Bedroom tax breaches human rights.

Please don't build more houses in areas where there is such limited employment. It just doesn't work!

Phoenix, the biggest employer is the building industry.
The reason we moved about the country so much was because every time there was a recession it hit the building industry first. Ken was an architect, so was first to be threatened with redundancy, whether working in the public sector or the private. Many of the people out of work now are in the building industry.

Jendurham I think there's a lot of merit in what you say but it is an incredibly complex problem with no easy answer. I don't know if you saw the series of programmes recently on C4 'How to get a Council House' (or something like that) It illustrated the terrible pressure on Councils who are overwhelmed with requests for housing. Most of the people featured had genuine needs.

You mentioned people being moved out of London, well yes, rents are astronomical in Central London and many of the hundreds of thousands who commute daily would love to live there but can't afford it. Capping what is payable for rent in such areas seems fair to me. Not at all pleasant for the people involved but then again, spending four hours a day commuting to your job from a place where you can afford to rent or buy a house isn't either.

The population of the country has increased and continues to do so and many people who land on our shores require housing. There's an insatiable demand.

I can understand, in the past, rather than seeing subsidised housing as a temporary helping hand, people viewed it as their right for life regardless of their circumstances. That needs to change and I would start with Bob Crow!

Regardless of the above there just aren't the one/two bedroom properties for people to downsize to and therefore many will end up with an iniquitous increase in their rent. I don't believe this is fair. To my mind, if someone agrees they do in fact have a spare bedroom or two and will downsize but there is no suitable property available then they shouldn't face any increase in rent or reduction in benefit.

Sel White collar workers generally work between 35-37 hours per week and start work at 9 a.m., or in the case of London, at 9.30 or even 10 a.m. Some have flexible working arrangements or can, on occasion, work from home. They may find commuting tiring and expensive but at least they have the choice to live in a less expensive area where they can afford to buy a home.

Many of the people that the bedroom tax affects are on very low wages and work unsocial hours - perhaps starting, or finishing, work in the early hours of the morning. It would be both too expensive and anyway impossible for them to commute a significant distance to work.

Given that the majority of people's pay has fallen significantly over the last few decades, and continues to fall, many people are having more and more difficulty in renting, let alone buying, somewhere to live. The "housebuying initiative" introduced by Osborne is exacerbating the problem by pushing up house prices even further.

If this low wage economy is set to continue (and the figures demonstrate that most of the jobs that have been created in the last few years are very low paid ones), then it is essential that a sizeable public housing programme is commenced as a matter of urgency. Trying to grab back money by way of this "bedroom tax" will not solve the problem but will merely drive people further into debt, depression and possibly family breakdown, thus leading to all sorts of costly social problems.

Yes, I did see the programme.
In the 70s we lived in Peterborough. When we moved there my husband was designing whole estates of housing for London overspill residents, but they moved there because they wanted to, to have a better family standard of living. When the Development Corporation was closing down, my husband got a job in Warrington, but that office was closed down and he was told to work in the London office. I said I was not going to teach in London, so we ended up moving to Hampshire, as the London office of Taylor Woodrow was on the line to Winchester. Then he got a job in Winchester anyway.
So moving for work and commuting long distances is nothing new. What is new is that this government is forcing it on people who have no choice.
They are moving disabled people who live on benefits and have no money to move. This is ideology, not pragmatism. They say it's to do with fairness but it isn't. It's a vendetta against people who did not vote for them. It's also the timescale involved. There have always been lists of people in council housing or housing association housing who want to downsize or upsize. House swapping is a good system. Even McCarthy and Stone have a system to do that.
Cameron always says he cares about disabled people. Yet two thirds of the households who are hit by this tax have a disabled person in them.
They are even being asked to move out of homes which have been adapted for them to live in. They are being asked to move away from their support systems.This cannot be said to be fair by anyone's standards.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/09/13/venn-diagrams-for-our-times-the-bedroom-tax/

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/09/12/plan-for-well-paid-green-jobs-in-every-uk-constituency/
This should answer your complex problem, Sel. Last one for now. Going to bed.

Affordable housing is built to provide homes that can be afforded by those on average pay which atm is around £27K per annum. As there are a lot of people who have below that amount to live on there has to be subsidies to allow them to live in decent homes. I don't mean huge homes but reasonable, sound properties with enough space to live in a way that citizens of a first world country should be able to expect. That includes a spare room if has a purpose e.g. disabled spouse bedroom or shared children's room. Also no one should be penalised if there are no acceptable properties to downsize to e.g. you can't expect someone to leave a house and move to a bedsit or move into known 'difficult' (lots of crime, poor quality housing etc) area.

Affordable housing only really works for those on average wages if it is part-ownership with a housing association owning a significant percentage. i think this is an excellent model for people who aspire to home ownership eventually.

Jendurham I may not agree with all you say but I admire your passion. I will certainly read your links. I've got a busy weekend so will do so later.

I get so depressed with all this. Peoples homes are their homes, and it s not their fault they cant afford to buy, or find a smaller home. The original social housing idea was brilliant, and people had real pride in their homes and communities.

Unfortunately greed got in the way and all the decent social housing stock was sold at a cut price rate ( why??) with no caveat that it had to be kept for local people, the poorer housing stock remained in public ownership, causing ghettos of bad stock, where the most needy ( who are the only ones now eligible ) are condemned to live.

better new housing has come on line. but it is so hard to get - my daughter has no chance, as both she and her partner work and sorted themselves out in expensive private rented

If I ruled the world, I would bring back all the sold stock into public ownership, and make sure that young families were able to be housed adequately without being at the mercy of greedy landlords

JessM, an interesting thing about shared ownership; when we lived in York, we were down the road from a village called New Earswick. It was built by Rowntrees at the turn of the last century for the workers in their factory, people who were moved out of slums.
The houses are really good, well-built, lots of room, nice gardens, like a garden village. No pub because the Rowntrees are Quakers, but pubs ten minutes walk away.

