An example of how farcical the bedroom tax is

[crazy-bargain-store]

My neighbour's rent is currently £80 and is 100% paid by housing benefit.

He has a spare bedroom which is a small box room.

He has been told that from April he will have to contribute £11.20 per week towards the rent which he cannot afford so he has found a one bedroom flat to rent in the private sector. The rent for this flat is £90 per week which will be paid 100% by housing benefit.

How can this make sense?

[bankhaunter]

But it is only a matter of time before they move on to homeowners and tenants not claiming housing benefit.

They could apply it to support for mortgage interest benefits.

[upthecreekyetagain]

But it is only a matter of time before they move on to homeowners and tenants not claiming housing benefit.

They already do!  It is called council tax banding and bears no relationship to ability to pay.

[bankhaunter]

But it is not based on the number of bedrooms, at least not directly.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

It is not based on the number of empty bedrooms, certainly. 🙂

[upthecreekyetagain]

The valuation on which the banding was structured most certainly did include the number of bedrooms as a factor.

Those not receiving council tax benefit, in both private and public sectors, home owner or tenants, have been paying tax on the number of bedrooms in their property even when those bedrooms are occupied.

To make this so called tax fair and apply it also to those not receiving council tax support it would be necessary to give a rebate to those paying council tax for those rooms that are occupied.

[bankhaunter]

The valuation on which the banding was structured most certainly did include the number of bedrooms as a factor.

But only as far as it affects the value of the property.

Although in the normal run of things there is an obvious close connection it is possible that a two bedroomed property could be in the same or even a higher band than a three bedroomed

[kiss*my*pixel]

We pay Council Tax based on the number of rooms in the house, regardless of what they are, bedrooms or otherwise.

What is everyone else's based on?

Curious ?:|

[bankhaunter]

Nothing in here on the number of rooms, only total area.

http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/_downloads/pdf/VO7858_understanding_ct.pdf

[upthecreekyetagain]

We pay Council Tax based on the number of rooms in the house, regardless of what they are, bedrooms or otherwise.

What is everyone else's based on?

Curious ?:|

We pay council tax based on the value of the property in 1991 - that value is based on many factors including the number of bedrooms.

As Bank says you may have two properties side by side and the more valuable one may have fewer bedrooms than the other - this however is a spurious argument when trying to claim that the number of bedrooms does not affect the value of a property, (on which the council tax banding is based).

If you take any property with any number of bedrooms and physically removed one or more of those bedrooms the value of the property would decrease.

[kiss*my*pixel]

Hmmm - well I just searched our council. It seems that now Council Tax is based on property value (which of course, would take into account the number of rooms in the property - this was the basis upon which we completed our forms all those years ago)! Indeed, when we receive the annual paperwork, it does list the number of rooms the property has. I've been looking for old paperwork to support my statement, but am unfortunately inundated with other stuff. Will continue to search my files . . . 😄

[upthecreekyetagain]

They used those forms to help make an "arms length" valuation of as many properties as possible.  All the other factors affecting value such as location, garden size etc were obtainable from other sources.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

But we don't pay more CT because we have empty bedrooms.

If you have a 3 bedroom house, 2 people living in it would pay the same CT as 17 people living in it, regardless of the fact that there would be 2 unoccupied bedrooms in the first scenario (assuming the 2 were a co-habiting couple).

[bankhaunter]

If you take any property with any number of bedrooms and physically removed one or more of those bedrooms the value of the property would decrease.

I do know one person who, by removing a bedroom (?) probably increased the value.

He turned an extremely cramped bathroom with no window and barely enough floor space to open the door, along with a bedroom with just enough space for a 2'6" bed only, into a reasonable bathroom with a built in cupboard.

Fairly exceptional circumstances though.

[upthecreekyetagain]

But we don't pay more CT because we have empty bedrooms.

If you have a 3 bedroom house, 2 people living in it would pay the same CT as 17 people living in it, regardless of the fact that there would be 2 unoccupied bedrooms in the first scenario (assuming the 2 were a co-habiting couple).

Nor does anyone else - You are confusing a reduction in a benefit with an increase in tax.  Those paying council tax are paying for ALL their rooms, whether occupied or not.  Those not in receipt of houseing benefit are paying or have paid for ALL their bedrooms whether occupied or not. 

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I'm not confusing anything. 🙂

All I said was, the idea of a "bedroom" tax could, at some point down the line, be expanded to increase CT revenues. 

[upthecreekyetagain]

All I said was, the idea of a "bedroom" tax could, at some point down the line, be expanded to increase CT revenues.

How can a reduction in benefits be "expanded" to those who don't receive benefits?

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

The idea that a bedroom should be occupied has been introduced.  It is not a million steps from that to the idea that spare bedrooms could attract a tax.

It may never happen. 🙂  But I'd bet if it has occurred to me as a possibility, it has also occurred to those whose job it is to come up with these things.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Anything could be taxed - that doesn't mean though that it would make any political sense to do so or even politically possible.

If empty bedrooms were taxed then it would hit everybody including those who have already had their benefits reduced because they have empty bedrooms.  Such a suggestion clearly illustrates that the so called "bedroom tax" is NOT a tax at all.

[treefrog6352]

Muslims in Birmingham are getting around the bedroom tax by calling it the family prayer room, so this may help people to get around it.....

[al**bear]

Do People who have been in a Private rented property from before the Original HB changes under Labour in 2008 still pay less than everyone else for unused bedrooms.