Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The "Bedroom Tax" doesn't go far enough! Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Now, I'm not talking about the exceptions such as disabled people needing a hospital bed and so on, they clearly need the extra space and shouldn't be hit by it. However, I've heard a lot about there being loads of people on the waiting list for 1 bedroom homes as a reason why people shouldn't be forced to 'downsize', that there aren't enough properties.

    In fact, the people who complain about that are looking at it all wrong - those people wanting just one bedroom aren't competition, they're a supply. One family needs 2 bedrooms, but has 3, and another family just needs 1? Stick them together! That's an extra family in housing, and less needs to be spent on accommodation and living costs. Most of us did it at university, and we turned out okay (if in crazy debt).

    Look at it another way, if a 20 bedroom mansion came on the market for social housing, would you stick one family in there (say they're a large one with disabled people, and need 10 bedrooms), or would you stick that family and 10 more single bedroom families or 5 more two bedroom families or whatever other arrangement?

    Edit: I've called it the "Bedroom Tax" because that's the policy's most commonly used moniker, not because I agree or disagree about it being an actual tax on bedrooms, which is for another thread.

    Edit 2: Just in case some people missed it, the end result of this would be more families in housing, fewer on waiting lists, and fewer needing to move to 'downsize'. The downside is having to share, but I wouldn't have thought that would be so unpalatable on a student forum that you'd rather families stayed homeless.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Now, I'm not talking about the exceptions such as disabled people needing a hospital bed and so on, they clearly need the extra space and shouldn't be hit by it. However, I've heard a lot about there being loads of people on the waiting list for 1 bedroom homes as a reason why people shouldn't be forced to 'downsize', that there aren't enough properties.
    I can understand what you're saying, but there are people who have been wrongly hit, and "living-room" style areas have been classed under the tax. Which isn't fair. But I can see what you're saying about people sharing massive houses.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    What if you stick two people together and one kills the other, whose liable? The state. The lawyers lick their lips.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand the people that call getting less stolen money a 'tax'.

    A tax is where you earn some money through work, the sale of something or investment and the government (read: a band of looters) forcibly takes part of that money from you and claims to have your consent, or to be acting for your own good, or to be acting for the good of the collective; in the public interest.

    This benefit reform means that you get slightly less stolen money.

    That's it.

    The idea that this is a 'tax' is baffling; it's like thinking that you're being taxed if you're given £100 for your birthday one year and £75 the next year. Nobody in their right mind would call that a tax; because you've done nothing whatsoever to be entitled to that money. It's simply that you're being given less money, for which you should still be grateful, for you are not entitled to anything at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The idea that the state is responsible for providing housing seems completely false to me. The state can only provide things by forcibly taking away resources from those that already have them; they rob Peter to pay for Paul, and therefore can always count on the support of Paul. Redistributive fiscal policy is always morally unjustifiable, in my view, because of the fundamental violation of the non-coercive axiom.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I don't understand the people that call getting less stolen money a 'tax'.

    A tax is where you earn some money through work, the sale of something or investment and the government (read: a band of looters) forcibly takes part of that money from you and claims to have your consent, or to be acting for your own good, or to be acting for the good of the collective; in the public interest.

    This benefit reform means that you get slightly less stolen money.

    That's it.

    The idea that this is a 'tax' is baffling; it's like thinking that you're being taxed if you're given £100 for your birthday one year and £75 the next year. Nobody in their right mind would call that a tax; because you've done nothing whatsoever to be entitled to that money. It's simply that you've being given less money, for which you should still be grateful, for you are not entitled to anything at all.
    oh shut up. taxes are not theft they are for the benefit of everyone.

    anyway

    this bedroom tax would work if there were smaller houses for people to go to, as there arent forcing 2 families to share living and cooking toilet etc facilities is not the right way to go about it, what if one family has lived in a house with a spare room for 5 years, has it decorated how they like it with all their own stuff in it, how would you like to have a couple or family with a baby forced into your home?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    oh shut up. taxes are not theft they are for the benefit of everyone.

    anyway

    this bedroom tax would work if there were smaller houses for people to go to, as there arent forcing 2 families to share living and cooking toilet etc facilities is not the right way to go about it, what if one family has lived in a house with a spare room for 5 years, has it decorated how they like it with all their own stuff in it, how would you like to have a couple or family with a baby forced into your home?
    No doubt the mugger that steals from me at knifepoint to buy food for his family thinks his actions moral too.

