disabled will NOT be exempt from 'bedroom tax'

"For to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”

Out of context, I know, but it feels like the gospel according to Frank!

We have to consider both the needs and the dignity of those who do not own their homes. But they are still homes, are they not?

Agreed-this is not helping, at all (:

BTW my mil struggled financially in her 60s- and took French students from a language school, 2 at a time sharing a room- in her small cottage (that she worked like a dog to buy)- and of course sharing the small lounge, small kitchen and very small bathroom. Hard work, but she loved it, most of the time.

What is wrong with sharing a bathroom, for goodness sake. We used to host 6 students at a time, and all shared... the ONE bathroom, and nobody died (although I had to remind teenage boys about expectations..). Two of our students stayed for 2 years and more.

DON"T think it is the end of the world to have share a bathroom , for goodness sake , what is the world coming to !!!

granjura, there may be nothing wrong with sharing a bathroom by choice, as your MIL and you did, but to suddenly have to share what has been your home for many years with strangers just because you can't afford to pay the excess for your spare bedroom is rather different!

Well at least we now understand why this government think they can get away with such callous treatment of the poor and vulnerable citizens. There are many who won't share their good fortune, if they can avoid it, even though they have plenty.

It's reflected in how people give to charity and disaster emergencies. Those with least to give donate higher proportions of their income.

No personal comments?
I would be interested to know how many members would be happy to take a complete stranger into their homes, on pain of losing it. No need to have an obsession about sharing a bathroom to want to keep your privacy.

We used to have French students staying with us in the seventies. We lived in a large farmhouse (one bathroom) and it was a useful way of making a bit of extra money when I was at home looking after small children.

I would not want to share a bathroom now. I'm older and more set in my ways and would not even contemplate staying in a B&B unless the room was ensuite.

Sorry, granjura but some people do not like sharing bathrooms unless it's with visiting family members.

No personal comments?
I would be interested to know how many members would be happy to take a complete stranger into their homes, on pain of losing it. No need to have an obsession about sharing a bathroom to want to keep your privacy.

whenim64

I am happy to share my money with my daughter's / son's in law and granddaughters.
I also donate a lot to Cancer Research UK but I don't regard myself as having further responsibility to anyone.
I am sure there will be great grandchildren in the future which I will be spending money on.

Frank

I think I shall go to bed now. I have just had grandchildren to stay who went home covered in spots, after running a temperature and being thoroughly cranky - GP diagnosed (over the phone - would not see them) possibly roseola. I now feel I may be following in their footsteps. This thread goes round and round the same deep ruts, and it was foolish of me to try to make sense of it. If you come to any useful conclusions or suggestions, do forward them to the appropriate departments. I am sure they will be grateful. Miss out most of the detail though.

I am trying very very hard NOT to make my comments personal, although it is very hard in this case, for all sorts of reasons (like my considerate, kind, discreet and very clean OH, who, having opened his home to a stranger was asked by said stranger to go and stay in B&B on return visit,as there was only one bathroom- he was reeling from the insult and offense).

Many homeowners, like my mil, like ourselves, did exactly that - as described, and also had Au-Pairs and forster children before that- because we thought it was worthwhile, and because it paid for our daughters at University. many home owners have NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER (we did) to take measures to make the money go round, especially when your mortgage goes up to 19.5% (as it did for us int he 80s), for instance, and when essential maintenance has to be done, like a new roof or central heating. and the money is not there... you can't just call the council and they turn up and do it for you (as happens for my good friends in council housing).

What we are talking about now, is many house owners having NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER about having to downsize, or having to be creative in finding ways and means to do emergency expensive maintenance or pay for food on the table, or university fees, or an operation, whatever.... whilst others in subsidized housing do not have to. And yes, loss of privacy can be a pain, but the advantages far override this.

Hope you feel OK tomorrow, elegran. I agree that it's a waste of time arguing with people who can't imagine being in someone else's less fortunate shoes.

Just to add another thread to the discussion. Here in Manchester, we are relatively fortunate in the provision of retirement accommodation, both housing association and private. There are issues surrounding the private ones - high service charges, exit fees and so on, but nevertheless there seems to be more provision than in some parts of the country. I see this as all to the good, and encouraging people to downsize and thus free up family sized accommodation. Unfortunately, many of the housing association properties comprise mostly bedsits for single people, with the one bedroomed units being reserved for couples. Single people of retirement age are not keen on bedsit living, and I don't blame them, as I wouldn't like to in effect sleep in my sitting room. Many housing associations are now looking to remodel existing accommodation to get rid of the studio flats and replace them with one bedroomed flats, and so the net effect is that there will be fewer units to rent overall. It really makes my heart sink to think that here is a good initiative to improve the quality of life for pensioners, but the actual available housing stock will fall.

