It is a measure brought in by the current government with effect from 1st April 2013.

What is 'bedroom tax'?

Since 1 April 2013, new housing benefit rules mean you won't be able to get housing benefit to pay for all of your rent if your home has 'spare bedrooms'. This is being called the 'bedroom tax', but letters from the council may call it 'size limit rules', 'under-occupancy' or 'under-occupancy rules'.

If you’re a council or housing association tenant of working age receiving housing benefit and renting a home that has more bedrooms than you need, it’s likely that your housing benefit will be reduced. Pensioners claiming housing benefit won't be affected.

The new limit on the number of rooms you can claim for is based on the number of people living in your home. If you have more bedrooms than the new rules say you need, you will be treated as ‘under-occupying’ your home. You’ll get less of your rent paid for by housing benefit.

If housing benefit no longer covers the full cost of your rent, you will have to pay the rest of the rent yourself. This must be paid directly to your landlord.

It is a measure brought in by the current government with effect from 1st April 2013.

What is 'bedroom tax'?

Since 1 April 2013, new housing benefit rules mean you won't be able to get housing benefit to pay for all of your rent if your home has 'spare bedrooms'. This is being called the 'bedroom tax', but letters from the council may call it 'size limit rules', 'under-occupancy' or 'under-occupancy rules'.

If you’re a council or housing association tenant of working age receiving housing benefit and renting a home that has more bedrooms than you need, it’s likely that your housing benefit will be reduced. Pensioners claiming housing benefit won't be affected.

The new limit on the number of rooms you can claim for is based on the number of people living in your home. If you have more bedrooms than the new rules say you need, you will be treated as ‘under-occupying’ your home. You’ll get less of your rent paid for by housing benefit.

If housing benefit no longer covers the full cost of your rent, you will have to pay the rest of the rent yourself. This must be paid directly to your landlord.

Seems fair enough to me. I don't see why I should pay for empty rooms, instead of the tenant paying.

Even if the tenant is unable to move?

How you could be affected by bedroom tax

You won't be allowed to claim housing benefit for 'extra' rooms that are used for:

• children visiting a divorced or separated parent
• couples who use separate bedrooms because of illness or disability
• rooms used by disabled adults to store medical equipment.

Some disabled adults living in adapted or specially designed properties will face cuts to their housing benefit, but it will not be practical or affordable for them to move. You may be able to claim a discretionary housing payment if you are affected. Limited extra funds have been set aside for people in this situation.

(My emphasis)

But this is current policy, and this topic is about Thatcher.

However, it is now obvious where you stand regarding rates vs poll tax.

If someone couldn't afford their rates then they should have moved to a smaller property.

Even if they owned the property; even if they had strong emotional attachments to that property; even if illness or disability meant moving was impracticable at best, impossible at worst.

Forcing them to do so was, you seem to be saying, fairer than reducing their tax and making people like me, who had previously paid nothing, start to pay.

I disagree.

So you feel that a widowed pensioner should be forced out of the house she and her dead husband spent 25+ years paying the mortgage to own.

The house where her children were born and grew up.

The house where her husband died.

If you believe that, then you must agree with the current governments so called bedroom tax.

If the widow sold her house (4-bedrooms, say) for 250k, she would then have money to buy a small 1-2 bedroom bungalow for 150k and 100k to give her a much better life for the rest of her natural.

And I agree with the bedroom tax. It makes sense.

But we must then build more small houses as the average council house IS a 3 or 4 bedroom house, as councils plan for the occupants to have several children, as they (the councils) are still looking at the demographics of post-WWII family life. They should be planning for the current young married couple, where both partners are committed to working for the first ten years, before starting a family. A Thatcherite concept, being completely logical. Also a Socialist concept, conforming to correct social planning.

Here in Cambridge the local council are going to knock down two smallish developments of one and two room bungalows occupied by old-age pensioners, in order to replace them with larger houses. TThe old people are up in arms about this, as there will be nowhere for them to go - except care-homes and hospices - and the proposal defies the logic of present-day demographics. But then we have a LIb-Dem council. Cambridge is the fastest growing area in the UK at the moment (according to Radio Cambridge) with very low unemployment and very few High Street shop closures. This is because we have many young people, even excluding the many thousand students, who are here to work. They need small houses, as do the old folks.

