would be inhumane to make them suffer further, it's bad enough already!

The alternative might be to means-test everybody but this is already known to be grossly inefficient timewise and in any case people's circumstances can change.

This will be another bullet with which the present government can shoot itself in the foot if it is seen not to listen to deserving cases.

Don't forget it's the business of news to find the most outrageous of examples in order to a) make it newsworthy and b) make a point.

It seems there are injustices and inequalities abounding in several areas of government which could have been addressed previously but were pushed under the carpet. At least there are moves to try and confront these issues. Having said that there are decisions being made say in defence, policing, fire service, education, to name just a few, which are pretty near the bone.

Pretty sure there is no right of appeal, its a pretty hard and fast set of rules.

Kids gone to uni and need somewhere to live in holidays? Tough

You don't think having kids sharing a room is a good idea? Tough

You foster kids? Tough

Kids in the forces but want to come home on leave? Tough, they can sleep in the shed.

Disabled and need overnight care? Tough

Wife's got spina bifeda and needs a seperate bedroom? Tough

Divorced and would like a room for the kids to sleep when they come over? Tough

As for this freeing up bigger council/social housing? Well it doesn't apply if you are in receipt of a pension.... so an army of grannies are still rattling around in 4 bedroom houses.

This government really doesn't give a rat's ass about the majority, they can live on the street as far as they are concerned.

Lord Freud, who came up with this humdinger of a plan lives in an 8 bedroom mansion (when he is in the country), surely he is under occupying that, and if he wants his lords retainer, he could let the spares out to lodgers?

Oxford Steve,

Not every one in a counsel house is blind/deaf/disabled/out of work. I don't know the percentages but a huge number are normal hard working people.

Most people have to make lifestle changes based on income, move, downsize, change spending habit's. I dont see why people in "counsel houses" should be any different

Tell me how you would do this better, would you leave people in 3 bedroom houses when there are only two occupants? Why should the tax payer fund oversized houses for people who no longer need it?

I never suggested they were - but it is probably fair to say that the disabled and single parent will be affected most by this change.

Further I do not believe that people receiving housing benefit are not making the "lifestyle choices" you are suggesting, as are the rest of us.

Knowing that most of these remnants are fairly on the borderline financially already (otherwise they'd not be on HB), how is taking money off them going to help?

Or are you suggesting that all the 3 bed tenants will go down to 2, and the 2s to ones?

Exactly my train of thought.Just managed to word it better than I did.

That was supposed to say tennents, not remnants....lol

I'm suggesting that the stock is poorly managed, that we as a country are spending 23bn a year on housing benefit, money that we cannot afford.

I'm not suggesting the imposed system is going to be perfect and I do know people are going to fall fowl of it, I hope that the people who need it get the discretionary payment from the local housing authority to offset that, to help people who truly need the help.

Believe it or not I think a benefits system is great, its the mark of any developed nation when the people who can put there hands in the pocket for people that dont have.

I think the social housing idea is great and that people with low income or in vulnerabl positions should be able to take advantage of cheep housing. But, and its a big but, social housing should not be a for life privilege like it is today and that if we truly want to keep the benifits system with out the country falling around down our ears then changes need to be made.

Lol^^^^... tenants?

Also, aren't you allocated housing if on the list for a council house/social housing? Therefore, not entirely responsible for 'under usage'?

Sorry Sam not laughing at your post . It's aimed at OS' s, you beat me to posting...

Of course, they would be far better taking that £ 32Bn a year and building houses with it.....

As a rule, yes. You take what you are offered or farmed back off to Cockroach Mansions B&B.

From April housing benefit will be capped at £500/week.

According to the government's figures 660,000 households will be affected by the bedroom tax.

So, if every single household takes the full 25% reduction, and receives the maximum benefit then the bedroom tax will save a little under £4.3bn/year.

April also sees the 50p rate of tax for those earning £150,000+ drop to 45p. The reason for this drop is that the government claims that lowering the threshold will discourage tax avoidance. In the year before the 50p rate came in the total taxable income for those earning over 150k was £116bn, last year it dropped to £87bn. The government hopes that the reduced rate will encourage people to avoid avoidance, because hoping for that is much easier than fixing tax loopholes and upsetting the rich.

The difference between £116bn taxed at 45p and taxed at 50p is £5.8bn.

Or, to put it another way, the government has taken money off the poorest people in society and given it to the richest 1% (and palmed the billions of pounds difference off on to the rest of the tax-payers)

Good old tories.

Andrew, I'm only commenting on the bedroom tax, There clearly need to be some other hard changes for all ranges of income. I am not a fan of the current government. I think we got the worst of all worlds when the coalition was formed.

