Bedroom tax 'in chaos' says Plymouth finance chief
THE Government's new "bedroom tax" has descended into total chaos, says city Cabinet member Mark Lowry.
From April 1 new rules mean that people in social housing could lose some of their housing benefit if they have more bedrooms than they need.
A household with one spare bedroom will see housing benefit cut by 14 per cent, and 25 per cent if it has two or more spare bedrooms. More than 2,300 Plymouth families were expected to be affected.
As reported in The Herald this week, the Government has now made significant concessions to exempt foster carers and military families and households with severely disabled children.
like our facebook page to win a free bottle of Harrods champagne...
View detailshttps://www.facebook.com/SimonTurnerShowrooms?ref=hl
Contact: 01395 200611
Valid until: Saturday, November 30 2013
Cllr Lowry, the Cabinet member for finance at Plymouth City Council, said: "The bedroom tax has descended into total chaos.
"While these exceptions are welcome they are just a tiny fraction of those affected, including disabled people who are set to lose more then £700 in April, at the same time as millionaires receive a massive tax cut."
Your Say Page 10
5 Comments
by haunt
Thursday, March 14 2013, 4:40PM
“I'd like to see IDS taxed for all his spare rooms in his tax payer funded second home, in fact all MPs who claim tax payer funded subsidies to live extravagant lives, two faced g-ts the lot of them, how many spare beds are there in Chequers thats also tax payer funded?”
by Mar1an55
Thursday, March 14 2013, 1:00PM
“The fact there are not enough properties either in the private sector or social housing to allow downsizing means it can be a money saver for the government. It is that simple. For it to be a success as a welfare cut, then it has to be a failure at getting people into the right sized homes, which is guaranteed, because THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PROPERTIES FOR US TO DOWNSIZE!!”
by Mar1an55
Thursday, March 14 2013, 12:53PM
“I know it is just a method of cutting the welfare bill, unfairly using the excuse of people having spare rooms to justify it. The fact there are not enough properties either in the private sector or social housing to allow downsizing means it can be a money saver for the government. It is that simple. For it to be a success as a welfare cut, then it has to be a failure at getting people into the right sized homes, which is guaranteed, because THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PROPERTIES FOR US TO DOWNSIZE!!”
by m_dalston
Thursday, March 14 2013, 11:31AM
“Why is this constantly referred to as a tax? It is simply a reduction of your benefits because the housing you are given is larger then you require!! Tax is something that us working people cough up so people can be housed at greatly reduced cost (or none at all!). And Cllr Lowry - to compare a cut in money paid by one end of society to a cut in benefits on the other end really is apples & pears.”
by jimjamjonny
Thursday, March 14 2013, 9:42AM
“The Private rented sector has worked this way for years, if you are a couple you can rent a 3bedroom house, but you will only receive the one bedroom required rate of £400 per month, it is up to you to find the difference, seems very fair. I think the reason Mark Lowry is objecting to this is because the Council will have to chase people who wont pay the money they owe. There are over 9000 people on the council waiting list who need bigger homes. What else could the government do. It is a very brave idea.”