Bedroom Tax

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Nonu You think so?

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?

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

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

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!

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.

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

Don't forget the 67 000 pensioners in a mixed-age couple (where one is below retirement age). Despite IDS's claims that they are exempt if already receiving Pension Credit, there are many circumstances that can and will end that protection. Then to that 67 000, we need to add all those other mixed-age couples who find themselves in need of benefits from April onwards. I don't think there's any doubt at all that there will be pensioners who are affected by this right from the start.

I'm sure you were talking generally about pensioners not being affected, and I'm not trying to panic anyone, because it's true that for the time being the vast majority won't be. However, I just wanted to make it clear to anyone reading this that there are some pensioners who will be hit by it.

When I think its the same. I only looked at the first one and that was 10 pages long! I couldn't b a....d to waste any more time on it.

Yes absent it amused me greatly too! The thought of someone bothering to trawl through all those was very absurd.

Not the same if you've got 10 pages Moved. We're obviously looking at different layouts - this one takes a minute to navigate.

Absent

MamaCaz you seem to have a good grasp of the current issues for certain groups. There are so many contradictions in the policies of this coalition government. They don't appear to talk to each other!

One page with 76 discussions. Some of the discussions/threads obviously run to many pages each...

That's the one I found Ana. I wonder where Moved has been looking?

I presume the same one - I think she was just saying that the first of the discussions was 10 pages long.

Oh Ana, Moved and Absent -lay off - don't you realise how your comments are coming across? And for the record I think a fair few people on GN have made very negative comments about the ' undeserving ' poor

bluebell I think the term 'undeserving poor' has been taken as it was meant in the Victorian times which I didn't know until today. I simply use it at its face value. I have made negative comments about people who could get work and look after themselves but choose not too and I make no apology for that. I would be surprised if anyone on here disagreed with that. If I am wrong I would like to hear from those who approve of people taking advantage of the rest of us. We all know such people exist unless someone wants to prove otherwise. I hope that makes it clear.

when I wrote: "the whole ten pages of the first one". I didn't look any futher!

moved I understand and agree with your points. Obviously 'deserving poor' has now to be added to non PC words list. This is just petty point scoring on behalf of some members. We all know what is meant by the term and to hark back to the Victorian poorhouse beggars belief. (excuse the pun)

I, and anyone I know has compassion and sympathy for anyone who finds themselves on hard times and in no way would condem or label them. I would imagine most people, certainly those I know, would think 'there but for the grace of God'

The 'undeserving' ? Well yes, actually. Are we denying that people have claimed benefits they weren't entitled to? Is it non PC to suggest that there are people who have no intention of working or contributing to society? Head and sand spring to mind.

Just off now, sneering, to kick the dog and slap the staff.

The whole thing is turning into a total farce.

One minute, ministers claim this will help reduce wefare spending, but it has been shown that this will only happen if people stay put and pay the "tax". If people move, it will actually increase spending!
The next minute, they claim it is aimed at making better use of housing stock. How can it, given that there is nowhere (other than the more costly private rented sector) for most people to go? And if they seriously wanted to make better use of housing stock, they could not exempt pensioners, since about half of the so-called 'spare' bedrooms are in their homes.

On top of that, the 'exemptions' supposedly given to certain groups by ministers are not what they claim. For example:

Not all pensioners are exempt.
Not all severely disabled people are exempt.
Not all people who need a room for a non-residential carer are exempt.
Not all foster parents are totally exempt.

Either the Government is deliberately misleading the public with its claims, or it is worryingly ignorant of its own policy. Which of those two possibilities is the worst, I wouldn't like to say!
In the meantime, what a shame that so many people are going to have their lives turned upside down as a result of this cruel, half-baked policy.

Oh, and they decide to re-name the policy the 'spare bedroom subsidy'. Yet another example of their incompetence, since in the same breath they talked of groups being 'exempt' from the subsidy - I'll leave you to work out what's wrong with that one for yourselves!