disabled will NOT be exempt from 'bedroom tax'

Thanks Ana , must have been doing something interesting , did not hear him say that !!!

I don't know how people define tax evasion.
As long as people keep within the law no action can be taken against them.
If it is decided that what a company / person is doing is wrong then a law could be made to prevent it happening again but laws can not be made retrospective of date.

Frank

Aka, bluebell and Bez

Bez said they owned the house on a tenants in common basis to make sure their children gets their inheritance and both estates do not go to another family.
My mother and father earned about the same amount of money during their working lives.
My mother bought the point up that if one of my parents passed away the other could get married again and all the money could go to another family so they had tenants in common ownership for the same reason as Bez.
I was glad my mother had put the house in to tenants in common ownership when my father's so called lady friend suddenly wanted the house willing to her family.
Dad told her in no uncertain terms that would not happen but it was nice to know I could certainly have stopped him willing at least half the house to the other family.
I would have also objected to him willing the other half as it said no sale, transfer, or charge to be given over the property without the consent of both parties both parties being myself and my father.
Even if Dad had willed his half over to that woman I may have been able to stop the transfer of the title in to her name.
Also the house could not have been taken for care fees as I was an owner occupier but I may have been able to block any sale if I had not been an occupier as I would have not given my consent for the house to be sold under these circumstances.
I am not sure however if this clause has been tested in law.

Frank

I have missed a bit, Are we now talking about how old Frank is, how much tax he pays, his views on Royalty etc? If we are, I have, unusually, nothing to contribute, controversially or otherwise. Some would be "glad" and doubtless want to continue analysing, dissecting, Frank.Forgive me I don't want to trivialise what you consider to be a serious subject but would prefer to, temporally, if you do not mind return to the original subject. We have had numerous "takes" on the subject, many with merit. None with a satisfactory solution. If the combined mental output of the "professional"contributors to GN cannot agree on a satisfactory solution that would be applicable to all situations, how do you think anyone else can?
Do you not think that rather than getting your proverbial s in a twist, and slagging off people you partially disagree with, we could agree that it is a difficult problem, which doesn't mean it should be abandoned,and consider a point I mentioned in the beginning,that cases be considered on their merit.
I was not heartless as was suggested, I did not need reminding that some people live in second floor flats, or even pent house suites, or basements. I didn't imply that they were ALL scroungers.I knew everyone was not able to have a shed, for their "stuff"( That was a sprat to catch a mackerel ) Which drew out the more heartless and vindictive amongst you.
Increasingly the point seems to be who can we belittle for their opinions, and how many others can we recruit to agree with ME. How can we gloss over what has been said and misunderstand it almost to the point of appearing senile ourselves.
The facts are cuts need to be made, this is one way, it isn't ideal, it suits few, it's already being administered incorrectly( deliberately, in some cases) It needs to be based on the individual needs, and not across the board. That in itself is difficult to achieve. It can however weed out some of the scroungers.
Perhaps we could stop giving countries that have space programmes, and are richer than we are, millions in aid? We could perhaps all have an increase in pension, benefit etc.

Yes if we abolish the royal family and stop councils spending money on non essential things ie christmas decorations and bunting for things like the royal weddings taxes could probably be reduced.

Frank

You just can't keep a good man down.

Frank abolishing the Royal Family is not going to happen, so please change the record. I could also state that subsidised leisure facilities might also be regarded as "non essential"

As far as I am concerned they could cut the subsidy to leisure centres as long as they cut the council tax.
As it happens the centre I use just about breaks even.
The ones in the other areas of Birmingham do not.

Frank

How have you come by this information ? Hope not snooping . LOL

I know somebody in leisure services finance.

Frank

How can anything be discussed sensibly, to find solutions ... when people constantly divert to harp on about personal dislikes or keep saying, one bad is worse than this bad, so no need to address this one, or take anything said personally? Going round and round in circles is not going to get us anywhere.

So yes, we all agree that tax evasion and fraud is much worse... and MUST be tackled head on. We all agree that suitable smaller subsidised accommodation is not currently available (but with unemployment and the building industry as it is now, it wouldn't take long to remedy this... with proper infrastructure and where people with larger subsidised homes could move as a community) - but why does that mean the situation cannot be looked at humanely to find solutions.

I still cannot fathom how, on the one hand some people here are saying that we should support families, including larger one, and at the same time say leave them in tiny flats, bedsits, b&bs... while older people with empty nests sit in larger houses with gardens on their own.

And yes, this only applies to Council subsidized properties, because social benefits are a safety net for a basic standard of life, and not luxuries. Some have cars, some do not, some have big posh cars, and some have old bangers. Some go on long haul holidays, some even in luxury hotels, some stay at home. Life is not 'fair' - social services as in the UK are there to ensure everybody has a safe roof over their head, health care, enough to eat and keep warm - and that is fantastic. But to provide a family home for life...even when not needed, well no.

The current guidelines, as far as I understand them, is that a handicap does NOT NECESSARILY make you exempt, per se - but that individual needs would be assessed if the extra room is needed for specific cases.