    But that does not make them so.

    If it could be proven that it would benefit 51% of society by killing the other 49%, do you think that is a moral course of conduct?

    I hold that it is not; people are ends in themselves with natural rights to freedom from coercion. The fact that others may benefit from keeping slaves does not justify slavery. The fact that others may benefit from murder does not justify murder. The fact that others may benefit from theft does not justify theft.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Surely people might want to have a house to themselves for safety? And if someone has worked hard all their life, paying tonnes of tax anyway and helping the government by perhaps creating jobs and revenue, why can't they spend their hard earned cash on a larger house? People aren't taxed on taking holidays or buying expensive gifts? So why should they be taxed for spending their money in a different way? The well-off are giving so much of their money to taxes anyway, whereas there are people abusing benefits and doing nothing but they still get benefits? Surely councils can find voluntary jobs to suit them, so at least they're doing something in return for the community?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattFletcher)
    I can understand what you're saying, but there are people who have been wrongly hit, and "living-room" style areas have been classed under the tax. Which isn't fair. But I can see what you're saying about people sharing massive houses.
    What sort of people have been wrongly hit? I remember Channel 4 news doing a piece on this, and the first (and only) example they used was a woman who needed a (massive) hospital bed - obviously something that needs to be looked at but hardly a criticism of the scheme's essence.

    Why shouldn't a living room count as an extra bedroom? If we (the taxpayer) pay for a bed to go in there and it isn't a connecting room (i.e. the only route from another bedroom to a shared room), then it makes sense to stick an extra set of people in there, as many students will know.

    I'm not saying the 'bedroom tax' scheme is perfect, far from it, but given that it's looking at how many rooms are in a property, it makes sense to stick people in there instead of just taking some money back.

    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    What if you stick two people together and one kills the other, whose liable? The state. The lawyers lick their lips.
    No, the murderer is responsible for the murder. The only lawyers licking their lips would be the prosecution at the prospect of the defence being "I killed him because I had to share a house with him". Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The OP has it right here. If you're in social housing then you can hardly be too demanding anyway. This makes sense.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    What sort of people have been wrongly hit? I remember Channel 4 news doing a piece on this, and the first (and only) example they used was a woman who needed a (massive) hospital bed - obviously something that needs to be looked at but hardly a criticism of the scheme's essence.

    Why shouldn't a living room count as an extra bedroom? If we (the taxpayer) pay for a bed to go in there and it isn't a connecting room (i.e. the only route from another bedroom to a shared room), then it makes sense to stick an extra set of people in there, as many students will know.

    I'm not saying the 'bedroom tax' scheme is perfect, far from it, but given that it's looking at how many rooms are in a property, it makes sense to stick people in there instead of just taking some money back.



    No, the murderer is responsible for the murder. The only lawyers licking their lips would be the prosecution at the prospect of the defence being "I killed him because I had to share a house with him". Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?
    Those on benefits don't always tend be fit of mind. Many are Alcoholics, drug abusers, some rapists and murderers im not saying every single one is but a disproportional large amount are. So you cant really stick them together? Who shares a house with the ex murderer and who shares one with a normal person? Once again the state will be liable.

    Have you ever stayed in a hostel OP?

