UK Bedroom Tax?

Living in the United States I am not familiar with this legislation(is this the word you use in the UK?) but as of late I have been seeing references to this tax more and more and I just cant seem to understand it. I have read information on it and in fact here is a downloadable list of changes and responsibilities www.spareroom.co.uk... but it still confuses me.

Basically, as I understand it, if you have a rental unit with unused bedrooms you will be taxed for it. I can understand that there are people that could use that space you are currently inhabiting, has this become an issue? or is this just another way of siphoning money from the people? and is this all there is to it?

As I see it, this will effect a lot of people in their ability to maintain a home for themselves financially. I do see it as a way to force people to downgrade to make available those units that can be used for others but I am not sure I agree with forcing the people to pay extra, above what they pay for those rooms, to the Government rather than the owners of the units simply because they are not being used as a bedroom. Please help me to understand the reasoning behind it and how it will ultimately help the people rather than the Government, and is this seen as a good idea by the people of the UK? What are your opinions on the law? And is this going to spread past the boarders of the UK to its territories?(ie is this going to effect Australia and other countries under UK rule)

reply to post by Agarta


From what I understood, I believe it's not a tax per se, but people and families receiving any benefits will risk losing a certain percentage if they live in rented or leased accomodation, in which they have unoccupied spare rooms.

I believe It's to try and get people to think about the space that they truely need and not what they want. It is just another ploy though to rake in some more money really.

reply to post by DAZ21


So it is limited to Government funded housing/assistance recipients?

Originally posted by Agarta
reply to post by DAZ21

 

So it is limited to Government funded housing/assistance recipients?

edit on 7-2-2013 by Agarta because: (no reason given)

Yes I believe It's only social housing at the moment.

I'm not sure by what rights the government can say "oh, you better turn your office/gym into a rental suite."

Why should the government designate the space in your home, for any reason.

reply to post by DAZ21


I am also seeing posts that this could cause riots by April. Personally, I find this as odd if it is really that simple could this be simply fear mongering being promoted or is there something to this?

Edit to add: I am also seeing statements of a Scottish Independence and that Salmond’s government could be more totalitarian than Nulobor. What the heck am I missing?

My work pal has been told she has to move to a smaller house seeing she has 4 bedrooms and only needs 2, I don't see a great problem with this and neither does she.
As long as the new housing is nearby and not in a bad state. She knows it will end up a little cheaper for her and she will have less space to clean up after her kid.

reply to post by smilesmcgee


Because it is the councils home, this is only social housing they are not telling people with their own home or rented privately to do so.
I went to my local housing office to see If I can get on the housing list and I have been told I have to wait over 5 years....just because Iam a single man, If I was a 16 year old up the duff I would get one tmr.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Apparently, they are allowing for subletting to compensate for the tax. I could understand someone you know but a stranger in a home with children doesn't seem safe. Of course I am going on the assumption that most people on council housing have children. Would this over step the contract if it does not allow for subletting?

reply to post by Agarta


I think the reason for the uproar on this is because of many people with disabilities simply need the extra room sometimes for specialized medical equipment and such. They also need the benefit payments because some of them cannot work and they could lose up to 60 pounds (100 dollars) a month. Which in these times especially is quite a kick in the teeth.

These people will be the victims, but I reckon some people hogging the larger accomodation when they simply don't require it, will move to smaller housing. Which will help larger families get the housing that they need.

reply to post by Agarta

The best way of thinking about it is the goverment wants to maximise the
space in the social housing as it won't spend any money building more,

The bedroom tax bomb hits in April, and tenants in social housing with so-called "spare rooms" are living in fear. Despite the fact that a three-bedroom housing association flat can be cheaper than a one-bed in the private sector, the architect of this fresh misery, welfare minister, Lord Freud – who lives with his wife in an eight-bedroom country mansion – decided tenants must move, or have money deducted from their housing benefit. One-bedroom flats are rare in the social sector, and claimants, especially those with children, never top a private landlord's wishlist.

Among the families who will be hit by the bedroom tax – whose official title is the "under-occupancy" penalty – are those whose children are serving in the armed forces who may leave their bedroom empty for more than 13 weeks a year while they are on duty – in Afghanistan, say. Their housing benefit will be docked. Likewise, a father separated from his partner and children who has a spare bedroom where his children stay alternative weekends will lose payment for this "extra" room.

