Bedroom Tax

Movedalot You have a wonderful sense of the absurd. You have had me chortling for the past five minutes – a rare occurrence. Congratulations.

Have you got a different layout on your search Moved? I only get one page coming up with about 74 threads and lots about 'deserving poor.' I just wrote 'deserving poor' in the Forum Search box.

Crumbs Greatnan, you must have spent ages looking through those threads for 'deserving poor'. I just tried it and went through the whole ten pages of the first one and found no reference to it. I wouldn't have the time or the inclination to trawl through the whole lot. I thought you were on holiday with your family!

But we must remember it is not going to happen to any of us who are already there Nfk Well not yet anyway

I suppose we think more of the situation for pensioners because that's where we're at - or heading for!

We do seem to keep coming back to the poor old pensioner being penalised for having a spare room but it does not apply to pensioners. I keep saying this.

My concern is more for those in overcrowded accommodation. What suggestions do any of you have to help them if no one is to be asked to down size?

Nonu imo opinion she probably didn't like being singled out by anyone who was as Ana suggests obsessed with her. Such behaviour has pushed several people over the edge and they have left. It seems that even after someone has been gone for ages she is still being thought about. Must have really got under the skin!

Greatnan "some members persist in their mistaken belief that there are hordes of children being born, mostly to single mothers, and that a high percentage of benefits claimants are cheats." Really, I haven't seen that. Where do you get these ideas from? Imo you are interpreting the views of others in a way they did not intend. I would be very surprised if any GNs approved of benefit cheats or those who continually had children they could not afford but I am not aware of anyone with the beliefs you attribue to them. Perhaps you would like to tell us where this has been said!

"We can only hope that the smug and self-righteous find themselves in need of help at some time, and come to regret their pitiless attitude." Again, please tell us who has shown such attitudes? Very few of us refer to ourselves and our achievements and our good deeds. I've not seen much self-righteousness and no pitiless attitudes at all.

Perhaps you could be specific rather than these vague aspertions?

Nonu You think so?

Poor old Alison , another one who bit the dust . Wonder why ?

Oh, I am sure AlisonMa does not find my 'obsession' with her bewildering - I just like honesty.

I think most people would agree that a single elderly person living alone in a large 3/4 + bedroom council/housing assoc property isn't fair, but the government really hasn't thought this one through - again. For the majority of single people a spare room is a necessity. Occasional use it may be, but for family and carers needing to stay over to cope with temporary disability, or sickness, there are so many reasons why one spare room is needed and such a draconian cutback is ridiculous. When filling in forms for allowances we're told to think of the worst days. They should follow their own advise.
Are they expecting people to move house when one of couple breaks a leg or needs to sleep separately for any reason - and then move back? Or will they be forced to look for respite accommodation? There are too few care places and carers now .... It's all just so STUPID!

And this is without consideration for the lack of single bedroom accommodation in the rented sector - at least in this area.

Oh dear this is a desperate policy isn't it. My heart goes out to you vampirequeen. I hope you have let your MP know. Easy to do this these days - just use www.writetothem.com - it is so easy. You could even just paste that post into your email and press send.
The truth of the matter is that it is a benefit cut as many people, like you, don't really have an option on moving, so will have to tighten their already uncomfortably tight belts.

Orca...DH is my second husband. I was with ex for over 34 years. We both had very low paid work and lived in a council house. I qualified as a teacher 9 years ago but by that time my ex was a controlling drinker, gambler and womaniser. By the time I escaped I was in a huge amount of debt (a long story to do with emotional and financial abuse) and could only afford to rent.

But tbh I don't think whether someone owns or rents their home is the issue. I'm not suggesting that single people should live in huge houses but two small bedrooms can hardly be called excessive.

As a matter of interest I've just looked at the one bedroom properties available in a 20 mile radius of where I live. Of the 407 flats available
92 cost the same or more that my current rent
170 are within £25 of my current rent
105 are within £50 of my current rent
30 are £280 - £299

The maximum housing benefit I am entitled to is £299 per month. This gives me 30 properties to choose from. All of these properties are in inner city 'no go' areas where there are high levels of burglaries, street crime and prostitution.