Typical:

Obama Snubs Lady Thatcher's Funeral

Barack Obama sends presidential delegation with no serving politicians to London ceremony.

If The POS Throws Churchill's Statute Back To Our Cousins After His First Election, Why Would You Expect Him To Attend A Funeral For The Greatest PM Since Sir Winston, Eh?

Typical:

Obama Snubs Lady Thatcher's Funeral

Barack Obama sends presidential delegation with no serving politicians to London ceremony.

If The POS Throws Churchill's Statute Back To Our Cousins After His First Election, Why Would You Expect Him To Attend A Funeral For The Greatest PM Since Sir Winston, Eh?

Can the man be any more transparent? It is shameful that the USA does not have at the very least the VP present. Obama is not representing the American people's attitude and appreciation for Thatcher.

Typical:

Obama Snubs Lady Thatcher's Funeral

Barack Obama sends presidential delegation with no serving politicians to London ceremony.

If The POS Throws Churchill's Statute Back To Our Cousins After His First Election, Why Would You Expect Him To Attend A Funeral For The Greatest PM Since Sir Winston, Eh?

Yes, I agree. Shameful.

But then, do we expect our leaders to spend a lot of their precious time on purely ceremonial activities? Attending official inaugurations, weddings, funerals, meeting visiting dignitaries? Is that what we pay them for?

This, to me, is a serious weakness of the American system. In Britain we have the Queen to do much of the ceremonial stuff while the PM theoretically gets on with his work. Many other countries have a figurehead as a head of state (e.g. Germany, Australia, India).

Maybe we should make Joe Biden our Queen. We certainly don't want him doing anything important.

This, to me, is a serious weakness of the American system. In Britain we have the Queen to do much of the ceremonial stuff while the PM theoretically gets on with his work. Many other countries have a figurehead as a head of state (e.g. Germany, Australia, India).

Australia ???

You're obviously anticipating the Gillard woman's agenda.

This, to me, is a serious weakness of the American system. In Britain we have the Queen to do much of the ceremonial stuff while the PM theoretically gets on with his work. Many other countries have a figurehead as a head of state (e.g. Germany, Australia, India).

Australia ???

You're obviously anticipating the Gillard woman's agenda.

Indeed not. The present Governor-General of Australia is a splendid woman called Quentin Bryce. I once saw an interview with her, and I'm all in favour! Yes, I know the Queen is still Australia's Head of State, but it's Mrs Bryce who is there to do the ceremonial bits. (The country's a feminist haven)

So you feel that a widowed pensioner should be forced out of the house she and her dead husband spent 25+ years paying the mortgage to own.

The house where her children were born and grew up.

The house where her husband died.

If you believe that, then you must agree with the current governments so called bedroom tax.

If the widow sold her house (4-bedrooms, say) for 250k, she would then have money to buy a small 1-2 bedroom bungalow for 150k and 100k to give her a much better life for the rest of her natural.

Undoubtedly true; but why should she be forced to do so?

It seems that you, like StreetCowboy, believe that if someone couldn't afford their rates then they should have moved to a smaller property.

Even if they owned the property; even if they had strong emotional attachments to that property; even if illness or disability meant moving was impracticable at best, impossible at worst.

Forcing them to do so was, you seem to be saying, fairer than reducing their tax and making people like me, who had previously paid nothing, start to pay.

How is that fair?

StreetCowboy has ignored this question, will you answer?

So you feel that a widowed pensioner should be forced out of the house she and her dead husband spent 25+ years paying the mortgage to own.

The house where her children were born and grew up.

The house where her husband died.

If you believe that, then you must agree with the current governments so called bedroom tax.

If the widow sold her house (4-bedrooms, say) for 250k, she would then have money to buy a small 1-2 bedroom bungalow for 150k and 100k to give her a much better life for the rest of her natural.

Undoubtedly true; but why should she be forced to do so?

It seems that you, like StreetCowboy, believe that if someone couldn't afford their rates then they should have moved to a smaller property.

Even if they owned the property; even if they had strong emotional attachments to that property; even if illness or disability meant moving was impracticable at best, impossible at worst.

Forcing them to do so was, you seem to be saying, fairer than reducing their tax and making people like me, who had previously paid nothing, start to pay.

How is that fair?

StreetCowboy has ignored this question, will you answer?

If I can't afford the duty on petrol, should I be excused? Or live within my means?

