Next Tory leader

[Bletchleyite]

I don't agree with the bedroom tax, because I don't agree that any goverment should be able to interfere in these more family matters.

Even though they are paying?

 

[DarloRich]

Privately owned massive houses they bought themselves? Or massive council houses?

both - if housing is a resource under pressure we need to make we use it all as best as we can.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

both - if housing is a resource under pressure we need to make we use it all as best as we can.

If I have understood what you're talking about, then I would partially disagree with you there. If someone has privately bought their own home and the house is now basically 100% free from anyone's ownership but their own, then the Government has no right to relocate these people and force them to move out, no matter how many bedrooms they have. If I saved up and bought a house that I was living comfortably in, I wouldn't at all be happy with the Government coming along to say "sorry, you're gonna have to move out cause these guys need a new house".

In that particular case, so what? I bought that house and it belongs to me, and while of course I am somewhat sympathetic that someone might need a house, I shouldn't be punished for having too many bedrooms in a house that the Government has nothing to do with. The only thing the government can do is offer to buy the house off me for usage by these people, and even then I don't have to agree to the terms and can refuse to sell the house. I know it sounds selfish, but buying a house isn't easy, and sometimes being selfless can come at a personal cost to yourself.

 

[greyman42]

If I have understood what you're talking about, then I would partially disagree with you there. If someone has privately bought their own home and the house is now basically 100% free from anyone's ownership but their own, then the Government has no right to relocate these people and force them to move out, no matter how many bedrooms they have. If I saved up and bought a house that I was living comfortably in, I wouldn't at all be happy with the Government coming along to say "sorry, you're gonna have to move out cause these guys need a new house".

In that particular case, so what? I bought that house and it belongs to me, and while of course I am somewhat sympathetic that someone might need a house, I shouldn't be punished for having too many bedrooms in a house that the Government has nothing to do with. The only thing the government can do is offer to buy the house off me for usage by these people, and even then I don't have to agree to the terms and can refuse to sell the house. I know it sounds selfish, but buying a house isn't easy, and sometimes being selfless can come at a personal cost to yourself.

It does not sound selfish to me. You bought the house and made the hefty mortgage payments every month, and the sacrifices that came with the payments. What would ever give anyone the right to take that house of you.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

It does not sound selfish to me. You bought the house and made the hefty mortgage payments every month, and the sacrifices that came with the payments. What would ever give anyone the right to take that house of you.

I've heard that getting a mortgage isn't easy these days either, so it gets hard before you even start making payments. But yes, you've added some great points there, in fact dare I say you made the argument sound better than I could've done . Bravo!

 

[bramling]

both - if housing is a resource under pressure we need to make we use it all as best as we can.

Good luck selling that as a political policy ...

 

[DarloRich]

If I have understood what you're talking about, then I would partially disagree with you there. If someone has privately bought their own home and the house is now basically 100% free from anyone's ownership but their own, then the Government has no right to relocate these people and force them to move out, no matter how many bedrooms they have. If I saved up and bought a house that I was living comfortably in, I wouldn't at all be happy with the Government coming along to say "sorry, you're gonna have to move out cause these guys need a new house".

In that particular case, so what? I bought that house and it belongs to me, and while of course I am somewhat sympathetic that someone might need a house, I shouldn't be punished for having too many bedrooms in a house that the Government has nothing to do with. The only thing the government can do is offer to buy the house off me for usage by these people, and even then I don't have to agree to the terms and can refuse to sell the house. I know it sounds selfish, but buying a house isn't easy, and sometimes being selfless can come at a personal cost to yourself.

It does not sound selfish to me. You bought the house and made the hefty mortgage payments every month, and the sacrifices that came with the payments. What would ever give anyone the right to take that house of you.

goodness me. I am not suggesting "anyones house get taken off them" - far form it - just that the same rules apply to all. Those that want to stay in their private mansions make a payment to the state in the same way the way people being instructed to move from their homes for heinous crime of having one bedroom to many do. What is wrong with that?