Of those that are slightly less than my current rent .....the majority are at the edge of the 20 mile radius and/or are on the other side of the river which can only be crossed by a toll bridge. If we moved that far out then my husband wouldn't be able to work due to travelling costs. This would mean that we would have to claim income benefits for him too which would cost the government/taxpayer even more in the long run. He would also qualify for carer's allowance which is doesn't qualify for at the moment as earning £104 a week puts him over the income threshold.

So even if my health and family life could accomodate a move , the actual financial burden on the govenment/taxpayer would increase rather than decrease.

Is it so unreasonable to have one spare bedroom?

Home owners can be a bit self-righteous about the fact that they've had to pay for their home, etc., etc. We had to pay for our home, and it's a long slog, but at least at the end of it we've got an asset that we can sell and utilise the money to downsize and maybe help our children. People who have been unable to buy a home, have no such asset, and now have no security either.

I have every sympathy for private renters who may live in cramped accommodation. It's a horrible situation, but I don't think turning on other people in a slightly better situation is going to solve the problem.

I can see that it would be reasonable to encourage, for instance, a single older person to move into smaller accommodation. But, as others have said, there isn't necessarily smaller accommodation available.

This whole thing seems like a complete shambles.

Your obsession with AlisonMA is bewildering, Greatnan.

Yes, Jess, I was aware of the original derogatory nature of the term, but I don't think it has ever been used on this forum to express anything other than to differentiate between those in real need and those who play the system - not just DM headliners, but those making exaggerated claims of disability, and those earning cash in hand and not declaring it etc.

I put 'deserving poor in the search box and found some references, but they were from people condemning the use of the phrase. However, if AlisonMA were still a member, which of course she is not, I would apologise to her as it seems the words 'deserving' and 'poor' have been used occasionally.

It is clear that the government is pushing the "scroungers" agenda - which is their term for "undeserving poor" . This conveniently distracts people from the fact that there is huge unemployment in the poorer parts of the country - lots of people who are desperate to work - but there are no jobs.
Ana the term was used in the most horrible way in Victorian times to imply that those who lived in slums and "did not try to better themselves" or were "not respectable" were to blame for the state of their lives. Nothing to do with the inequalities in their society or the lack of any humane safety nets in what was then an extremely rich country.
Workhouses were a vile manifestation of this thinking in which parents and children were forcibly and permanently separated, amongst other atrocities. There are lots if things that were accepted then that are not now, and lots of terms that have, fortunately, gone out of common usage. Things like "fallen woman" and "bastard" for instance.
I agree that "deserving and undeserving poor" is a deeply offensive term.

Not to my knowledge, until today - believe me, I would have noticed!

And no one else on Gransnet has ever said it? How very odd...

Children!

Why can't I - she said it!

Iain Duncan Smith certainly did put the proposal of capping child benefit at 2 children foward. As for the term 'deserving and undeserving poor' it's been bandied about since Victorian times - I don't think you can seriously blame any one gransnet member for using a description you consider to be distasteful, Greatnan.

It was AlisonMa who first mentioned the 'undeserving poor' and got roundly told my many of us that such Dickensian talk is no longer appropriate.
She also first mooted the idea on this forum that Child Benefit should be paid for only the first two children - Not Ian Duncan Smith!
It does not seem to matter how many times the true statistics on large families and benefit fraud are posted - some members persist in their mistaken belief that there are hordes of children being born, mostly to single mothers, and that a high percentage of benefits claimants are cheats.
We can only hope that the smug and self-righteous find themselves in need of help at some time, and come to regret their pitiless attitude.

It was only a matter of time before the phrase "undeserving poor" reared its terrible ugly head once again in normal conversation. How rapidly the UK is reverting to pre-Dickensian values.

Just read his latest contribution!

Galen I'm so glad I haven't read that thread.