Category: the Rant Board
I would like to add a disclaimer that I don't live in the UK, so therefore don't get the gist of the issue, but it really pisses me off. I was listening to In Touch last night, and heard an episode where a man had to go to court for a bedroom tax. Appearently, the government there can't tell a bedroom from an office. Gee, that proves real inteligence there. A bedqoom is a room with a bed, chest of drawers, and a closet. It just doesn't get any simpler. An office is laiden down with equipment. As for the court case, why the fuck would you try do dock his disability benefits because you can't tell the difference between a bedroom and an office? That's fucking stupid.
I'm not in the UK so I don't know.
But is it possible they refer to a bedroom the same way that real estate does? I mean, when I rent houses I am not renting one with a bedroom and an office, but a two-bedroom. What I use that second bedroom for has nothing to do with it being called a bedroom in the records. Sure, at our house we call it the office, it's got my desk, shelves, computers, cables, router, cable modem, etc. but it also has a closet.
Again, I'm in the U.S. so maybe things are done differently over there, but the real estate word is bedroom. Though why one would be taxed for it I don't know.
Leo that is correct. It is bedroom in the real estate terms. As for the tax itself...it is an illegal and immoral greedy piece of legislation. Its only function is to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. And it has crippled a number of families. There will be a breathing tax soon.
Yep it's certainly controversial. It applies to people living in social housing or housing provided by the municipality, and who receive assistance by way of a benefit in order to pay the rent known as housing benefit.
If the Government deems them to have more bedrooms than they actually need, such as a couple and one child living in a 3-bedroom house, then they will be docked benefit for having the spare room. They would be docked more benefit the more spare rooms they are deemed to have. The rationale is that there is a shortage of housing particularly for families in the social housing sector, and the Government says they want people to live in what they believe to be housing appropriate for their circumstances.
The furore has arisen in those situations where tenants believe they need an extra room because of a disability, E.G. if the nature of the disability means that a person can't share a room with their partner, or if they have a lot of equipment that they store in what otherwise could have been a bedroom. Leo is right, it's not what the person uses the room for that counts, it's what the records/the Government believe that the room should be used for.
The tax obviously doesn't apply to privately owned houses or houses in the private rental sector where the tenant isn't in receipt of housing benefit.
Is there a challenge process by which a tenant can demonstrate the need for the extra bedroom?
Some safeguards have been built in and guidance provided to municipalities, but the consensus is that they don't go far enough. This has left people having to go to court, which obviously holds things up and risks them getting in arrears on their rent until the case is decided.
Ah, then the system does seem flawed. Though I will say I can see why the government would not want to support someone who has more than they need if there is a housing shortage. There should be a recourse for those who are not living with more than they need though.
I suspect that some of the unhappiness because it has come in at a time when other disability-related benefits are being changed, including a significant amount of retesting of existing claimants, meaning that the cumulative impact on some people has apparently been quite significant..
And it's not a tax, if the receipients are government beneficiaries. Taxes are paid by the working people.
Then again, I am an American and so even though we have social systems for the needy our ways aren't the same as Europe.
And the Government here doesn't call it a tax, the people that object to it do.
I think that a bedqoom should be classified as such if it has a bed and clothes in it. Realtors should call them rooms to begin with, then we can break it down into what is used as a bedroom and what isn't when a person starts living in the house.
The problem with that is that the Government has a finite amount of housing stock in which to house the people needing social housing. It currently doesn't fit the profile of the demand, particularly for larger families. YOu therefore can't have a situation where a single person moves into a 4 bedroom house, but claims one as a study, one as a computer room and the downstairs one as a rec room.
Having given it a bit of thought, I can't really come up with any reason that you would absolutely need an entire spare room. Sure, it would be convenient, but when does convenience become a necessity. Thoughts?
why not acomadate peoples applying for homes with equal housing. one bedroom apt for one person. or couples. tw bedrrom homeswith peopls with a child or two?
Cody's right, when it comes to what charity is paying for. It comes back to the old adage of beggars can't be choosers.
What Gizmobear suggests is pretty much what the government is trying to do. They felt that one couple=1 bedroom, etc. There are also guidelines on when kids are expected to share. The issue arises when people claim that because of their disability, they need an extra room either because disabilities prevent them sharing with their partner or they need an extra room for equipment. I guess the courts will judge the extent to which the claims are valid. I believe the rules already cater for the situation in which a person needs a carer to stay in the house - in those instances, the benefit is not docked as the carer obviously needs the extra room.
Not sure what the point of having a spare room would be either. It's not like we live in a time where we allow people to rent out a room for a time like in the movie Forrest Gump. To be honest I never heard of that happening aside from in the movie, but I won't go as far as to say it hasn't happened.
There is this lady here that said she needed to stay in a two bedroom apartment even though she lived on her own. She said she would get depressed even though she didn't have quite enough money to do it. So she pitched a fit and made her church not only help her pay what she couldn't but also had them find the place for her too. Oh that was something aweful to watch.
oh yeah, the extra room she turned in to a second living room that has a hide away bed coutch in it so she could let people sleep there. She wanted to make blind people who was just getting on there feet pay her rent to stay there for a couple of weeks until they could get a place to live or some odd thing like that. She hasn't had anyone do it yet. She is blind too...
Actually, I have several uses for spare rooms. My partner and I rent out a three-bedroom. It's just him, our son and I, but we use the spare room for his studio. He works from home as a composer of music for commercials and such, and he also teaches guitar. So without a spare room, that setup wouldn't be realistic, and he wouldn't have much of a chance at making an income in his field of work. You can't teach music lessons in the living room or the kitchen, for instance, because aside from it being unprofessional in the eyes of the people who pay you to teach them, it can potentially disturb the regular ongoings of household activities, because the living room or the kitchen are common rooms.
You can't use a common room for studio work because aside from having the need for a specific setup of the audio equipment, you also dont' have the right ambience for recording. You cannot really record in open areas--not a good quality recording anyway.
Then, for another use of our spare room: I use it as an office for my freelance business when my partner isn't working. We often take turns using the spare room--for work purposes. And so a spare room is a very real necessity for someone who might be running a business out of his or her home. That's my point.
I wonder how many on the charity over there are running a business, or if because they're running a business they can get an exemption?
The whole running a business thing in social housing/housing provided by the municipality is a tricky one. Most of the leases prohibit the accommodation being used wholly or partly for commercial purposes. Now your guess is as good as mine as to how high compliance is, but the government was interested in relaxing this requirement when unemployment was at its height a few years ago. They wanted to remove perceived obstacles for starting a business because such people obviously wouldn't be claiming unemployment benefit and wouldn't be on the unemployment figures.
The types of people claiming to be affected by the cut to housing benefit don't tend to be claiming to need a spare room for some of the reasons cited here. It tends to be people with particular physical disabilities or who have a lot of equipment that they claim they wouldn't need were they not disabled.
Wow. The blind chick forces the church to get a house and help pay? Then she charges other potential blind people rent? What a dyke!