On 17 Mar 2013 at 7:44pm Hard worker wrote:
When is this tax coming in? Hopefully soon
On 17 Mar 2013 at 8:42pm owise1 wrote:
As far as I Know 1st April 2013 that's what I have heard locally!!
On 17 Mar 2013 at 9:09pm Homeowner wrote:
Great news !!! About time ,
On 18 Mar 2013 at 10:39am Nevil Rook wrote:
Is it a tax on people with too large a house for their needs or an attack on the poor ?
On 18 Mar 2013 at 11:47am Cheeky Monkey wrote:
Homeowner, don't pat yourself on the back too hard because what is happening in Cyprus now is coming our way soon my friend. All your hard work will be for nothing as the bankers and politicians move to subjugate us all. You think Ian Duncan-Smith knows or feels anything for these people that are going to be persecuted because they have one bedroom not being used? He lives on a 1300 acre country estate in Buckinghamshire. Why don't you ask him how many bedrooms he needs? Would he like to give up some of that land for a social housing scheme? We are all in this together is the biggest lie out there right now, No we are not, we are being squeezed until there is nothing left.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 11:49am Dripping Pan Stan wrote:
It's common sense and long overdue. Those in state housing bigger than they need should either downsize or pay for the privilege (it's by no means a right) of having a spare room.
If they don't like it I suggest they get off their lazy arses, improve their lot in life and buy their own house.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 12:33pm Nevil Rook wrote:
Those in private housing bigger than they need should either downsize or pay for the privilege (it's by no means a right) of having a spare room. Increase council tax for the higher bands !
On 18 Mar 2013 at 12:51pm Penguin wrote:
@Nevill Rook - I own a private house that is now too big for me. Thing is, when you own a house you have already paid for the privilege, and you already pay higher council tax. I can't therefore see your point.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 12:58pm Nevil rook wrote:
"I own a private house that is now too big for me " Move ! We have a housing shortage in this country.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 1:48pm Chuck wrote:
I have a house that is too big for me. Does anyone want it? £700,000 or thereabouts. Thought not.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 2:25pm Nevil Rook wrote:
If no one wants it it is because you are asking too much .
On 18 Mar 2013 at 2:53pm brixtonbelle wrote:
What I don't understand about all this is that surely rents for social housing are based on the size of the house/ flat - so someone in a one bedroom flat would pay less than someone in a three-bedroom house. So the authorities already in theory should get more money for the larger properties and people pay more for them.
This policy just penalises so many people, many of whom are low earners, not benefit 'scroungers'. I read about a man who had been pensioned off from work through ill health, could not get another job, who had a two bedroom council house on an estate where he had lived for over 30 years, his family lived close by, he knew his neighbours and was very settled, did some voluntary work in the community, yet was unable to afford the extra 14 for his 'spare' bedroom. There were no smaller properties available on the estate or the local area. As a result he has swapped to a one-bedroom flat over a hundred miles away where he knows no one, the flat is MORE expensive than his two-bedroom house and he is suffering depression and contemplating suicide. He now needs extra support from the state, and the housing benefit he claims is more.
The problem with this policy is that it is shortsighted and mean spirited. There Just aren't the necessary amount of smaller properties available to rehouse people in their local communities, close to family and friends. Even though the government have u-turned on the bedrooms for armed forces and foster carers, they still haven't taken account of those with disabilities.
So I wonder - how many families will be affected by this in Lewes and what are the council doing to accommodate those who are forced to move to smaller properties ?Are there any available ??? Any housing officer/ councillor like to come up with any figures ?
On 18 Mar 2013 at 3:30pm Nevil Rook wrote:
"Reward those who work hard and pay huge amounts of tax " what about people who work hard and dont pay huge amounts of tax ? No one is "forcing" anyone to pay more tax , down size pay less council tax. Simples .
On 18 Mar 2013 at 3:45pm Dripping Pan Stan wrote:
Maybe they should have worked harder so that they can afford to house themselves and their family rather than relying on hand-outs. People who own their own homes shouldn't be penalised for it.
