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?”
LB
Right so you are basing it on an article which is basing its findings on everyone retiring tomorrow in the first instance.
==============
No. The amount owed, and reported is going to grow over time, for the LGA in line with inflation. So expect the amount owed to increase at at least that rate.
========
why are you whining about local authority pensions that have taken your advice?
========
I’m not. I’m only pointing out that they have a short fall of 50%. Why should the public pay and get no services, to make up for that error?
If its fully funded, as you originally claimed, we can say that there is no guarantee and the public should not make up any short fall. If you are correct, its never going to happen.
So we cap council tax going on pensions at 10% of the current wage bill.
So back to the civil service pension and state pension.
What are the liabilities there?
At least we agree on the assets. Zero. Fully unfunded.
So I also take it you are now aware of the difference between SHOULD and ACTUALLY when it comes to the LGA fund. At least we’ve made some progress there.
Leon Wolfeson
Yes yes, you think paying zero tax is an entitlement for you, because you’re rich. That you’re owned free money from the British, abroad, because you’re rich.
Then you conflate that with poor taxpayers.
Leon Wolfeson
Because your refusal to read figures is not “hidden”, it’s your refusal to read.
And the horror here is your Jihad against the British.
Leon Wolfeson
Keep using incorrect figures, which you claim not to have. As you ask questions about a fact and keep focusing on “profit”, when declared profits are often a minuscule sum compared to the amounts off-shored.
Indeed, you are using wishful thinking – wishing that people not realise you’re not paying tax!
blarg1987
“No. The amount owed, and reported is going to grow over time, for the LGA in line with inflation. So expect the amount owed to increase at at least that rate.”
No the amount is likely to shrink as the stock market recovers even the TPA report admits it shrunk by over 40% in one year, mainly down to better performance in the stock market.
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?
If the former, can you name industries in the private sector where that is the case? Because I can;t think of any, and if the latter again can you name companies where the employer is not the guarantor in big companies?
We have made zero progress as you are still whining about Local Government pension schemes that use a methodology that you want all pensions to be, so to turn the question round are you saying that in your system are you saying there would be zero guarantors and zero increases in contributions if the stock market had a problem like it does now?