Re-Location (A Bedroom tax issue)

Fiskey

Looking through the bedroom tax thread I felt that this might deserve its own thread. Many people were saying that it was unfair of the council to re-locate the woman to a house 30 minutes away from her family, but personally I don't see this argument at all. I don't see proximity to family as a right that should be enshrined and supported by government, the right which the government is protecting the right to housing. Thus I feel that the government should be able to move people wherever they want in the country, while of course ensuring that there are reasonable prospects for finding a job and living at a decent standard.

I would further apply this argument to people who live in council houses in areas which have significantly raised in value, such as many parts of London. As long as children are not in school I would argue that people in council housing should be able to be moved by the government, if the government so deems it in the greater interest. It sounds harsh, but I feel any other system is creating a situation where insiders get a much sweeter deal than outsiders, for no particular reason. What think you caf?

Thick Numpty

As far as the woman in that thread is concerned, she was already vulnerable so moving her away from her friends and family and causing her to become completely isolated seemed a little harsh.

Fiskey

A bit difficult for government to know who is and isn't feeling vulnerable, and if they took that into account everyone would say they are vulnerable. Not sure a government can really take that into account to be honest.

SteveJ

In the 16th century(!) Henry VIII's chief minister Thomas Cromwell organised the swearing of an oath regarding the recognition of Anne Boleyn as his rightful wife & their future children to be rightful successors. This oath required Cromwell's men to search out potential signatories in 'every town, village...ditch'* etc etc; yet in the 21st century, it's apparently beyond our government to do anything on a case-by-case basis. Still, I suppose they could get UK Gold to look into this problem...



*Yes, I realise that the population was smaller then but the resources available today override the objection.

Thick Numpty

The fact she had mental health issues and was unfit to work because of them might have been a bit of a pointer.

JustAFan

Did they really go out and search for everyone or was it just one of those things in an oath?

Silva

Can this policy work without more smaller housing?

Dr. Dwayne

Today's bureacrats are a lazy bunch, Steve. Breaks, lunch and personal time off would get in the way of such thoroughness.

SteveJ

Yeah, they did. It was a waste of time & effort as, two years later, Anne was dead.

JustAFan

Jimy_Hills_Chin

Don't worry, private landlords have smaller properties with extortionate rents - yay!

MrMojo

It'll be interesting to see how many people actually move.

rcoobc

Who do you feel more sorry for? Families of 5 (with benefits) who have to live in a 2 bedroom house, or a single person (with benefits) who has to live 30 mins away from their families?

Don't Kill Bill

30 minutes on foot, by bus, by car or private jet?

hp88

I would have to go for the family of five, it will be a inconvenience for the person living 30 minutes away but you have got bus, taxi, trains, ect to get around. I can't image what it would it be like for a family that size to live in a two bed.

Penna

Look what happened when people were moved out of their terraced houses and into high-rise flats - the community spirit (real and imagined) just trickled away. Some folk want and expect to see their parents and siblings every day, even when they are no longer living in the same house.

I remember a young mum from Skem being very upset because in her view, she hadn't been given a house near enough to her mother. When I asked her how far away her newly-allocated house was from her mum's house, she said "two doors". With that mindset, a 30-minute journey would seem impossible to cope with.

JustAFan

Two doors? I hope someone slapped her upside the head.

Penna

It's a different way of life, that's all. Gran brings the kids up just as much as the mum herself. Everyone mucks in together. It's what people always used to do.

JustAFan

Because from two doors they can't do that Sorry there is no defending that particular complaint. Legitimate complaints should be taken seriously, when people are just being whiney little bitches they need to be told so.

711

I bought the house next door to my mum's. From me sister. Still live in it!

Fiskey

The issue isn't whether its nice to live next to one's family, most people would say it is. The issue its whether its a right that the government should protect, or a benefit government should give those unfortunate enough not to be able to afford it. I don't think it fulfills either of those criteria.

bsc

I'll post the article in this thread too

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8621666.html

Andrew~

It's quite annoying how everyone keeps calling this a tax when it quite clearly isn't.

bsc

Na, you know what's annoying: when people focus on semantics to direct away from a policy that's devastating the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. 66% of people affected by this shambles are disabled, whatever you want to call it, it's an unequal attack on an easy target unable to defend themselves. We live in the 7th largest economy on the planet, a place where the rich continue to prosper during a time of struggle, millionaires getting tax cuts, and we are publicly vilifying and deliberately punishing people who struggle to look after themselves because they can't relocate to smaller properties because they don't exist. It's Dickensian.

Wibble

It is a (de facto) tax on the poor. Perhaps that is why people refer to it as a tax.