The two changes you point out are incredibly focused to show the disparity between rich and poor but I suspect one could pick any number of changes and pole them off each other to show a favorable point.

Dagnabbit, I've just thrown my Stradivarius on the fire to keep warm or I'd be playing dirge for all of these people whose houses I pay for.

As unfortunate as all those circumstances are they do not represent the majority of those in public funded housing. People who live in houses paid for by the goodness of other's tax donations need to realise that a spare bedroom for when the student comes back from uni, paid for by society at large is not acceptable. It's not like they're being turfed out. If they want to keep the luxury they can pay for it.

Of course, they craziest idea of all is that if you want a big house with a games/junk/guest room that you might actually think about paying for it yourself. I doubt Lord Freud is in receipt of benefits to cover the rent on his pile, but don't let that stop you spewing forth your jealous, socialist bile.

Socialist Bile...Nice one...not heard anything like the in here for months.

So you would not bother with any kind of benefits for anyone?? Or maybe you'd just prefer some kind workhouse thing going on.

Tell you what though, google Lord Freud, he sounds like an...ahem...colourful character!

Sam, I didn't pick examples focussed to show the disparity between rich and poor, I picked the subject we're talking about and another one involving, roughly, similar amounts of money.

Perhaps you can come up with an example where the poor are gaining at the expense of the rich. Or maybe the hard changes aren't quite as hard for everyone.

So how does this work with private landlords who have tenants that are on benefits who already pay the shortfall on the rent, because there is a cap on how much housing benefit is paid so I assume there benefit will be reduced accordingly?

I done a quick search for one bedroom houses or flats in my area and found.... none. So if the council can't rehome people into smaller properties then surely the council gain and if the tenants cant afford the extra what happens? Homeless? Or do they move them out of the area and get tenants from other areas into their houses?

If the council has given, say, a single mother with one child a three bedroom house because there was no two bedroom properties available, who pays for removal costs if they have to downsize to another area as they have no choice but to move because they can't afford the extra they will have to pay for the spare room? Perhaps its a good time to buy a large van and offer a removal service.

I haven't looked to much into this as it doesn't affect me so can only comment on what I've heard and I make no claim to be a politician, council official or intellectual.

It only covers council/housing association properties, not private rented

But does the council not pay private landlords the rent on the property for the tenants, if there on benefits?

Yes, but these rules dont apply to them. Those rules changed last year I think

No, they pay it to the tenant, who then pays it to the Landlord. Except in extreme circumstances.

Its a £500 on all benefits including housing which works out at £26000 a year thats a lot of money . Its about time too especially if you live in london were renting is so expensive .If you were working paying N.I and tax you would have to be earning £33200 for you to recieve the max benefit cap of £26000 . The rented house next to us has always been paid for by the council since 2004 . The last family who were non english had 2 young kids . Neither mother and father worked but had a nice car ,all their groceries delivered by asda and pizza hut a couple of times a week loads of electrical items from argos .It did not bother me too much going out to work in the morning because i have a mortgage and bills to pay and they were a nice family anyway . To me they had a good life in a nice area over looking the park . Under the new rules from april this situation will not continue .People will now have to decide to move out of london as the rent will take a good chunk out of the capped amount .Also they would have had a spare bedroom . They will have less of a choice were to live .

Not quite. We had that Labour Government before. The only person who makes Cameron and Clegg look remotely statesman-like is Ed Milliband. I'm not sure if Cameron was allowed to vote in the labour party leadership contest, if so he must have voted "Ed".

We've tried politicians in charge and it's been found wanting. Time to try something else?

We're a democracy, we can have anybody in charge we like.

The questions, then, are why we always vote for party A or party B, why we reward politicians who behave like actors, why we pillory politicians who listen to us and change their minds?

It's not the politicians that are broken, it's the voters.

As a rule housing is more expensive where the jobs are. By capping the benefits you are pushing the unemployed away from the areas of employment and, therefore, making it more expensive for them to work.

The maxim of those reducing benefits has always been that nobody should be better off on benefits than they are working, but if you're forcing people out of commuting range then you're making it more, not less, likely that they will remain better off unemployed.

For example, I lived in Coventry for a while, and plenty of people commuted from Coventry to London, but it's £500/month for a train ticket. So if you get relocated to Coventry, which isn't exactly a booming job market, then you have to find a job which, before tax, pays £18,000+ more than your benefits just to break even.

Lack of a credible alternative choice? Habit? Or Tradition? And a perception there is no alternative to A or B. Plus to a degree a programming from our parents as to whether A or B is the way we should vote (apart from the parents who support C (Lib Dems/BNP/UKIP/any number of socialist parties )