The bedroom tax might be the clearest example of the coalition punishing the poor for the financial crisis.
The bedroom tax might be the clearest example of the coalition punishing the poor for the financial crisis
It was claimed by the government that the bedroom tax had two aims – to reduce spending on benefits and to help the 300,000 people living in overcrowded accommodation by incentivising those tenants ‘over occupying’ to move to smaller homes.
But the maths didn’t add up.
When the policy was first proposed, critics pointed out that there were not enough homes for the so-called ‘over occupiers’ to move to. There were only 85,000 one bedroom social properties available in England, and 180,000 social tenants “under-occupying” two-bedroom houses. That’s quite a large gap.
Hardly surprising then, that research carried out by the BBC a year after the tax was implemented showed that only 6 per cent of people affected by it have moved home. There are simply not the homes for them to move to.
Despite this, the Conservatives gleefully claimed a victory for the tax, saying that it saved the government the conveniently round figure of a million pounds per day.
As professor Rebecca Tunstall, director of the centre for housing policy at the University of York, told the New Statesman:
“There were two major aims to this policy – one was to encourage people to move, and the other was to save money for the government in housing benefit payments. But those two aims are mutually exclusive.”
The government saves money from the people who have no choice but to stay where they are.
And what happens when people with a low income have that income cut? They go into arrears on their rent.
According to the BBC, this is what’s happened to a third of tenants affected by the tax. The debt has been successfully shifted from the government to benefit claimants.
Could this have been the main aim all along?
Supporters of the bedroom tax certainly focused on the under-occupancy issue. Ian Duncan Smith, for example, pointed out how unfair it was on those who did not have a spare bedroom:
“It is unfair on taxpayers, it is unfair on those in over-crowded accommodation and it is unfair that one group of housing benefit tenants cannot have spare bedrooms and another group are subsidised.”
Yet it’s unlikely that the government did their housing sums wrong and genuinely believed the main outcome of the tax would be people moving home. It seems more likely that focusing on the ‘unfair’ behaviour of benefit claimants suited their rhetoric of vilifying a certain section of the general public.
Without discussing the possibility that an increase in homelessness caused by the tax could result in it saving the government no money at all, how ethical is it for a government to shift debt on to the general public?
There is a faint silver lining to this deplorable tax, however, and that is the creativity it has brought out in campaigners.
In North London, for example, one group of artists are protesting by putting on an exhibition inspired by the bedroom tax, hosted in a bedroom subject to the tax. The 27-year occupier is moving out for a week and will be exhibiting art along with other artists, all inspired by the tax. The exhibition will be free and also show short films on the housing shortage so that local people can visit and learn more about it.
It seems the bedroom tax might be the clearest example of the coalition government punishing the poor for the financial crisis, but there are always ways to fight back.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
72 Responses to “Was the aim of the bedroom tax always to shift debt from the government to benefit claimants?”
John
You DO come across as a tad racist. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them a migrant.
Your attempt to attack the character of your opponent undermines your own point; which was a good one. We collect less than most through corporate tax because our politicions (deliberately) right bad laws.
LB
The liabilities grow at inflation plus. Why won’t you report the state pension liabilities?
The assets for the state pension and civil servants pensions don’t grow. There aren’t any.
For the LGA, there are assets. They go up or down in line with the stock market. As it stands, they are 50% under the water
Are you saying that local authority pension funds should be 100% self funding and have zero contrition from tax payers or are you saying we should remove tax payer guarantees?.
No. I’m saying that in one given year, the contributions should be put towards the pensions of the workers for that year. I’m also saying that for this year, the public should make no contributions to past LGA pensions.
If you think that’s wrong, consider the following scenario. You go to ASDA for your shopping. You go to the till. You’ve 50 quid of goods in your basket. You hand over 50 quid. Sorry the assistant says, the bills 60 quid. You need to pay another 20% because we forgot to put enough into our pension scheme, you’ve got to top it up.
=========
methodology that you want all pensions to be
=========
Nope. All I’ve asked is for you to tell us the state pension liabilities and the civil service pension liabilites, plus any assets. Just like the LGA scheme. Then we can tell if they have a problem or not.
So how much for the state pension, civil service pension.
Simple question, why can’t you answer it?
LB
So you are going to genocide the workers, the assets. You’re a lunatic.
===========
Far from it Leon.
First there is your assumption the workers are an asset. There are two parts to that slave owning mentality. What income do the serfs generate and what the costs of keeping the serfs happy. Turns out taxes are less than spending. The average serf is a liability.
The problem is simple. The state’s take people’s pension contributions. The state spent the cash.
The end result is that the future pensioners aren’t going to get their pensions paid in full.
To assess whether I’m right or you are right, you need to put up the pension liabilities. Unless you get that piece of information you won’t realise the consequences.
The consequences are as you say, disasterous for the public.
So how much does the state owe for its pensions?
LB
sure, that pales in comparison to the £9,000 you mentioned, but then, we’re moving pensions from state to private through auto-enrolment.
=========
It’s a bit more subtle. You’re still paying for the state pensions. You’ve got to pay for auto enrolment too.
Then when there is cash in the funds, and the state is desperate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10913237/Labour-considers-2-billion-tax-raid-on-pensions.html
Yep, they will nick the cash.
Remember Brown and Labour have form for this.
Then you fall into the trap. If you ignore pensions, its all hunky dory. It’s not, because you can’t ignore pensions. People particularly the poor are completely dependent on them.
“It CAN’T make the payments” is absolutely correct. Even massive taxes can’t pay for them.
So how does selling the debt make it affordable? You’re going to have to explain that because it doesn’t work that way.
LB
And its also untrue, I’m a Brit.
But its the usual left wing rant.