BTW - the bedroom tax isnt in anyway designed to fix housing issues. The worst thing ( apart from the obvious personal upset & stress) about it is that it hasn't even achieved the aims the government said it would.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

goodness me. I am not suggesting "anyones house get taken off them" - far form it - just that the same rules apply to all. Those that want to stay in their private mansions make a payment to the state in the same way the way people being instructed to move from their homes for heinous crime of having one bedroom to many do. What is wrong with that?

Does this mean that those who have spare bedrooms in private mansions also pay this bedroom tax?

 

[DarloRich]

Does this mean that those who have spare bedrooms in private mansions also pay this bedroom tax?

Yes. The same rules for all.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Yes. The same rules for all.

Once again though, that would be the government getting involved in things it has no business with. How ever many bedrooms are in someone's own private property doesn't (or shouldn't) concern the state. The difference with council houses is that, as the name suggests, they're suppose to houses owned by the local council that is rented out to tenants, so the state has at least some involvement in this case.

 

[bramling]

Yes. The same rules for all.

Okay, let's have the same rules for all then. Everyone buys their house privately. There's a completely level playing field.

I don't see why spare bedrooms should be subsidised by the taxpayer. Spare bedrooms in a private dwelling aren't being subsidised by anyone.

 

[DarloRich]

Once again though, that would be the government getting involved in things it has no business with. How ever many bedrooms are in someone's own private property doesn't (or shouldn't) concern the state. The difference with council houses is that, as the name suggests, they're suppose to houses owned by the local council that is rented out to tenants, so the state has at least some involvement in this case.

most are owned by housing associations these days - some/all of the rent is paid by housing benefit.

How would a little extra on a council tax bill be the "the government getting involved in things it has no business with"?

Okay, let's have the same rules for all then. Everyone buys their house privately. There's a completely level playing field.

I don't see why spare bedrooms should be subsidised by the taxpayer. Spare bedrooms in a private dwelling aren't being subsidised by anyone.

so it is fine to punish those with less money than you? How does that work? I find it interesting the level of hatred towards those with less. Why is that?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

so it is fine to punish those with less money than you? How does that work? I find it interesting the level of hatred towards those with less. Why is that?

If a government applying the same rules to everyone of not subsidising spare bedrooms in both private and council housing is punishment for those with less money, then by that logic isn't applying the same rules of having a bedroom tax for everyone in both private and council housing punishment for those with more money? Do forgive me, I am a little bit confused there.

How would a little extra on a council tax bill be the "the government getting involved in things it has no business with"?

That's not how you worded it previously. Instead the suggestion was to have those in private houses paying tax for having spare bedrooms like in council houses, despite the fact the government has no right or say in how many bedrooms can be in a house that doesn't belong to them.

 

[bramling]

so it is fine to punish those with less money than you? How does that work? I find it interesting the level of hatred towards those with less. Why is that?

Perhaps I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, however I'm seeing hatred towards those with more.

I've worked for my money and assets.

 

[Bromley boy]

I agree entirely - but little is done to prevent that - or provide suitable employment in areas of poor economic performance. Of course to admit that might mean admitting that Saint Margeret of Finchely might have caused some of the problems!

I happily concede successive governments have done little to fix this imbalance but the damage was done on her watch.

I don’t doubt that things are different in the post industrial north, but down south someone with a council tenancy has a bit of a golden ticket and are by no means poor. In fact they will likely enjoy a lifestyle far in excess of those in the private sector.

Also, you can’t blame everything on Maggie . She’s now been out of office for almost thirty years and we’ve had a Labour government in for a longer stint than her government in the intervening years! Plenty of time for them to fix any issues she caused!

I reckon the housing crisis is the fault of several successive governments of both colours.

Everybody subsidies the welfare state. Everybody benefits to some degree.

