Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
It isn't a tax at all, which was my point. 'Bedroom tax' is a politically charged term designed to make people believe this subsidy reduction is something it isn't. Nobody is being taxed for having too many bedrooms.
|
Whether someone on a low income receives even less money due to extra taxation, or whether they receive the same amount of money, but have to pay extra rent out of this money (which has not been updated with inflation for years) is largely irrelevant to the tenant in question as the net effect is the same.
Only about 5% of people affected have been able to move to a smaller property because they simply don't exist and, of the other 95%, about 2/3 of them are disabled.
I believe that there are measures that can be taken to make more efficient use of social housing stock and be fair to taxpayers and tenants alike. I agree that if someone refuses a reasonable offer to move to a smaller property that is available, that they should be financially penalised after a time.
When the overlarge rule for private rented accommodation came in, I argued to a committee that it wasn't fair on private tenants to treat tenants of social housing differently. At that time, private tenants were paid the full rent for 13 weeks to give them chance to find somewhere else, renegotiate the rent with the landlord or prepare to adjust their budget for the extra that they would have to pay in three months time.
Another idea would be for the stock of 2/3 bedrooms homes to be reconfigured to provide more, but smaller, housing for the growing number of single people.
It really is a nonsense that someone can be penalised for having two tiny bedrooms, whilst another with one large bedroom with a total floor space greater than the two small rooms put together receives no penalty at all!