The government has to raise revenue somehow, and taxing wealth, rather than heads, is one way to do it. I'd rather collect tax as a landlord, than VAT, which is amongst the most expensive taxes to collect. Of course, the current local tax is great for me as a landlord, because the tenants pay it direct, rather than me having to collect it on behalf of the government, and I only pay it when the property is empty... good encouragement for me to provide a roof over someone's head...

I have acquaintances who have funded their property empire through housing benefit, but as far as I know my tenants are hard-working tax payers. I didn't ignore the question, I just thought that you probably didn't want to hear my answer.

I don't want to sound unsentimental, but if the family aren't willing to pay to maintain the family estate then like so many, the family estate will be lost. You might be sad about that, but I'm not particularly.

SC

If 6 other people were able to fill up their 6 cars for the same amount of duty you pay to fill up your one; how would you feel?

The lady in question could afford to pay her rates, her poll tax and then her council tax.

Affordability isn't the issue; fairness is.

I ask again, is it fair that 6 working people combined pay in total the same as one widowed pensioner; or one working person; principle is the same?

Personally, I don't.

Neither do I think a flat rate tax where all adults pay the same is fair, either; but it's the fairer of the two.

I very rarely agree with Ken Livingstone, but I do when he said that some form of local income tax would be fairer than both the rates/council tax and the poll tax.

This, to me, is a serious weakness of the American system. In Britain we have the Queen to do much of the ceremonial stuff while the PM theoretically gets on with his work. Many other countries have a figurehead as a head of state (e.g. Germany, Australia, India).

Australia ???

You're obviously anticipating the Gillard woman's agenda.

Indeed not. The present Governor-General of Australia is a splendid woman called Quentin Bryce. I once saw an interview with her, and I'm all in favour! Yes, I know the Queen is still Australia's Head of State, but it's Mrs Bryce who is there to do the ceremonial bits. (The country's a feminist haven)

But she's not head of state - that is still the perogative of the Queen.

Agreed that Quentin Bryce does an excellent job of representing the Queen, but she does not represent Australia - she represents the royal authority OVER Australia.

How is that fair?

.

Forcing them to do so was, you seem to be saying, fairer than reducing their tax and making people like me, who had previously paid nothing, start to pay.

StreetCowboy has ignored this question, will you answer?

Various taxes have been brought into discussions (very noisy discussions) over the past few weeks, but the way these taxes have been applied (or are proposed to be applied)(or subsidies have been proposed to be removed) has not been fully clarified.

Maggie T's poll tax was attacked at the end of the eighties, mainly, I think, by households where the parents and three or four grown-up children were living in one house - either council or owner-occupied or rented - and would have had to pay more than the single widow living next door. This applied to my mother, whose neighbour had six wage-earners in a similar house. The poll tax would have seen a little social justice done in such a case.

Maggie T was not the originator of the selling-off of council houses, this was already in force in various councils around the UK. What she did was to open the door much wider by obliging councils to sell a lot of houses at low prices and also she would not allow the proceeds to be ploughed back into more houses, but made many spendthrift Labour-run councils settle their debts and invest any balance. This was because Britain was, overall, deeply in debt (as it was in 2010 and still is).

Currently, the 'bedroom tax' is not a tax at all. It is the removal of a subsidy on council houses and council-paid private rentals where there are spare rooms, not occupied. It does not apply to people renting privately with their own money, nor to owner-occupied homes. It is supposed to be an encouragement for those families / singles whose accommodation is owned by / paid by the state (local or national) to move into more suitable premises and allow larger families to have room enough to bring up children / nurse aging relatives / care for disabled.

I live in my own home - a three-bedroom house. None of the current legislation affects me, excepting only that I get a discount due to age and living on my own. However I am thinking of letting at least one room to a university student, or language college student and such an act would mean I would lose that discount, which would have to be recovered through the rent paid by the student. This seems to me to be perfectly fair.

When I am older (currently 76 and fit) and start to need looking after, I expect to sell my house and purchase somewhere smaller, thus freeing up some capital for use in the home-care area. Later I may have to go into hospice or similar accommodation and will then have to sell whatever I then held, to pay for the more immediate care that I would need. I think it is quite reasonable that the government should expect that any responsible citizen would do the same.