Yes and that’s quite right. The welfare state should be a safety net looking after the genuinely needy. Those who cannot work due to disability or illness should of course be given housing for as long as necessary.

At the moment if I have a council house, if I win the lottery, start earning a six figure salary (bob crow!), I can keep living in it. I can even leave it to my kids. That is wrong.

Just like any other benefit, it should be allocated according to need, regularly reviewed and then withdrawn when the recipient’s circumstances change.

Don't be silly. I simply say that the rules should apply to all. If you live in a house that is too big for your needs you pay a punitive tax to the state. What is wrong with everyone being subject to the same rules? I would have to pay. I have two bedrooms but only need one. Take that money and build more houses.

You don’t need to play by the same rules when you’re playing a different game.

People on the private sector already pay council tax (generally higher than council tenants due to property value) and let’s not forget stamp duty.

More to the point these people own their own property they have bought and paid for. This property is not in state ownership and as such they are not depriving anyone of it.

I don't live in Darlo anymore but it will always be home in a way MK never will be. It is worth noting that I moved down here with no friends or support network. I don't have much of one now. If I fall on hard times again they will be much harder because of that. That is part of the problem with the bedroom tax. You are taking people, often in difficult personal circumstances, and moving them away from their established support network. That dislocation and isolation doesn't seem to matter.

Good on you for doing that, not easy at all or something I’d like to personally. However it is something a great many people do by necessity (probably in the opposite direction to you, abandoning the south for the north). Every year thousands of people are leaving London for the provinces due to high house prices.

Is it so unreasonable to expect those benefiting from state housing subsidy to do similar?

 

[3141]

I simply say that the rules should apply to all. If you live in a house that is too big for your needs you pay a punitive tax to the state. What is wrong with everyone being subject to the same rules? I would have to pay. I have two bedrooms but only need one. Take that money and build more houses.

My wife and I live in a house with 5 bedrooms. We’re aged 78 and 77. When we came here my daughter was here too. Now she’s married and lives elsewhere with her family.

My wife sleeps very badly. At least twice a week she doesn’t get to sleep till around 4 am. It’s pretty disturbing with her getting up to get a drink, having a light on so she can read, putting it off so she can try to go to sleep, putting it on again because she’s still awake, and so on. So we usually sleep in separate rooms.

We have about 3000 books which occupy one of the bedrooms. Another one is an office, which contains about 500 of the books, the computer I’m typing on now, and various papers including those relating to the organisations we are involved with.

One bedroom is a spare, used by visitors including our grand-daughters when they stay here.

Most of our working lives were spent in London or the South East, where properties cost more. We chose to spend a bigger proportion of our income on our homes than some people did, so that we could have a larger one. We didn’t spend so much on cars or holidays. One of our cars had always been bought second-hand, and between 1980, when our daughter was born, and 1998 when she went to university, only three of our holidays were abroad. Most of the rest were in bed and breakfast or self-catering accommodation.

Of course it costs us more to live here. Council tax is higher, though we’re not making much use of local services such as education, and we don’t so far need social services support. Energy, insurance and maintenance are all higher than if we lived in a smaller house.

We made choices that brought us to where we are today. If we’d spent more of our money on other things we might now only be able to afford a house with two or three bedrooms. Or we might have chosen to spend the same amount on a flat in London with just one or two bedrooms. Then no-one could say we should be subject to a “punitive” tax. We know people who’ve sold their house and bought a smaller retirement flat so that they have money they can use on holidays and cruises. It’s their choice. This is ours.

“Punitive” means related to punishment, and you punish people because they’ve done something wrong. Have we done something wrong by choosing to live as we did over the past 45 years? We may move to a smaller home in the future. If we choose one with a living room that’s 16 feet long, when we could manage in one that’s only 10 feet square, should we be punished?

