"Bedroom tax". Lib Dem hypocrisy?

Something else we never think about, or are even told about.
www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/08/27/comment-tribunal-fees-are-a-silent-bedroom-tax

Those of you who live in Scotland have been saved from the bedroom tax at the moment, but the only way it can be made permanent is to vote yes. That's a conundrum for a lot of people, I expect, although it does not seem to have come up at all in the referendum debate.

I agree, too. Those who set up the system were not people who would be affected by it.
Unfortunately at the moment, the only way to get it changed at all is by asking your MPs to vote for Andrew George's changes.
It's a start.

It's a stupid, cruel tax and it should be scrapped. I think it's fine to encourage people to move and offer them a reasonable alternative, but I think to force people to move just because they have one spare bedroom is wrong.

It should be done away with altogether. I worked from the age of 15. Then I became too ill to work and had to claim benefits. I had paid tax and national insurance all those years so surely I had the right to claim because I'd paid into the system. But it seems I don't have the right to stay in my modest two up two down because I only need one bedroom. The fact that being forced to move would make my condition worse is irrelevant.

Who did?
It's Andrew George, Lib Dem, who wants to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax. It would be better if they got rid of it altogether, but it's a start.
I had another email from www.change.org from this woman whose brother died because he had been sanctioned. She wants an independent review into why her brother had to die. He was diabetic, but had been in the forces. He had no power in the house and hardly any food, none in his stomach at postmortem. That's another one to sign.

He said he was sorry over the student thing - look where that got him.

Sorry, do not know what happened there. And I cannot find the petition on 38 degrees website, it's that new.

Anyway, there's an emergency debate on it on September 5th, so they want you to make sure your MP is there and voting.

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/m/74c0450e/2d420d21/4cf47a4e/4641dab2/540785485/VEsD/p/eyJlM3R3YjNOMFkyOWtaWDE5IjoiREg3JTIwMFBRIn0=/

A chance to ask your MP to do something about the bedroom tax.

I didn't warm to Clegg during the leadership debates all those years ago, and nothing he's done since then has endeared him to me. I find it hard to believe he's waited for the 'evidence' to be produced before changing his mind about the bedroom tax. The evidence at the time was there for all to see. There simply aren't enough one bed properties for folks to down size to.
I agree with others though, it's always good when people acknowledge they've been wrong about something. Just a pity he didn't do that at the last debate on this issue, this tax could have been chucked then, thus avoiding the stress so many are being subjected to.

Tenants of private housing didn't get their benefit reduced during their tenancy, but only when they wanted to start a new tenancy i.e. move into a new home. They could then look for something to fit the level of benefit that they were going to get.

Social housing tenants have had their benefit cut during their existing tenancies in an attempt to force them to move, even when there was nowhere suitable to move to.

The idea is right - the way it was implemented was wrong.

Since 2008 tenants in privately rented housing have had their benefits limited to the number of bedrooms they need and that includes pensioners. I don't remember the same level of hysteria when LHA was introduced.

Benefits for social housing tenants should have been reduced in stages until they came into line with LHA then all tenants would end up being treated in exactly the same way.

When I worked in a Housing Association in London we discussed writing into the tenancy agreement words to the effect that people should move once their families had grown up and gone, to something small like a bungalow to make way for families who needed houses. We scrapped the idea as we had no 'something smallers' to offer and could not get central government grant to build any. Bungalows which would have been ideal take up more land so it makes them more expensive and people who have enjoyed a house and garden all their lives and paid their rent for it rarely want to move into an apartment. The whole idea of moving along the line doesn't work.

I agree with you Holly, it certainly wouldn't suit everyone.

Notso - when my mother remarried a few years ago, she moved in with her new husband. He had a tied house for life (Cadbury's) that was then passed to my mother after his death. She is now in a 3 bedroomed house and is the single occupant. I know it would frighten her to have people living there that she didn't know and I don't think £4k would make her feel any safer!

Hmm...certainly a very popular vote-catcher for the Lib Dems if they put these proposals in their next manifesto.

'A senior Liberal Democrat source told Chris Mason the party could not be precise at this stage about how much their proposed change would cost, but it is thought it would be around a few hundred million pounds.'

So that's all right then.

I read somewhere this morning that the rules have recently been changed/relaxed in respect of lodgers. Local Authority or Housing Association tenants who had their benefits reduced because they have an unused bedroom, can use the room to take in lodgers and re-coup some of the reduced benefits that way. I don't remember the exact figure, but they're allowed to 'earn' £4k plus this way before it's taxed.

I agree with you - I have more respect for people who say 'sorry, I made a mistake' than those who continue to try and bluff their way out of it. However, when it comes to politics, you know what the media would do: scream 'U TURN' and probably add 'ANOTHER' in front of it.

I'd have even more respect for them if they stopped trying to tax the living daylights out of ordinary working people!