The state housing sector is there to help people that can't afford to buy/rent, it's not there to provide luxuries like a spare room.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 3:45pm Fairmeadow wrote:
Doesn't seem totally unreasonable that someone who no longer needs all the rooms of social housing they have been provided with should be asked to move somewhere smaller, PROVIDED that there s something suitable available in their community.
Especially when lots of other families are living in over-cramped accommodation, or can't get the social housing they need at all.
This system already applies to private tenants on Housing Benefit, who can only get the benefit for the number of bedrooms they are assessed to need, using the same rules. They can have a bigger place if they want, but they have to pay the extra
However, it doesn't fit well with the council tax benefit system - where you get a 25% discount on the tax if you live alone (which is of greatest benefit to people under-occupying the largest properties). Maybe that should go to?
Could be some good spin-offs from the change. You can avoid the penalty, and up your income, by taking in a lodger to live in the spare bedroom. You can avoid it by exchanging houses with another family who need more space.
Could be some less good spin offs. It might encourage more people to buy their council house, thus depleting the stock even further. It could well encourage some people to lie about who lives in their house. And of course if a couple split up, but remain in the same house, as a million are now forced to do, they become entitled to a bedroom each, instead of one between them. Take in your next-door neighbour's husband as a lodger, and get them to take in yours? Lots of room for gaming, I would have thought. Could be some interesting new council roles to police the new system.
It might also encourage some couples to have more children to keep the bedrooms full. I'm not sure whether that would be a good or a less good outcome.
One to follow. What will the Daily Mail find to get indignant about first?
On 18 Mar 2013 at 3:59pm Nevil Rook wrote:
Why not nationalise all the housing stock and allocate on a needs basis, hey presto housing crisis over ! (.:
On 18 Mar 2013 at 4:03pm Not religious wrote:
Dripping Pan Stan - equating "hard work" with "earning more" is wrong. Plenty of people in Lewes and elsewhere work very hard and earn very little. Plenty of couples work combined totals of 100+ hours a week and only earn national average wage. On that salary, on a 3.5x multiplier, you won't even be able to afford a one bed flat in Lewes. But I do agree that people shouldn't expect to be in a house bigger than their needs without paying for it.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 4:35pm Nevil Rook wrote:
"But I do agree that people shouldn't expect to be in a house bigger than their needs without paying for it." i dont care if they can pay for it or not we have a crisis one person in a 4/5 bedroom is not acceptable .
On 18 Mar 2013 at 4:53pm Dripping Pan Stan wrote:
If anyone wants to improve their own situation it's entirely in their own hands. The ones that don't and carry on working long hours for low pay have no-one to blame but themselves.
I know my thoughts aren't going to be very popular considering the current culture of blaming anyone and everyone before yourself but the fact remains that you get out of life what you put into it.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 5:00pm Nevil Rook wrote:
Yes i hate those stupid nurses too !
On 18 Mar 2013 at 5:37pm Southover Queen wrote:
Honestly, Stan, think about that. Do you really believe that a banker or securities trader earns what he does because he is putting more into society than a nurse or a teacher? That he's more useful or necessary by a factor of tens of thousands? Really???
Once there are lots of smaller houses and flats for all these people to move into then great; off we go. Until then how about making policy which actually won't cost more to solve than it costs unsolved? And how about reconsidering this bitter, jealous rhetoric about "scroungers" and "layabouts" and instead deal with those whose hand of cards wasn't as good as yours with a little compassion.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 7:33pm Sussex Jim wrote:
Nevill Rook, the word "nationalise" sums up the pathetic experiment with socialism in the previous century.
Nobody has any right to a job, housing, food or anything else. You have to get off your arse and earn it. Thank the traditional establishment , paid for by those who work, for the safety net provided for the less fortunate.
In simple terms, don't knock our present government or local council, who are doing their best to maintain the status quo.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 7:49pm Compass wrote:
Sussex Jim, so if your not in a position to get up of you arse and earn a wage your not entitled to food and housing Lefties a job.What if you have learning disabilities, autism, mental health problems etc? Do we just forget a large swathe of society? I'm alright Jim!