What about cars? We still have two, because we do several different things. One is a nine-year-old Xsara Picasso and the other an eleven-year-old Ford Fusion. It’s useful to have a car that the grand-daughters can fit into, especially since we pick them up from school on three afternoons a week and look after them till their Mum gets home from work. If we buy a new car, should it be a Smart car, because that’s all the two of us need, or should we be punished if we choose something bigger?

We can afford the choices we’ve made. Other people cannot afford them. Who thinks we should pay a punitive tax because of that?

 

[DarloRich]

If a government applying the same rules to everyone of not subsidising spare bedrooms in both private and council housing is punishment for those with less money, then by that logic isn't applying the same rules of having a bedroom tax for everyone in both private and council housing punishment for those with more money? Do forgive me, I am a little bit confused there.

That's not how you worded it previously. Instead the suggestion was to have those in private houses paying tax for having spare bedrooms like in council houses, despite the fact the government has no right or say in how many bedrooms can be in a house that doesn't belong to them.

the bedroom tax only applies to those in council accommodation. They have their benefit reduced by a certain amount per week to tax them for having more rooms than they need. I suggest everyone who has too many rooms be subject to the same rules. Move, or pay a tax on your spare room. What is wrong with that or difficult to understand

Perhaps I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, however I'm seeing hatred towards those with more.

I've worked for my money and assets.

i am not in any way suggesting your assets or very nice money be taken from you. Just that you be subject to the same rules. If you have more rooms than you need ( using the rules the government apply to council house tenants) you either pay a tax like them or move, like them. I don't see why you would be happy to apply a rule to others that you wouldn't apply to yourself.

I reckon the housing crisis is the fault of several successive governments of both colours.

I agree entirely. The problem has just been shunted onto the next government in line. If only the right to buy money could have been used to build more houses for more right to buy and so on in a cycle.

At the moment if I have a council house, if I win the lottery, start earning a six figure salary (bob crow!), I can keep living in it. I can even leave it to my kids. That is wrong.

Depending on the terms of your private tenancy you can do that - should that be removed? BTW - I would happily charge those who can afford it a market rent for their property. No issue with that at all.

Yes and that’s quite right. The welfare state should be a safety net looking after the genuinely needy. Those who cannot work due to disability or illness should of course be given housing for as long as necessary.
Just like any other benefit, it should be allocated according to need, regularly reviewed and then withdrawn when the recipient’s circumstances change.

I agree. That happens everyday.

You don’t need to play by the same rules when you’re playing a different game.

People on the private sector already pay council tax (generally higher than council tenants due to property value) and let’s not forget stamp duty.

More to the point these people own their own property they have bought and paid for. This property is not in state ownership and as such they are not depriving anyone of it.

People paying housing benefit also pay council tax. Perhaps in the affluent south it is different but at home the housing values are fairly similar meaning there is little difference in payments. There is of course support available to those on benefits. How much depends on income and on each councils rules. As a single benefit claimant I got my 25% single person discount ( which I get now as a higher rate tax player) and a slight reduction thereafter. I still had to pay and it was still a large sum and it was in arrears most of the time. As for Stamp Duty it is 0% under £125k and then 0% for first time buyers up to £300k which seems like a decent bonus. At home £125k gets you a decent house

BTW Most people don't own their own houses. They rent them off the bank ( & increasingly the government under things like help to buy). That's if they are lucky enough to be able to acquire a deposit and persuade the banks to lend them money.

Is it so unreasonable to expect those benefiting from state housing subsidy to do similar?

Not at all - as long as there is somewhere for them to go. The issue is that there doesn't seem to be enough houses for them.

 

[DarloRich]

My wife and I live in a house with 5 bedrooms. We’re aged 78 and 77. When we came here my daughter was here too. Now she’s married and lives elsewhere with her family.

My wife sleeps very badly. At least twice a week she doesn’t get to sleep till around 4 am. It’s pretty disturbing with her getting up to get a drink, having a light on so she can read, putting it off so she can try to go to sleep, putting it on again because she’s still awake, and so on. So we usually sleep in separate rooms.

