"Bedroom tax". Lib Dem hypocrisy?

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/northdurham/durham/11470737.Landlord_helps_tenants_claim_extra_benefits/?ref=eb

Shame all landlords aren't like this.

A link about the abuse that those on benefits get.

What on earth has that got to do with what we pay for in benefits to those requiring help with their housing durhamjen If you are suggesting I would approve of abuse of anyone for any reason - why would you do that? I am not wallowing in loud and emotional sympathy but that does not mean I am not sympathetic to the individual.

However, sympathy, so I was told a long time ago, means finding someone in a hole they can't get out of and getting in an joining them, bewailing their lot and waiting for someone else to help you both out. Empathy is finding a way to help them out and that is exactly what I would like to see.

I have explained that I do not think this should, currently, apply to anyone where there is nowhere to move to and that I think we should have a national discussion about what we should be providing under the benefits system. Should it be the bare minimum or should it be more than that and if so what? There will be as many who think it should be the bare minimum as think it should be the status quo. This does not mean that is my opinion only that I believe we have to recognise that we live in a democratic country and all views need to be taken into account when finding a way forward.

£375 billion was pumped into the economy because of the financial meltdown caused by the unethical and illegal practices of the banking sector. Not a week goes by without another "scandal" in the finance sector - the latest being banks and lenders being ordered to re-open more than 2.5 million complaints about mis-sold payment protection insurance.

At the same time, huge corporations are being handed taxpayers' money to carry out public services. Even when companies such as Serco are found to have overcharged to the tune of millions they are reassured that ministers are "very, very keen to help us through this" (Serco CEO Rupert Soames). The Big Six Energy firms are predicted to double their profits next year, rail fares are going up 6% and rents are soaring.

On 25 August The Guardian reported: "Cuts for poorest areas 16 times amount for richest". According to an analysis of welfare changes, carried out by Landman Economics, three-quarters of all welfare will be on working households. Research by the Child Poverty Action Group and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that even families with two working parents do not have enough money to live on. A recent study has found that large numbers of cleaners in the commercial cleaning industry are experiencing underpayment or non-payment of wages and employers are frequently ignoring the obligation to pay sick and holiday pay.

So I think the poor are most definitely being penalised.

"I do not believe poor people are necessarily being penalised" is what you said Gracesgran. Not much empathy there.

www.whobenefits.org.uk/page/content/front

A link about the abuse that those on benefits get.

Sorry, I meant Gracesgran, not Gransnet, but the rest of you can read it, too, if you want.

This is the company Joe Halewood works for, Gransnet. He most certainly does not write for tabloids, but he does write for people in the sort of way most people claiming benefits can understand, and has done so for over 20 years.
www.hsmonline.co.uk/about-us/

durhamjen You seem to think I am not empathising with those who are affected which just tells me that you have not actually read what I have written.

I read the article you directed me to and it reads like something out of our worst tabloid papers. That sort of rhetoric will not solve the problem. Looking at the facts, taking them apart and deciding what the real problem is, may.

vampirequeen - I'm angry for you, and with you. This tax is wrong, wrong and needs to be binned.

speye.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/bedroom-tax-as-a-political-tool-mps-care-not-a-jot-about-the-tenant/

A bit of light reading for you, gracesgran.
Not just this but every other blog on the page.
I am sure you will not read it, because it's about real people who have problems with the bedroom tax.

I feel penalised. I worked and paid taxes from the age of 15. It's not my fault that I became too ill to work. I am classed as disabled but don't qualify for extra help. I don't expect to live in a mansion but I don't see why I have to leave my little house and move to God knows where.

A friend has just moved to a two bedroomed house. She would have been happy to move to one bedroomed property but there were none in her price range. The two bedroomed house was actually cheaper but because she's only allowed to have one bedroom she will still lose 14% of her housing benefit.

The one bedroomed property would have cost the benefit system more than the two bedroomed property she's moved to. Where's the logic in that?

I do not believe poor people are necessarily being penalised durhamjen and there is a fund which should be used by local authorities for those who are disabled. The problem has been where there is nowhere for them to move to. You would not expect a couple and two children to receive the same housing benefit as a couple or a single person. In order for people not to be "penalised" as you describe it, people would need to go on getting the largest amount they have ever received.

Andrew George has, as far as I understand, voted against this bill from the beginning. A coalition does not mean you have formed one party it means you have agreed areas on which each party will support the other. This appeared to be following a previous Labour change affecting people in private lettings but has proved to be unworkable. To quote John Maynard Keynes "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions". That seems reasonable; not hypocrisy but common sense.

They are part of the coalition still, I believe.
Andrew George was just the first to rebel.
Apparently 70 Tory MPs stayed away from Westminster, ignoring a three line whip. That's what I call a rebellion.

I asked my MP, Labour, if she was going to turn up for the vote. She said there should be enough for her not to, as she had a lot of constituency business to attend to. Then I had another email from her to say she would be going to vote, and had rearranged her constituency business. I have now written to thank her.

