At the last count there were 5,072,264 people on housing benefit in the UK. The new rules imposed by IDS mean that those living in council or housing association properties are allowed one bedroom per person or couple. Children under 10 are supposed to share; children of the same sex under 16 are supposed to share. Any carer who might have to stay overnight can have a bedroom.
If they fail to meet the size restrictions, households will be docked 14% of their benefit for one "extra" bedroom and 25% if they luxuriate in a property with two or more "spare" rooms. Anyone in such a situation who wants to avoid losing money will have to move to a smaller property, if needs be in a different town. Yet in Scotland, according to a statistic employed repeatedly by Labour and not yet refuted, 78,000 tenants could be chasing only 20,000 one-bedroom properties. If the social-rented sector cannot cope, that leaves private rentals (or homelessness). Yet in the year to July, average rents in Britain rose by 5.1%. London excluded, the average cost of renting is now £681 per month. If the minister succeeds in pushing former social tenants into private flats, therefore, the benefit bill is going up sharply. The figure generally mentioned is £1.5 billion.
Ian Bell of the Glasgow Herald once more hits the target.
“Shapps insists on the term "removing the spare room subsidy".... Shapps, IDS and the rest of them hate the term bedroom tax, no doubt because it might stir memories of the poll tax. David Cameron has told the Commons that because "earned income" is not involved the word taxation cannot apply... in Hansard [it is described] as follows: "Opposition debate on Housing Benefit (Under-Occupancy Penalty)". Shapps and his chums don't like the word "tax"? How does the word "penalty" suit? ..In fact, which is to say in reality, there is not and has never been such a thing as a "spare-room subsidy". It cannot be removed as it has never existed as a category of housing benefit. To justify penalising 660,000 households in the social rented sector by an average of £12 a week, ministers made it up.”
Bell goes on to explain “Within the Tory universe, no-one is entitled to anything they didn't inherit. The attack on Rolnik came because she held to the quaint UN notion - Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 25 - that everyone has the right to adequate housing. Shapps and his kind regard all social security as a subsidy, a hand-out, money from the pockets of hard-working Tory Party chairmen and their friends.”
If they fail to meet the size restrictions, households will be docked 14% of their benefit for one "extra" bedroom and 25% if they luxuriate in a property with two or more "spare" rooms. Anyone in such a situation who wants to avoid losing money will have to move to a smaller property, if needs be in a different town. Yet in Scotland, according to a statistic employed repeatedly by Labour and not yet refuted, 78,000 tenants could be chasing only 20,000 one-bedroom properties. If the social-rented sector cannot cope, that leaves private rentals (or homelessness). Yet in the year to July, average rents in Britain rose by 5.1%. London excluded, the average cost of renting is now £681 per month. If the minister succeeds in pushing former social tenants into private flats, therefore, the benefit bill is going up sharply. The figure generally mentioned is £1.5 billion.
Ian Bell of the Glasgow Herald once more hits the target.
“Shapps insists on the term "removing the spare room subsidy".... Shapps, IDS and the rest of them hate the term bedroom tax, no doubt because it might stir memories of the poll tax. David Cameron has told the Commons that because "earned income" is not involved the word taxation cannot apply... in Hansard [it is described] as follows: "Opposition debate on Housing Benefit (Under-Occupancy Penalty)". Shapps and his chums don't like the word "tax"? How does the word "penalty" suit? ..In fact, which is to say in reality, there is not and has never been such a thing as a "spare-room subsidy". It cannot be removed as it has never existed as a category of housing benefit. To justify penalising 660,000 households in the social rented sector by an average of £12 a week, ministers made it up.”
Bell goes on to explain “Within the Tory universe, no-one is entitled to anything they didn't inherit. The attack on Rolnik came because she held to the quaint UN notion - Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 25 - that everyone has the right to adequate housing. Shapps and his kind regard all social security as a subsidy, a hand-out, money from the pockets of hard-working Tory Party chairmen and their friends.”
No comments:
Post a Comment