We have about 3000 books which occupy one of the bedrooms. Another one is an office, which contains about 500 of the books, the computer I’m typing on now, and various papers including those relating to the organisations we are involved with.

One bedroom is a spare, used by visitors including our grand-daughters when they stay here.

Most of our working lives were spent in London or the South East, where properties cost more. We chose to spend a bigger proportion of our income on our homes than some people did, so that we could have a larger one. We didn’t spend so much on cars or holidays. One of our cars had always been bought second-hand, and between 1980, when our daughter was born, and 1998 when she went to university, only three of our holidays were abroad. Most of the rest were in bed and breakfast or self-catering accommodation.

Of course it costs us more to live here. Council tax is higher, though we’re not making much use of local services such as education, and we don’t so far need social services support. Energy, insurance and maintenance are all higher than if we lived in a smaller house.

We made choices that brought us to where we are today. If we’d spent more of our money on other things we might now only be able to afford a house with two or three bedrooms. Or we might have chosen to spend the same amount on a flat in London with just one or two bedrooms. Then no-one could say we should be subject to a “punitive” tax. We know people who’ve sold their house and bought a smaller retirement flat so that they have money they can use on holidays and cruises. It’s their choice. This is ours.

“Punitive” means related to punishment, and you punish people because they’ve done something wrong. Have we done something wrong by choosing to live as we did over the past 45 years? We may move to a smaller home in the future. If we choose one with a living room that’s 16 feet long, when we could manage in one that’s only 10 feet square, should we be punished?

What about cars? We still have two, because we do several different things. One is a nine-year-old Xsara Picasso and the other an eleven-year-old Ford Fusion. It’s useful to have a car that the grand-daughters can fit into, especially since we pick them up from school on three afternoons a week and look after them till their Mum gets home from work. If we buy a new car, should it be a Smart car, because that’s all the two of us need, or should we be punished if we choose something bigger?

We can afford the choices we’ve made. Other people cannot afford them. Who thinks we should pay a punitive tax because of that?

If you lived in a council house funded by HB guess how much all of that is worth in the calculation? That's right nothing. Move or face a reduction in benefit. Punitive is, perhaps, the wrong word here. While the bedroom tax is punitive to those on benefits it wouldn't be punitive to many of us in work or those of us with assets. I simply suggest the same should rules apply to all. I ask again why are you happy to impose rules on others you wont accept yourself?

BTW - Do you accept that those subject to the bed room tax feel the idea and application is punitive.

 

[DenmarkRail]

both - if housing is a resource under pressure we need to make we use it all as best as we can.

Why should the government get involved in privately owned homes?! It is regulation which tries to destroy the economy. If you buy a house, and you want an extra bedroom, as a study, or to run your business, then why should you be taxed on it, as well as the massive corporation taxes? Government should not get involved in what you own. If I want a bigger house, I should not be bound to red tape and tax.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

the bedroom tax only applies to those in council accommodation. They have their benefit reduced by a certain amount per week to tax them for having more rooms than they need. I suggest everyone who has too many rooms be subject to the same rules. Move, or pay a tax on your spare room. What is wrong with that or difficult to understand

So those who aren't in council accommodations should be taxed for having spare bedrooms? Well to answer what's wrong with that, it's none of the government's darn business how much rooms someone has in THEIR personal property. Council accommodations are owned by the councils, therefore anything that happens with them is their business and they have to manage whatever issues come forward. Bedroom tax was the answer that Cameron's government came up with, even if you agree with it or not. For someone who has bought their own houses and paid the mortgage rates out of their own salary, the government has nothing to do with them because the house doesn't belong to them. So if the house doesn't belong to the government, why should you pay them extra just because you have more bedrooms than you need?

