I opposed the bedroom tax from the outset. At its core is a logic that concepts such as 'home', 'place' and 'community' do not matter to people in receipt of social security. They are something that, apparently, can only be enjoyed by those on whom good fortune shines. That has to be anathema to anyone who appreciates the contribution each can make to the world we live in.
But I also opposed it because of its inherent unfairness. Charging a significant flat rate tax without consideration of the means to pay and the ability of the person charged to avoid the liability (because of a shortage of alternative accommodation, which shortage was well known) always made this a callous charge.
And so it has proved to be. As the Guardian report today:
Two-thirds of households in England affected by the bedroom tax have fallen into rent arrears since the policy was introduced in April, while one in seven families have received eviction risk letters and face losing their homes, a survey claims.
Being in uncontrolled and uncontrollable debt is a condition of considerable stress. It erodes the meaning of life. The stress it creates is a cancer to well-being. The fear it induces destroys hope. And that will be the consequence for all those who face this situation.
It is bad enough to face the problems of low income. It is so much worse to know that you are being penalised for doing so for no fault of your own. But that is what this government is deliberately doing to hundreds of thousands of people.
And in my book that's unforgivable.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
You state that you opposed the ‘bedroom tax’ from the outset.
Do you mean you opposed the introduction of the LHA in April 2008 by Labour (which essentially imposed the same restrictions on tenants in the private rented sector) or that you only oppose measures introduced by the coalition government?
It’s just that I can’t recall any blogs from you in 2008 on the subject. Perhaps you were able to forgive Labour?
Fair comment
I was not aware of that issue at that time and did not condemn it because I was unaware of the issue then
But respectfully you are trolling. I am not a member of the Labour party and as any astute reader will be aware am more than willing to criticise it
So, you demean your argument by pettiness
Yet if you have a flooded house in Surrey (an upsetting yet temporary situation), then money is no object in this wealthy country, according to David Cameron. Of course, it helps if you live in a Tory voting constituency, especially if UKIP might come calling at election time to lobby for your vote.
Wait a minute, aren’t right wingers always talking about those in receipt of socail security, public sector workers, and trade unionists as ‘clients of the Labour party’, in receipt of large dollops of unearned (and by implication, undeserved) cash ripped from the pockets of ‘hard working families’ via taxation?
Can it be the case that there are people in Conservative constituencies who are clients of the Conservative party? After all, the PM has just said that ‘money is no object in this relief effort’
Surely not! What about the deficit I hear you cry? After all, that’s the justification for the Bedroom Tax and all the other social security cuts.
As one affected by the bedroom tax and in the process of challenging it with the support of a Liberty Solicitor I appreciate your observations, Richard, as well as your expression of care and compassion on this issue. The whole ‘policy’, is a blunderbuss causing random suffering and is utterly futile with a clear punitive intention. The points I would make about its underlying intentions are as follows:
1) It is NOT about freeing up housing for overcrowded families because it is not focused on this (i.e. there is now matching of where the overcrowding is with the claimed ‘underoccupancy.’
2) It is part of the program of systematic vilification of benefit claimants we have seen gathering pace over the last two years.
3) It is also part of the program to channel the anger of those paying terrible housing costs in the WRONG direction.
4) The neo-libs HATE social housing because it means the properties aren’t part of the financialisation process of rehypothecation, collateralised debt obligations and the churning portfolios which are wrecking the real economy and causing misery to millions.
5) Social Housing is being undermined and starved of funds -the neo-libs want the houses and the land!
Simon, you have my sympathy, good luck in your fight against this vile policy.
I find the justification of the Bedroom Tax by reference to Labours LHA policy very poor. However, has anyone costed the option of applying LHA to social housing. I suspect that in the North East a 3 bed council house costs less to rent than a 1 bed private dwelling. So the Bedroom Tax is just causing tenants hardship and costing social landlords money. Maybe the outcome will be that social landlords will have to firesale family housing to “buy to let investors” who can then make more profit.
tory think tanks have produced proposals to sell off social housing in the more expensive parts of the country! Quelle surprise!
They are in the process of axing the bedroom tax in Scotland. Around 40-50,000 could be exempt due to the recently discovered loophole. A few disabled people have successfully challenged the bedroom tax in the courts. A few have managed to challenge it on the basis of what actually constitutes a bedroom, e.g, it is a “dining room”, not a bedroom!
It makes no economic sense either. It is believed the money councils will have to spend trying to evict people will exceed any actual savings.
Isn’t time this was kicked into the long grass where it belongs? 🙂