Lord Freud told a woman on a Radio 5 Live phone-in whose son may serve in the armed forces that she should get in a lodger while he was away (even though she replied this is against the rules of her housing association)

Guardian

But yes it will cause a lot of anger.

I'm a council tenant and from April I have to pay 15% extra rent as I have 1 spare bedroom. I have been told that I can rent out that room if I wish, or I can apply for a mutual exchange. Initially I was a but upset about it as I've lived here for 27 yrs and have raised my family here, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

There are as many people living in overcrowded conditions as there are under-occupying, so it makes sense to encourage tenants to down-size if they have an extra room.

I really can't see why anyone would riot over it.

I always remember one old guy who wanted to trade his 4 bed council house for a bungalow due to kids leaving home and his wife died but was so far down the scale of points required since he had a roof over his head that they couldn't do the swap even though they were desperate for large houses due to the rules not giving any flexibility

Hmmm.... slightly bizarre, and slightly good at the same time.

Bizarre as in they clearly haven't thought out the "rules" for this very well. As mentioned, someone's son/daughter away in the army - clearly there's still need for the room - they still live there, although away serving their country.

And with seperated parents too - both parents need room for the kids! Although I see no problem with two kids sharing a room with the none resident parent for shorter periods of time (so if the non resident parent has two kids, a two bedroom flat/house should be sufficient, as a bunk bed can be used, instead of the kids having seperate rooms as it's not on a full time basis).

Good, too... My house is mortgaged, like most houses on my street, but there's a couple that's still council. One of them a single middle aged woman is living in! A three bedroom house!!! Surely that house can be put to much better used for a family with kids. Although I would prefer the house to be sold privately... everyone here's got beautiful gardens, apart from the council houses. Guess they don't give a crap what their garden looks like... I can only assume due to their garden (and house) is being funded by the system, instead of having to work for it.

I am beginning to see why this is so controversial. One one side I see the Government attempting to cut down on building costs by rearranging the people to more appropriate housing for their constant living arrangements. I can see that they are attempting to lower their financial output by paying less housing. A single resident in a multi-bedroom residence would be more expensive for sure. I can also see that a larger family being cramped into a smaller location is unfair when there are residences not being used to their potential.

But

At the same time I can not see forcing someone to pay more for a room that is only used, say, every other weekend, in the case of a divorced Father having his kids. Where is he supposed to room them? or like DAZ21 pointed out above that some people need the room for medical equipment or other logical and understandable reasons. 13 weeks out of a year being empty just seems to me a far cry from simply having an extra storage room and abusing the system.

Is the conflict of this based on its grouping and not specific reasoning?

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by smilesmcgee

 

Because it is the councils home, this is only social housing they are not telling people with their own home or rented privately to do so.
I went to my local housing office to see If I can get on the housing list and I have been told I have to wait over 5 years....just because Iam a single man, If I was a 16 year old up the duff I would get one tmr.

According to Cameron in Prime Ministers Questions yesterday,Labour brought in legislation years ago that does the same in private rents if payed for with housing benefit-the benefit wont pay for extra rooms.
I eventually got a council flat before Christmas after waiting six years,I too am a single man which to them means back of the line.

I totally disagree with this tax! My partner has just given birth to our first son, i allready have a 6 year old daughter. Under this new scheme they are expected to share a bedroom until the age of 10 if i'm not mistaken.

My family are not refugees we deserve proper housing provided by our goverment. Whats the deal with this crap hole of a nation these days???

Illuminati controlled Tory scum are destroying this country! Of that you can be sure!

reply to post by aspiechick


You snob.You want the council to sell your neighbours council house?Need I remind you that this is why there are people waiting years to get a council home and sleeping on friends and familys sofas etc.
Margaret Thatcher would love you.

Edit:Arent you an American immigrant?

reply to post by andy06shake


If you were a refugee you would get a room for each kid and fully furnished right down to cutlery.Oh and you would also get more to live on than a pensioner who has paid tax all their life.
There's something far wrong with that.

The legislation that will cause the most damage, is when they start paying housing benefit, and council tax straight to the tenant, and then it's they're responsibility too make sure these bills get paid.....for most people this won't be a problem, but for
drug addicts or alcoholics, we'll if it's a toss up between paying the rent or get they're next fix or drink, most would go for the latter.