Whatever you call it, poor people are being penalised by the government. So are the disabled.

durhamjen, I am not sure how the Lib Dems could be said to "rebel" when this was a bill put forward by a Lib Dem MP. It was the Labour MPs joining in voting for this which meant it was passed.

mollie65 is quite right in saying this in not a tax. It is not a tax! It is an adjustment in benefit being applied by using a change in the method of assessment.

vampirequeen, as a private tenant, if you are receiving Housing Benefit you would already have been subject to similar rules brought in by the Labour Party prior to the coalition being in power. When this government attempted to bring Housing Benefit for those in social housing in line with Housing Benefit for those in private rentals there was one big difference; the Labour change only applied to people when they moved house so, if they stayed where they are it would not apply.

This is not about where you live but about how much Housing Benefit you should receive. The change that the Lib Dems have suggested seems to make great sense to me. If there is no where smaller you can move to you should not loose the help you are getting currently.

Calling it a tax obscures what the aim really is. If you believe that taxes should be used to give people enough plus one bedroom than that is what you should be fighting for. Some people, getting no help from the state but cramped into housing that would not comply with the benefit rules would not agree, and I can understand why they would not. Some would like benefits to pay for more than the necessities of life and I can also understand why they would hold that view.

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/05/bedroom-tax-bill-splits-coalition-second-reading

I watched the debate today. It was passed because the libdems rebelled. Too late, but at least some of them are trying to show they have a conscience - or want to keep their seats next May.

I know, Granjura, but it seemd that Mollie65 was re-starting the whole " 'spare' bedrooms that they do not need" line again, and I thought I would wise her up to the fact that it had been thoroughly discussed before.

suebailey1 Thu 17-Jul-14 12:20:49 tells how the Housing Association she worked for abandoned writing in a clause that tenants should move on once their families had grown up and gone, because they had nothing for them to move on to and "The whole idea of moving along the line doesn't work."

Elegran, you are describing the 2 extremes- there were plenty in the middle too. Those who showed concerned for families in bedsits, and at the same time agreed that the new Tax was poorly thought out, and needed to be applied much more sensitively. Honestly.

There was a long thread on this a while ago. A lot of steam came out of the ears of those posting.

There were those who were aghast at having a sudden increase in what they were to pay when they had no chance of moving to somewhere cheaper with one bedroom less. They had no wish to take in a stranger to fill their "spare" bedroom either, which was frequently filled by visiting family - not an empty room at all.

Then there were those who thought that those receiving housing benefit (paid for by the taxpayer - them) should be grateful for the crumbs that came their way, and should not complain when the crumb supply became thinner when a way was spied to cut down on costs by penalising them for that "spare" room.

btw my rent is £425 a month which is exactly the amount of the local housing allowance for a two bedroomed house in this area. So I'm not living somewhere extravagant or using benefits to live in an affluent area.

I'm not in social housing. I'm a private tenant. I have a very modest two up two down with a back yard. Our children come to stay every weekend and during the school holidays.

I worked from the age of 15 and paid tax/national insurance until I became too ill to work in my 50s. My home is my safe place. If I have to move it will cause my condition to deteriorate.

Mollie65, please explain to me why I should lose my home? Why our children shouldn't have a room when they're here? Please note we have two children who share a room. Why I should lose my safe place and suffer even more than I already do? Please be specific to my case...no generalisations about old people living in family homes etc.

Well I think 'tax' is a really good word to describe a sum of money that someone has no choice about whether to pay or not because as is very well documented in many areas there are no smaller properties to move into

it is not a 'bedroom tax' it is a reduction in housing benefit for those who are in social housing because they have 'spare' bedrooms that they do not need. there I have said it yet again.

Just had an email from my MP to say she will not be signing the EDM from Andrew George because of the hypocrisy of him and his mates going along with the tories in the first place.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2735958/UN-sparks-fury-launching-human-rights-investigation-Britain-s-treatment-disabled.html

I agree durhamjen. I have a friend who I know is a very conscientious and hard worker. Unfortunately her workload was substantially increased, with no extra guidance or support provided. Every time she approached her manager to ask for guidance as to how various duties should be prioritised, the manager offered no solutions and was bad tempered and dismissive, even saying at one stage "Well, that's the job and if you don't like it........" (she didn't finish the sentence but it's pretty obvious what she meant).

In the end, my friend was so stressed that she just gave in her notice. She had joined the organisation as a temp (so they must have been satisfied with her performance to take her on) and had been there for 4 years, with no complaints made against her. Although she had a case for constructive dismissal, she really couldn't afford to risk the, I think, £2,000 or so to lodge a claim and take it to the employment tribunal. Additionally, there is a small risk that the employer can claim costs if the employee is unsuccessful.

I think it's disgraceful. The tribunal already had the power to throw out "vexatious" claims so it seems to me that the main purpose of introducing these charges was to prevent those on low or more moderate earnings from pursuing their cases.