You're complaining that the current rules are punishing people with less money who can't afford a house because they don't apply to everyone, but you don't seem to have much of an issue extending these rules to everyone so they can also punish those who have more money and can afford a house. As soon as you start taxing someone for what they have in their private property, you're infringing on their private property rights, and if you ask me, you couldn't blame someone for thinking it was a stepping stone towards a totalitarian communist state where private property is eventually done away with.

 

[DarloRich]

Why should the government get involved in privately owned homes?! It is regulation which tries to destroy the economy. If you buy a house, and you want an extra bedroom, as a study, or to run your business, then why should you be taxed on it, as well as the massive corporation taxes? Government should not get involved in what you own. If I want a bigger house, I should not be bound to red tape and tax.

of course it is. They already take SDLT, they already tax council tax.

BTW - have you experience of the "massive" corporation tax of which you speak? They are at 20% now but will fall to 17%. They are already equivalent to our major European competitors and will soon be lower.

In the USA it is 21% plus a local tax rate of between ( i think) 0 & 12% depending on the state.
Japan is 32%, Russia is 20%, China 25% India 25% etc etc.

It is 0% in the IOM and the UAE

So those who aren't in council accommodations should be taxed for having spare bedrooms? Well to answer what's wrong with that, it's none of the government's darn business how much rooms someone has in THEIR personal property. Council accommodations are owned by the councils, therefore anything that happens with them is their business and they have to manage whatever issues come forward. Bedroom tax was the answer that Cameron's government came up with, even if you agree with it or not. For someone who has bought their own houses and paid the mortgage rates out of their own salary, the government has nothing to do with them because the house doesn't belong to them. So if the house doesn't belong to the government, why should you pay them extra just because you have more bedrooms than you need?

You're complaining that the current rules are punishing people with less money who can't afford a house because they don't apply to everyone, but you don't seem to have much of an issue extending these rules to everyone so they can also punish those who have more money and can afford a house. As soon as you start taxing someone for what they have in their private property, you're infringing on their private property rights, and if you ask me, you couldn't blame someone for thinking it was a stepping stone towards a totalitarian communist state where private property is eventually done away with.

You clearly have no understanding of the bedroom tax. May I suggest you look into it. May I also suggest the you look into taxation rules. The government already tax people for what they have in their private property. You pay capital gains tax on assets, inheritance tax on death etc. I simply suggest that the same rules apply to all and those with a spare room they don't need ( like me) pay a bit more council tax. We could use that money to help build more houses.

As I said, punitive is perhaps the wrong word for those of us not on benefits. For those of us on benefits the bedroom tax is punitive

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

You clearly have no understanding of the bedroom tax. May I suggest you look into it. May I also suggest the you look into taxation rules. The government already tax people for what they have in their private property. You pay capital gains tax on assets, inheritance tax on death etc. I simply suggest that the same rules apply to all and those with a spare room they don't need ( like me) pay a bit more council tax. We could use that money to help build more houses.

As I said, punitive is perhaps the wrong word for those of us not on benefits. For those of us on benefits the bedroom tax is punitive

I know what the bedroom tax is. It was a cut in benefits for those living in social housing if they had a spare bedroom. It's not even a tax that anyone is paying. So strictly speaking, it couldn't even extend to those who own their own home because they don't live in social housing. Anybody who owns a house nowadays clearly isn't on a low enough income to have social housing provided to them, and if you own your home out right, you will not get housing benefits, so how can you even extend these rules to everyone else? It would be more of a bedroom tax to have people pay extra council tax based solely on the fact that they have spare bedrooms.

 

[DenmarkRail]

of course it is. They already take SDLT, they already tax council tax.

BTW - have you experience of the "massive" corporation tax of which you speak? They are at 20% now but will fall to 17%. They are already equivalent to our major European competitors and will soon be lower.

In the USA it is 21% plus a local tax rate of between ( i think) 0 & 12% depending on the state.
Japan is 32%, Russia is 20%, China 25% India 25% etc etc.