One of my best friends lives in a tiny post-war bungalow with one small lounge, tiny kitchen and small bedroom with her handicapped husband, and keep his scooter in a garden shed. Their family of course can't stay there if they come to visit from abroad, and book themselves into a B&B when they come. Why should the State (no, the tax payers) pay for spare bedrooms for relatives who visit for a few days once or a couple of times a year ... when they have to pay huge sums for b&b accommodation for years for families ... let alone the psychological, emotional and educational damage this causes.

A thoughtful post Granjura .

And as said before, people with their own houses/flats often have to move to smaller accom, for a variety of reasons. For my parents it was two-fold, first they could not afford to maintain the family home on their pension, and secondly it just got too big for them to physically maintain, including the garden.

Because when you have your own property, the council does not come and fit a brand new kitchen and bathroom, new windows, re-paint and redecorate the place - come over to do emergency repairs, etc - oh NO...
and my parents were not the only ones to have their heart broken of having to give up over large empty nests... why should it be the 'prerogative' of those who have their own homes to have to come to the conclusion that the larger family home is no longer needed, or affordable, or maintainable?

It was therefore our responsibility when visiting from abroad with our family to rent a holiday flat to stay during our visit, or find a piece of land to camp... They had 2 bedrooms, and slept in separate bedrooms due to their individual needs. No way would they expect the State to pay for spare rooms for us to go and stay during our hole, and neither would we?!

Well said Granjura. The voice of reason. Agree with you 100%.

Well said. As a taxpayer on a pension I would love to see the council build purpose built flats for the disabled preferably with a flat for a trained concierge in place so that there was someone on hand to help repair lifts wheelchairs hoists etc. instead we are having more student flats built. I just threw in the the taxpayer bit.

Common sense Granjura shame it is so uncommon!

Ground Hog Day?

No, marmot day is on 2nd of February actually. Mind you, where you live it is just about every day!

Stansgran

Where is the council expected to get the money from to build these new council flats?.
As a home owner I would not want to pay yet more council tax for other people to benefit from it.

Frank

Frank, when you retire (I'm not sure whether you have or not) will you claim your old age pension, free bus pass and winter heating allowance or will you refuse them on the grounds that other taxpayers shouldn't have to give you money?

If you become ill or disabled would you expect to be able to receive daycare services/respite care or would you say you don't want them because it's not right that the taxpayer has to fund them?

Would you expect social services to help you to adapt your home if necessary with hand rails etc to allow you to stay independent for longer or would you insist on paying for these yourself on the grounds that the taxpayer shouldn't have to fund alterations to your house?

Well put, vamp !

vampirequeen

I am retired on an occupational pension and paying £500 a month income tax.
I will claim my state pension which will come to less than the tax I am paying now, free bus pass etc on the grounds that I have paid for them.
If I become disabled I would expect to get all that I am entitled to including an NHS funded home if I become eligible.
With regard to NHS funding for certain conditions I will not be surprised if the law changes on that although I don't know if they could charge people for being in secure nursing homes if they are a danger to the public although the council have tried in several cases I have been involved in.
I know of 1 case where the council wanted the son to pay a top up for his father because there were no secure nursing homes at the council's usual rates which would have him in the area and even said to the son how would he feel if his father was let on to the streets and killed a child because his father could not be funded.
The son did stand firm knowing he could not be held responsible for the funding and the NHS had to pay.

Frank

And this is where, FrankH, we definitely part company. Are you saying that the UK should totally get rid of its social services to protect your tax payer's pocket? That we should go back to the work house for the poor?

Building would help kick the economy into action- and would save millions in B&B bedsits and totally unsuitable accommodation for families (+ all the associated educational, mental and health costs). I have absolutely nothing against the so-called bedroom tax (which is not a tax at all of course) - but not the way it is being done at the moment. It can be done, properly and sensitively, by building suitable bungalows/flats with the proper infrastructure, and people from a stable and long-term community given the choice to move together to the new flats, or face paying extra, or take some of the steps mentioned before (and yes, not all those measures suit all, but will suit some. Taking in the right lodger could really help with loneliness, shopping, small tasks and safety, for SOME people, who might prefer this option to moving- and should be their choice).

Again, having a disability does not automatically mean not sharing a bedroom, be it for a couple or for children - but there should be flexibility in the system so that people with special needs can be assessed and given more space. Why should a mild disability automatically lead to being exempt? But yes, needs should be assessed and taken into account.

Not sure Frank how you can go on about the State (no, tax payer) having to pay for care fees even if someone has considerable assets - and then say the State (taxpayer) should not pay to provide suitable subsidized accommodation for those who now have over-large council properties that have to be released (quite rightly imho) for families with children. Are they supposed to throw them out on the street Frank?

Apologies for moving slighly off track here but just wondered if anyone saw 2 recent programmes on TV.

One was Neighbourhood Force (ITV 9pm Wednesday) which followed Birmingham City Council Housing Department and in particular a particular (lady) housing offcer who deals with disputes between neighbours. In my opinion thatb lady deserved a medal for the work she does.

The other was How to Get a Council House (last night Channel 4 9pm) which followed the (often ridiculous) bidding system used to allocate council properties throughout London.