I shall bow out of this fruitless discussion, too. We are talking past each other

Yep!

Bags, I hope this means also those home owners who have to take steps to afford to stay in their own homes, or have to downsize as they can't afford to stay there. Let's say like my parents who had to sell in their 70s and move to much smaller rented accommodation out in the sticks and away from their community, or my mil who took in foreign students to make ends meet. A couple of Summers she actually moved in a very small sewing room (she was a professional seamstress) so she could give her bedroom to a third student. Sharing a bathroom, and the rest of the house meant she could stay in her old cottage she had worked so hard to buy.

She would have died before asking for help- and felt that if she wanted to stay in her own home, it was her responsibility, and not the council or social services, to make it work, somehow, and whatever the sacrifices in ways of privacy... and sheer hard work, as she had to feed them 3 meals a day and entertain them. In many ways, it was great fun too- and she was invited all other Europe to stay in their families. It is a mindset.

Just a point of information, the six weeks 'limit' in B&Bs is not actually how it works in practice. This figure is often far longer and 80% of families or pregnant women in B&B accommodation *longer than six weeks' are from the same 15 councils.

I find this suggestion of moving several people who have lived in family homes near each other for a long time to smaller accommodation bizarre and unappealing. I certainly don't want to spend the last years of my life in a old persons' ghetto where I never talk to anyone younger than me, never hear the sound of children playing and my sole interest is who is going to die next.

I watched a programme last night and 1 flat worth £500,000 was up for rent at £120 per week in Tower Hamlets about £6,300 a year.
An estate agent then said a flat like that on the open market would cost £500 to £600 per week.
My house is worth about £500,000 and it would be a good deal to be able to rent it at £120 per week and have all the maintenance included.
I think the rents charged for social housing needs to be drastically increased.

Frank

Juragran, your comments about your husband clearly cannot apply to me, as you know very well that it is the size and layout of my tiny flat that means I cannot entertain more than one guest at a time. There is only a curtain between the bedroom and the hall, as there is no room for a door. There is a thin sliding partition between the living room, where I sleep, and the hall. The bathroom is between the two.
I have seating for only two people in comfort and we have to dine on a folding card table and two folding chairs. You know this because I gave you a very good pine table and two benches which came with the flat because I had no room for them.
I have never suggested that anybody stay in a B & B, only that I cannot accommodate couples whilst I am in residence. I have offered the use of my flat freely to couples when I am away during the ski season.
It would be nice if you could now stop making obvious personal references to me, especially when the facts are being distorted.

jura, the difference between the council house tenants and your parents and mother-in-law's situations is that it's not the council tenants who are having difficulty making ends meet; it is the councils and central government. And the government wants to force its "meeting-of-ends" on people whose problem it isn't.

Those who live in mortgaged or fully owned houses they can no longer afford to keep up without help (e.g. lodgers) are not in the same boat at all. Yes, they may have to make difficult decisions (or even easy ones), and yes they may have to sell up and move to somewhere smaller, but no-one else has directly caused their predicament. They presumably knew when they bought their house that such a situation might occur in later years when their income fell.

Went off to clean my teeth and had a thought while I was doing so.

It occurred to me that the bedroom tax would be fairer (not sure about actually fair) if it were applied to all dwellings, publicly or privately owned.

My reasoning is this: those of us who are home-owners are as responsible for who is in government and what kind of government we get as those in council houses. The problem of not being able to make ends meet on publicly owned housing is therefore as much the fault of home-owners as it is of council tenants (our fault through our choice of bad government) who are being made to pay for governmental bad planning.

Either we should all be contributing if we have a spare bedroom, or no-one should.

But what if we didn't vote for the Government Bags?

Sorry if this has been said, but I can't be bothered to read through all the posts on this thread. As I understand it, those on a state pension are exempt from bedroom tax anyway so talk of people having to downsize in their later years is not accurate. People may have to consider that at an earlier stage when their children leave home, but that's a different matter.

There are many anomalies, including the unfair treatment of people with disabilities (although I believe children with disabilities are also exempt) as per the subject of this thread. There are others such as fostering/ special guardianship situations, which are currently being challenged. But just to be clear, the 'bedroom tax' is not a charge but a reduction in the amount of housing benefit that can be claimed and does not affect anyone not in receipt of housing benefit. Therefore the debate is not about social vs private housing but about whether benefit rules are fair or not.

But Bags, won't that mean that taxpaying home owners will be paying twice as the bedroom tax will have to be covered for people in social housing who are on benefits?