    A note to everyone hating on the poor, i know you are angry with the welfare system i am too but theres a right way of going around it and a wrong way. Its not like our current government are going to provide more opportunities for social mobility if anything now their putting the system in favour of the rich and making the middle class "appear" to be better than the poor.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    They should also turn Buckingham Palace into a block of flats tbh.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zmai)
    Surely people might want to have a house to themselves for safety? And if someone has worked hard all their life, paying tonnes of tax anyway and helping the government by perhaps creating jobs and revenue, why can't they spend their hard earned cash on a larger house? People aren't taxed on taking holidays or buying expensive gifts? So why should they be taxed for spending their money in a different way? The well-off are giving so much of their money to taxes anyway, whereas there are people abusing benefits and doing nothing but they still get benefits? Surely councils can find voluntary jobs to suit them, so at least they're doing something in return for the community?
    I'm talking about the "Bedroom Tax", not an actual tax on bedrooms.

    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    You dont know law. You're not very clever im sorry. Go get some more education kid.
    Right...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    How is this a 'tax'?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    No doubt the mugger that steals from me at knifepoint to buy food for his family thinks his actions moral too.

    But that does not make them so.

    If it could be proven that it would benefit 51% of society by killing the other 49%, do you think that is a moral course of conduct?

    I hold that it is not; people are ends in themselves with natural rights to freedom from coercion. The fact that others may benefit from keeping slaves does not justify slavery. The fact that others may benefit from murder does not justify murder. The fact that others may benefit from theft does not justify theft.
    your trying to put up alot of strawmen there arent you? im just going to ignore them all.

    taxes pay for schools roads healthcare etc etc etc, this benefits the tax payer and the rest of society. even benefits help everyone by reducing crime rates.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just stick them together? What the ****. They aren't animals, they are humans, individuals.
    How dare you talk as if they are so beneath you? You repulse me.

    I feel this bed room tax is appalling. It wouldn't be so bad if the Tories were planning on following through with their mansion tax but no they turned their backs on that.

    How much do we lose out on tax evasion every year?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    The idea that the state is responsible for providing housing seems completely false to me. The state can only provide things by forcibly taking away resources from those that already have them; they rob Peter to pay for Paul, and therefore can always count on the support of Paul. Redistributive fiscal policy is always morally unjustifiable, in my view, because of the fundamental violation of the non-coercive axiom.
    I am not able to pick any free piece of land that I find and build a house on it without permission for me to live in. For that reason, the state should be responsible to house me somewhere if I am not able to find something myself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They'd obviously separate the mansion into apartment blocks you idiot, what a pointless point to make.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Now, I'm not talking about the exceptions such as disabled people needing a hospital bed and so on, they clearly need the extra space and shouldn't be hit by it. However, I've heard a lot about there being loads of people on the waiting list for 1 bedroom homes as a reason why people shouldn't be forced to 'downsize', that there aren't enough properties.

    In fact, the people who complain about that are looking at it all wrong - those people wanting just one bedroom aren't competition, they're a supply. One family needs 2 bedrooms, but has 3, and another family just needs 1? Stick them together! That's an extra family in housing, and less needs to be spent on accommodation and living costs. Most of us did it at university, and we turned out okay (if in crazy debt).

    Look at it another way, if a 20 bedroom mansion came on the market for social housing, would you stick one family in there (say they're a large one with disabled people, and need 10 bedrooms), or would you stick that family and 10 more single bedroom families or 5 more two bedroom families or whatever other arrangement?
    I do believe that this is what the change in benefit (Which is what it is, Labour call it a 'Tax') is trying to achieve. With a loss in earnings, the only way they can make up the money is to rent the room out to a lodger to make the shortfall. Course with it being social housing the initial occupier wouldnt benefit from the new occupant, theyd just have to live with that person being there as to not have the spare room.

    What this doesnt address in terms of housing is families. A couple with 2 children will need a minimum of two rooms, three rooms if different sex children and strain on same sex children will be shown as they get older.

    Quite simply, there is not enough affordable housing to go round. What Thatcher never predicted was a massive financial collapse which means deposits on mortgages are at crazy proportions which are out of reach of many middle class workers, never mind the working class. Add on to top the high prices of many houses equals a difficult time for people in the housing market.

    There needs to be much more heavier investment in the building of houses and, dare i say it, council houses. Why these buildings have been systematically eradicated over the past 30 years is mad and made obvious to everyone now how important they are.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 12, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.