The number of bedrooms at home is a family's choice
I AM appalled at the Government's recent introduction of the so called 'bedroom tax'.
Someone who has a three-bedroom council house, but whose family have grown up and moved away, will still pay the rent appropriate to that house.
That is their choice and I can foresee that many will do this and remain in the family home that they have lived in for years.
Now, however, if they are also in receipt of housing benefit, they are going to be penalised by having benefit cut by 14% for occupying a house which has more bedrooms than they would seem to need. It is a device to "persuade" them to leave their home for a smaller one by hitting them in the pocket.
Cheap Motor Insurance Nationwide With Free Legal Expenses Valued...
View detailsCheap Motor Insurance Nationwide With Free Legal Expenses Valued at £25.00! Call 01782 898188
Terms: 1 Voucher Per Customer
Contact: 01782 898188
Valid until: Saturday, July 20 2013
This is not far removed from Soviet Russia soon after the revolution, when people found their homes taken over and forced to accept strangers occupying the rooms they were not currently using. Is that what we are coming to?
By the way, how does the council know that there are unused bedrooms in some of their properties – what about a family whose son or daughter who is away at university and not occupying a bedroom for most of the year?
Derek Clark
UKIP MEP for East Midlands
Billing Road
Northampton
2 Comments
by janine2011
Friday, February 22 2013, 1:05PM
“Wafty this is one of the few times I will disagree with you, many would love to move to a smaller house/flat but there are very few available and nowhere near enough to provide for every council tenant who wants to move. We have to house the world and his dog when they turn up on our shores yet tell our soldiers they are not entitled to housing as they made themselves homeless when they leave the forces, completely missing the point and the obvious when someone from another country leaves their home and expects councils up and down the country to give them one and they are housed. Can you see the problems?”
by Wafty
Friday, February 22 2013, 8:39AM
“So Derek, as a taxpayer, please could you explain to me why I should subsidise someone wanting a house with more bedrooms than they actually need?
Housing Benefit (as with all other benefits) is public money, intended to help those who (whatever their circumstances may be) are incapable of paying their way in the world. It is not intended to provide luxuries or to provide a higher standard of living than that enjoyed by someone who pays for their own accommodation. Someone who is not in receipt of such benefits will wait (and save) until they can afford a larger house - conversely, if they hit hard times or circumstances change, they may have to consider downsizing to something that they can afford. Why should someone whose living expenses are subsidised by the taxpayer be in a more advantageous position?
This change is about trying to break the benefits dependent culture that has been cultivated for many years - if you can get a better deal on benefits, why would you make the effort to support yourself?”