That said the poor pedantic irritated middle classes have enough to deal with without having to deal with such inaccuracies.

Andrew~

It's an important distinction because calling it a 'tax' is just a propaganda tactic because the word tax has such negative connotations to most people. And the majority of people won't even bother looking into the details and somehow believe that the government is increasing taxes on people on benefits - which doesn't make much sense.

The only way you can call it a 'de facto tax' is if you completely redefine what a tax is - this is merely a reduction of benefits.

bsc: if people don't want to get bogged down in pointless semantic debates, then they should stop using misleading language to make non-existent points.

Silva

I would say the majority of bsc's post is full of fairly existent points.

The reason why its called the bedroom tax is because it is easy to say and to remember. It makes the actual debate about the policy much easier for people to digest and understand, all good communicators do this. If you agree with the policy, how about answering the criticisms, rather than having the semantic debate which you seem pretty keen on. What you also need to understand is that this term has already been coined by the media and due to its widespread use is going nowhere, as much as you don't like it, nothing can be done about it.

Andrew~

That's rubbish, the only reason the media chose to call it a tax is because it sounds bad and it's misleading, people on here are smart enough to not jump on the bandwagon.

And while bsc does state some facts, those aren't what I would consider valid criticisms; a reduction of benefits will always affect the people who are dependent on it, there's nothing surprising or unexpected about that.

Wibble

They are taking money away from the poorest sectors of society. Making pedantic arguments about the naming of this penalty suggests you care more about irrelevant technicalities than you do about the people who are being penalised by this ludicrous attempt to compensate for the failure of successive governments to provide affordable public housing.

Andrew~

You and me are coming from very different perspectives on this, because to me, a 14% cut seems like well... not very much - not that I think government should be in the business of providing 'affordable public housing' to begin with.

If I were in your position, I'd be kind of pissed that the press were outrightly lying about a policy I supported rather than trying to pass it off as some kind of minor transgression. But hey, we only care about press standards when it involves a Murdoch company.

Wibble

It is bad.

Wibble

You are unbelieveable. Try living on the breadline and then have something cut by 14% and then tell me that it isn't very much.

I don't give a toss what the press have to say. I do give a toss that the very sectors of society who need our support are being victimised yet again.

Sounds like you would be happier in the US BTW, where the poor are allowed to fend largely for themselves. Affordable public housing, free healthcare and free education are the conerstones of a socially just society and all are under attack in the UK (and many other countries) while we allow the mega-rich and corporation pay next to no tax and even pay the banks for their fuck ups that brought the worlds's economy to the verge of disaster. The values, or lack thereof, that facilitates such a fucked up society which lacks empathy for others makes me despair.

Andrew~

I rather like how the natural assumption when you don't support benefits is that you're some privileged middle class prick: I was born in a country where what you consider the 'the bread line' would be looked at as heaven.

The US isn't all that different to the UK as far as benefits go, we're just more direct and open about it because there isn't as much of a cultural resistance to them, unfortunately. People still get food stamps, unemployment benefits and housing benefits there from the federal government and state goverments; so no, I wouldn't prefer the US.

There's no such thing as free healthcare or free education; it's all paid for, unless of course you know any nice teachers, nurses or doctors who work for free in UK schools and the NHS...

Silva

Is there nothing wrong with that, either?

Andrew~

As I said above, from where I'm standing, government shouldn't have been doing this in the first place so a 14% reduction isn't something that matters much. And while I feel for the people affected, you can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs, as they say.

Silva

Housing is expensive as fuck here, without some help a lot more would be homeless. 14% is an enormous difference, as the article above said, most people haven't been able to pay it.

And don't try and pass random sayings as an argument when you join in whining over a naming strategy.

Andrew~

'Expensive' is an incredibly relative word. What expensive means to someone living in London is very different to what it means to someone in, for example, Hull or Doncaster. That being said, house prices have inflated far beyond their natural market price.

The problem with most of you is that you haven't bothered to consider why this might be (and knowing this would take you 50% of the way to solving the problem) and are rather more interested in doing something equally bad, that is throwing money at a problem, in order to 'fix' it. You a) don't fix the problem and b) create a bunch of new ones. Good job people.

Wibble

The middle class bit is optional

Well done. Have a biscuit.

What are you on about. The US is system is a disgrace and why the land of the free has such poor social mobility.

You probably think Dikensian poor houses are a drain on poor hardworking people.

No shit Sherlock.

All should be free to the user and paid for by taxes to avoid intractable social stratification. At worst a loan scheme that only gets paid back when a decent wage ensues but even that hugely disadvantages the lower socio-economic end of the spectrum.

Wibble

Because public housing was sold off and not replaced.