I expect to live another 30 years and I expect to have to move at least twice in that period, in order to facilitate my growing need for care. This is, to me, common sense and social responsibility. I do not expect that the state will do everything for me, including planning my entire life. These are things that I, as a setient being, am fully capable of doing for myself.

A month and a half's wages to cover the whole year; payment of which could be spread over the year.

It is too long ago for me to remember the exact amount I had to pay, but to be honest I don't think it was that high; you must have been on a very low wage in which case you could have applied for a reduction.

As I said, prior to the poll tax I paid nothing because my father paid the rates. After the poll tax I paid nothing as he paid the council tax.

Then I left home and and my 'bill' went from nothing to much more (can't remember exactly how much) as I had to pay council tax myself.

Surely you're situation was very similar.

I ask you directly; is it fair that a household of 6 working people should pay the same as one retired widow?

That was the situation before the poll tax and has been the situation since.

I should add that subsequent to originally posting the above, I have said that some form of local income tax is, I think, the fairest way of funding local services. Not sure how workable that would be when most people work in a different area to where they live, though.

You are missing my point. I applied for a reduction which was refused. The total amount to pay came with a demand to pay within a month.

The Poll Tax was ill thought out and even worse in execution.

Twas the end for Thatcherism however....and the Tories in Scotland.

A month and a half's wages to cover the whole year; payment of which could be spread over the year.

It is too long ago for me to remember the exact amount I had to pay, but to be honest I don't think it was that high; you must have been on a very low wage in which case you could have applied for a reduction.

As I said, prior to the poll tax I paid nothing because my father paid the rates. After the poll tax I paid nothing as he paid the council tax.

Then I left home and and my 'bill' went from nothing to much more (can't remember exactly how much) as I had to pay council tax myself.

Surely you're situation was very similar.

I ask you directly; is it fair that a household of 6 working people should pay the same as one retired widow?

That was the situation before the poll tax and has been the situation since.

I should add that subsequent to originally posting the above, I have said that some form of local income tax is, I think, the fairest way of funding local services. Not sure how workable that would be when most people work in a different area to where they live, though.

You are missing my point. I applied for a reduction which was refused. The total amount to pay came with a demand to pay within a month.

The Poll Tax was ill thought out and even worse in execution.

Twas the end for Thatcherism however....and the Tories in Scotland.

I'm opposed to another income tax because that allows the black market to flourish. We should not be concentrating the burden on such a narrow tax base. Also it's not appropriate for local government - do you tax people where they live and use services, or where they earn income?

VAT is exceptionally expensive to administer, and encourages fraud. On the bright side, it does attract some revenue from foreigners, and those who spend a lot.

Property tax is easily attributed to the local government, and it is easy to find the assets to sequester if it is not paid. The burden is passed by the landlord onto the tenant, and it encourages keeping the property productive.

Personally, I quite like duty, as well, as we can choose through our lifestyle how much we wish to pay. If we object to airport tax, we can stay at home; we can give up smoking, drink less, drive a more economical moped, and so forth.

There was no justification for the poll tax, other than that it was arbitrary and unfair, and therefore a fitting punishment for the Scots who had loyally supported the opposition and voted so comprehensively against it. In the short term, that harmed the Tories' prospects for a generation, and in the long term painted Scotland a different colour from the rest of the Kingdom, fuelling the fires of Nationalist passion

SC

There was no justification for the poll tax, other than that it was arbitrary and unfair, and therefore a fitting punishment for the Scots who had loyally supported the opposition and voted so comprehensively against it. In the short term, that harmed the Tories' prospects for a generation, and in the long term painted Scotland a different colour from the rest of the Kingdom, fuelling the fires of Nationalist passion

SC

I was not in the UK at the time of poll-tax, so cannot comment in depth upon it.

I would have thought that there were some merits in it, in that it did recognise that each individual should contribute to local services, such as roads, police, street-lighting and the like, but there should also be an income-tax addendum, as someone using an SUV would, for instance, damage roads more than a cyclist or pedestrian.

With regard to Scottish independemce, I am all for it, as an Englishman. Getting rid of all those Scottish Labour MPs would ensure a Tory majority for decades. And George Galloway would have to go back North of the border, along with Gordon Brown, Darling and so on. (Is it possible to prove Cameron is Scottish?).

I remember in the late 50s and 60s that all the people working in the Labour Exchanges were Scots. We English were on the wrong side of the counter, trying to get money out of the Scots. A thankless task.