On 18 Mar 2013 at 8:00pm Sussex Jim wrote:
Compass, I think I made the point that we DO have a provision for those who cannot support themselves. Paid, of course, by those who work; most of whom do not begrudge supporting the genuinely less fortunate.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 8:36pm Compass wrote:
I believe that in Britain everyone should have at the very least a right to food and housing. I think the problem is that everyone has a different view on who genuinely has need, and that view is probably dictated by your own personal politics .
On 18 Mar 2013 at 8:49pm Private house owner wrote:
I pay a mortgage and work hard !! Pay tax etc , why should I pay for someone who gets council house and has more rooms than they need? And some prob on benefits too, I pay enough council tax ,
On 18 Mar 2013 at 8:52pm Southover Queen wrote:
Sussex Jim wrote: "I think I made the point that we DO have a provision for those who cannot support themselves. Paid, of course, by those who work; most of whom do not begrudge supporting the genuinely less fortunate."
Jim, immediately before this post you said that "no-one has a right.. .. to housing, food or anything else". So I can only assume that the provision you speak about is discretionary and depends on whether someone is "genuinely less fortunate". That's the workhouse, in other words, where a nice rich lady and her friends decide who should and shouldn't survive on the charity of the parish.
We live in one of the richest countries IN THE WORLD. We can afford to make society a little bit more equal and to provide safety nets for the poor. Many of the people I worked with in my early career were from families who had nothing but whose opportunities for education and a productive place in society came immediately after the war, at a time when anything was possible. It isn't any more, and I think that's a crying shame. We're denying many people access to proper education and by extension making a great contribution to our society. Punishing them isn't the way forward, in my humble opinion.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 9:53pm Compass wrote:
I would be really interested if someone could actually explain what is the definition of a spare room? Who carries out the assessment? And what criteria is it assessed against?
On 18 Mar 2013 at 11:10pm the old mayor wrote:
SQ There is poor and bone idle. In this country they all have huge plasma TV,s Mobile Phones, Computers, all the electric gadgets you can shake a stick at, probably smoke, drink and have more kids than they ever could support, even if they were working. Try popping to Africa or India if you want to see real poverty !! Then seen how our poor are really doing !!
On 18 Mar 2013 at 11:48pm wrote:
Are all thes
On 18 Mar 2013 at 11:50pm Compass wrote:
I suppose all these gadgets are in the spare room!
On 19 Mar 2013 at 12:55am expat two wrote:
"In this country they all have huge plasma TV,s Mobile Phones, Computers, all the electric gadgets you can shake a stick at, probably smoke, drink and have more kids than they ever could support, even if they were working."
No, beyond your exaggerations and assumptions, that's the Daily Mail's view of welfare claimants. You cannot live like that on welfare alone, its impossible. You'd have to be a fraud or a criminal which is a different matter. People should lay off benefits claimants if they're obeying the law, much the same way we're constantly told to lay off the super rich who fiddle their taxes without breaking the law - isn't that reasonable?
On 19 Mar 2013 at 7:03am grafter wrote:
Complex issues but there does seem to be change coming. Sadly most people are economically illiterate and few parents have the self control to instill habits that lead to success. Me and my friends worked part-time jobs from the age of 13 so when we left school had enough stashed away to experiment a bit without having to ask permission from our parents or leech off them. Maybe my big mistake was coming back to Britain afterwards? Never has it been easier to travel and find a cheaper area to live,everyone I know did exactly that when they started work.
On 19 Mar 2013 at 8:20am Nevil rook wrote:
Nevill Rook, the word "nationalise" sums up the pathetic experiment with socialism in the previous century.
If you dont at first suceed.........
On 19 Mar 2013 at 9:11am grafter wrote:
You can buy a house for a pound in Liverpool Nevil,you might fit in well there?
On 19 Mar 2013 at 11:22am Nevil Rook wrote:
Its not the amount that is important here its the principal. All housing should be allocated on a needs basis. End of housing crisis,waiting lists and the need to build on our beautiful countryside including the Downs.