It is 0% in the IOM and the UAE



You clearly have no understanding of the bedroom tax. May I suggest you look into it. May I also suggest the you look into taxation rules. The government already tax people for what they have in their private property. You pay capital gains tax on assets, inheritance tax on death etc. I simply suggest that the same rules apply to all and those with a spare room they don't need ( like me) pay a bit more council tax. We could use that money to help build more houses.

As I said, punitive is perhaps the wrong word for those of us not on benefits. For those of us on benefits the bedroom tax is punitive

The argument you present seems like another way of saying "I hate people who have big houses"... If you work for something, and your spend your hard earned money on something, you should not be subject to a tax on buying something expensive... It is just like saying, I want you to pay an extra $15 on your phone contract, because you got a 64gb model, but your only using 32gb. Ridiculous, and scarily left wing.

 

[bramling]

i am not in any way suggesting your assets or very nice money be taken from you. Just that you be subject to the same rules. If you have more rooms than you need ( using the rules the government apply to council house tenants) you either pay a tax like them or move, like them. I don't see why you would be happy to apply a rule to others that you wouldn't apply to yourself.

Okay, perhaps the taxpayer would be kind enough to take on some of the liabilities associated with my house. I’ve just forked out a 5-figure sum for a new roof, would be nice to get that back. Same rules and all.

 

[DarloRich]

The argument you present seems like another way of saying "I hate people who have big houses"... If you work for something, and your spend your hard earned money on something, you should not be subject to a tax on buying something expensive... It is just like saying, I want you to pay an extra $15 on your phone contract, because you got a 64gb model, but your only using 32gb. Ridiculous, and scarily left wing.

so you were wrong then.

I don't hate people with big houses at all. Some of my best friends have big houses How is applying the same rules to everyone "scarily left wing". Is the income tax system "scarily left wing"? What about VAT? What about Council tax? Are these things "scarily left wing"?

I know what the bedroom tax is. It was a cut in benefits for those living in social housing if they had a spare bedroom. It's not even a tax that anyone is paying. So strictly speaking, it couldn't even extend to those who own their own home because they don't live in social housing. Anybody who owns a house nowadays clearly isn't on a low enough income to have social housing provided to them, and if you own your home out right, you will not get housing benefits, so how can you even extend these rules to everyone else? It would be more of a bedroom tax to have people pay extra council tax based solely on the fact that they have spare bedrooms.

It certainly feels like a tax to those loosing money! Again I find it odd people will happily expose others to rules they wont accept for themselves. I wonder why that is?

Okay, perhaps the taxpayer would be kind enough to take on some of the liabilities associated with my house. I’ve just forked out a 5-figure sum for a new roof, would be nice to get that back. Same rules and all.

No problem - should private tenants face the cost of repairs to the structure of their homes?

 

[DenmarkRail]

so you were wrong then.

I don't hate people with big houses at all. Some of my best friends have big houses How is applying the same rules to everyone "scarily left wing". Is the income tax system "scarily left wing"? What about VAT? What about Council tax? Are these things "scarily left wing"?

The point is, that you are suggesting that the same rules should be applied to private owners, which would mean people who have worked for a bigger house, and use other rooms for things other than bedrooms, would be left out of pocket. For example, one of our none bedroom bedrooms is a Model Railway room, with a study. Under your proposal, I would be taxed due to that room. I would still be taxed, even though it is privately, my home. These rules were meant to free up council / housing association properties (which is still wrong) which are a complexly different to privately owned properties. The government should be allowed to interfere with their own homes, but not privately owned ones.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

It certainly feels like a tax to those loosing money! Again I find it odd people will happily expose others to rules they wont accept for themselves. I wonder why that is?