Anyway, the people who rented were allowed to buy, the same as council tenants, and lots of them signed shared ownership agreements.
Then they discovered the problem when they wanted to sell. They had signed agreements where the Rowntree Foundation took 50% of the equity if they owned 50%, or whatever percentage they had.
This meant that they could not afford to buy somewhere smaller to live in the same area, because they could not get a mortgage as they were too old and the 50% they got for the house did not cover the cost of a smaller house or even a flat anywhere near York. Catch 22.

I still wish people would get their heads round the fact that renting is renting and therefore you may well have your rent increased or the owners (us the tax paying public) may want the three bed roomed house for a family.

Stansgran - have you followed this subject closely? Is it worth repeating for the umpteenth time that the people affected cannot downsize because there are no smaller properties available, so they are being deprived of benefit to punish them for something about which they can do nothing.
It has nothing to do with the level of rent or means testing of council rents.

I sometimes wonder why the rhetoric separates 'taxpayers' from those who rent. For the most part they are one and the same.

I am a tax[ayer, I rent privately and I have had my housing benefit cut even though there is nowhere to move to.

This is not a rent increase, it's a benefit cut.

You have all my sympathy, VQ - if only people would read and understand!

This government does it all the time MiceElf. The hardworking taxpayer set against the benefit scrounger.
Stansgran, do you realise that a couple renting and on benefits are only allotted a one-bedroom property? Lots of grans like Vampirequeen are being asked to move.
Yes, renting is renting. So what?
My sister and her husband live in a two-up two-down terrace house in East Hull. She has bought it, but down her street of the hundreds of houses only 45 are in owner occupation. The rest are rented, by people on minimum wage or on JSA, from buy to let landlords.
Fortunately my sister bought her house and no longer has a mortgage.
If she was renting, she would be on housing benefit as she is disabled and her husband earns minimum wage. The rent for houses in her street is £80-100 per week.
There is nowhere for single people or couples whose children have left home to move to. These houses are the equivalent of slum clearance, many of them bought up by buy to let landlords for about £30,000 hoping that the council would upgrade them as it promised to do ten years ago. They are the sort of houses where couples brought uo 3, 4, or 5 children, then hoped to enjoy their lives when they retired. People in their 50s and 60s are now being asked to move or have £13 taken from their housing benefit.
I am angry that people like you cannot see this.
This government is turning poor people's lives upside down.

I suppose the thinking is that the most disadvantaged people are unlikely to vote for the Conservatives anyway, and they curry favour with the middle classes by pandering to the myth that everybody on benefits is a scrounger.
Ably abetted by certain newspapers, of course.
Could I ask anybody who supports this measure to explain exactly what a couple who are unable to move should do? They are probably already just surviving.

I'm from East Hull originally....Southcoates Lane. It was a two up two down with the toilet down the garden. When we moved out they knocked it and the rest of the terrace and built new houses. Where is your sister?

Another thing is that, being who we are, it's easy to concentrate on people our age and just think about them.
I have two sons.
A couple with two children can only claim full housing benefit to pay for a two bedroomed house or flat if they have two sons under 16.
A son and a daughter you can have a three bedroomed once one of them is 11.Couples on housing benefit have been asked to pay an extra £13 if they live in a three bedroomed house and they have a son or daughter aged 10 and another younger child of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine having to move to a two bedroomed house with 13 and 15 year old sons or daughters? You can move back, of course, once your eldest reaches 17, providing he or she is still at home. Once one of your children leaves home, you are only entitled to the two-bedrooms again.
Of course as you're on benefits, you cannot afford the removals, either.
Another rule that has changed is how the benefit is paid.
It used to be paid directly to the landlord. Now it is paid to the householder, who has to pay to the landlord. If you had to choose between paying your rent or feeding your children, which would you choose?

Vampirequeen, my sister lives in Holland Street.
The council were going to do that to Holland Street, but changed their minds. So whereas my sister was offered £60,000 for her house over 3 years ago, now they are selling for less than £30,000.
They did not move then because she had to have a hip operation and did not fancy the upheaval.
My brother-in-law is the gardener at Saint Catherine's down Southcoates Lane.

I am fortunate enough not to be affected by this and don't really have too much information about it. I had understood that pensioners were not being asked to move - is this correct?

I do think that people should be prepared to downsize leaving property available for growing families, but of course, as I said before, there needs to be a supply of suitable 1or 2 bedroomed properties for people to downsize to. I have a friend who is currently in a 3 bedroomed property who would love to move to a 1 bedroomed place but there is just nothing available.

If the authorities want people to downsize, they have to not only provide suitable accommodation but also take into account that with so many families now living long distances from each other, spare rooms are going to be needed for family who visit.

The last time we discussed this subject, the fatuous suggestion
was made that the relatives of people on benefits should stay in hotels when visiting.
At the moment, pensioners are exempt, but I have no confidence that the net won't be widened. The whole concept needs scrapping until such time as there are sufficient smaller properties available.

Sunseeker, lots of people downsize, but on their own terms.
We did. We lived in a five-bedroomed house in York, and moved into a two-bedroomed bungalow to be near to our children and grandchildren.
My parents moved from a seven bedroomed house which they owned into a one bedroomed flat which they rented. Over the next ten years the rents went up astronomically because the then government made the housing association put them up.
My mother got so fed up with someone from the housing benefit people coming round to inspect their finances to offer them pennies that she told them to stuff it. She had some pride. That was down Spring Bank, Vampirequeen, where I was brought up.
Greatnan, I do not think there are many hotels in East Hull, as Vampirequeen will tell you.