Why should someone accept the rules of a game they're not playing? If someone isn't on social housing and instead owns their own property and have nothing to do with the government or social housing schemes, then why should the rules that only apply to social housing also apply to them? It's like someone having to follow the rules of Trivial Pursuit when they're actually playing Monopoly.

You're acting like I'm not grasping this concept that you're advocating, but the only thing I don't understand is how you can try and apply a rule that applies to social housing to people who aren't part of the scheme at all. So what if someone has a spare bedroom in their private house? It doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to the government, and whether you like it or not, the government has no right to take more money off people just because of how many bedrooms they have in their own home.

If everyone who is under this scheme is so miserable, then why do you want to extend the rules to those who can afford their own home? Why is the government deciding on what happens with their houses and punishing the poorer people a bad thing, but the government now setting extra taxes based solely on someone having a spare bedroom in their own home and punishing the richer people a good thing? Why is it unfair for someone who lives in a council-owned house to have certain rules set by the owners to follow, but it's completely fair for those who have nothing to do with the council to still pay extra money to them and follow their housing rules solely because of a spare bedroom in their own home, of which it should now be theirs to decide what happens? Is equal misery really more desirable than unequal blessings?

 

[3141]

If you lived in a council house funded by HB guess how much all of that is worth in the calculation? That's right nothing. Move or face a reduction in benefit.

I know that. I was explaining some of the reasons why we choose to live here. In different circumstances some of the choices we’ve been able to make wouldn’t be open to us. That’s how life is.

Punitive is, perhaps, the wrong word here.

You’re right, it is. And see below.

While the bedroom tax is punitive to those on benefits it wouldn't be punitive to many of us in work or those of us with assets. I simply suggest the same should rules apply to all. I ask again why are you happy to impose rules on others you wont accept yourself?

You hadn’t previously asked me, but another poster. Bletchleyite provided a good answer towards the end of post #131. I am able to afford to live where I do, I’m not being subsidised (but I guess that may start another hare running!), and I pay more in taxes as a result.

BTW - Do you accept that those subject to the bed room tax feel the idea and application is punitive.

“Punitive” is the wrong word here too. If they think it’s the right word that’s because people like you tell them to. No, I wouldn’t like it if it was me. But the fact is that when housing is provided by state subsidy and there isn’t enough of it then some rules are desirable to try to allocate it according to needs, which include the size of a family. We certainly do need more housing, both social and privately owned, but there will NEVER be enough to provide what everyone would like.

When Bromley Boy in post #144 said you were heading towards confiscation of property you denied it, as people do in such circumstances, but that IS where “applying the same rules to all” would lead to.

You mentioned in #145 that you'd moved down here with no friends or support network. Is that relevant to the discussion? People do it. Maybe pure choice, maybe a degree of compulsion to go where they can find a suitable job. I won't detail the five times I've done it.

 

[Busaholic]

Being probably of around the same vintage as you, my recollection is that he renounced his peerage in order to become Prime Minister. Additionally, I recall that he actually renounced thirteen peerages. Even after that he still had a baronetcy, and was therefore Sir Alec Douglas-Home.

The point I was making is that he wasn't an MP at the time, whereas some are implying that someone not an existing MP can't become PM.

 

[tony_mac]

You're acting like I'm not grasping this concept that you're advocating, but the only thing I don't understand is how you can try and apply a rule that applies to social housing to people who aren't part of the scheme at all.

Why can't you do that? Just because a rule is already applied in one area doesn't mean the same type of rule can't be applied somewhere else.

It doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to the government

It may matter to society at large if there is a housing shortage. You may be aware, for example, that both second homes and empty homes can incur significant extra taxes.
If they can already have a higher tax rate for unoccupied homes, why can't they have a higher tax rate for under-occupied homes?

the government has no right to take more money off people just because of how many bedrooms they have in their own home.

The government has the right to do pretty much what it wants, as long as the majority of people support it (and often when they don't, but that's a different debate).
(Not saying I agree with it, but I think it's a plausible proposition.)