The disadvantage of benefits

I couldn't see the fuss about the so-called 'bedroom tax'.  It wasn't a tax as far as I was concerned, it was just a way of balancing out home sizes for people in socially funded accommodation, nothing was being taken away from people, they were merely being given less if they didn't 'need' the bedrooms.  Having recently been on benefits, I also found that it irked that I got so little, having paid tax all my working life, 29 years, and yet those who have never contributed to the system were seemingly being given more than the average national wage in benefits. I think like that, and I don't even read the Daily Mail.  It bothers me that I think like that, and it bothers me that I was so willing to accept that cutting benefits without thought is, was or could be acceptable.

A friend who works in housing and who is also far more compassionate than I am explained it to me in more detail.  The benefit is cut where the local authority deem a tenant has more bedrooms than they need.  The person or family in that accommodation has to find the money AND if they can't pay in the long-term should 'plan ahead' by finding a smaller property.  But it is the tenants themselves who have to find a smaller property that will accept them, that isn't done for them.  The government is not saying 'we think you don't need a house that size, we have a smaller property for you', they are being 'encouraged' to either move, pay more or, if they can't pay, get into debt.

Even more cruelly, if tenants cannot pay the extra sum and end up in debt over housing costs, they cannot be transferred by their local authority.  The rules state that housing debt is not taken with you to a new tenancy if you move /are moved.  It is the responsibility of the relevant housing provider to pursue arrears.  This seems to result in a tacit policy of 'don't move those who owe'.  Most housing providers won't consider moving tenants if they have arrears and a new landlord generally won't consider accepting tenants who have arrears.  The exception is if a household is considered vulnerable - in this case the housing provider would have to evict them for arrears, and then they would immediately be picked up by the local authority and put back on the cycle of being homeless, housed in temporary accommodation (usually very unsuitable) and then eventually rehoused.  The result is huge stress for the household, a costly legal process for the housing provider and the local authority has the expense of housing them anyway - this has a threefold impact on the taxpayer ... you and I, the people who are meant to be better off and happier by putting people through this stress.  Households who are not considered to be vulnerable will be evicted onto the street.

Are politicians really saying that putting people on the street is a saving for taxpayers?  Are they really saying 'this will win votes?  Have they learned nothing from Spain's example?   For many it will be be a particularly vicious catch 22 - they can't transfer to somewhere else if they can't pay the extra money, and yet they can't pay the money if they have no extra income to make up the shortfall.  There is a shortage in social housing, so where are they expected to move to?  Many private landlords are loathe to lend to social tenants because the social services do not pay the rent directly to landlords, they pay it to the tenants.  Social tenants are deemed feckless and untrustworthy.

Calling it 'bedroom tax' or call it 'housing benefit reform' makes little difference.  To the right it was a presumed vote winner under the guise of 'not taking money from hardworking taxpayers'  To the left it is now a gift of a vote winner because it is a reform that has been so badly thought out.  It shouldn't be about votes, it should be about treating people fairly.  Create jobs, create opportunities, build affordable homes, give everyone a better standard of living, then start looking at taking away benefits.  The country is so badly in debt, what is another billion when the alternative is making people homeless through no actual fault of their own?  The government appears to be dabbling in the business of becoming a slum landlord.

It may seem unfair that some people on benefits are being paid more than those in employment, but how is evicting people a way of redressing the balance?   The benefits system is there to provide a safety net.  From experience I know that it does not provide enough to live on.  Where households receive more in benefits than those in work, it is because they have been assessed as in need.  It is more of a reflection on low wages than on over-generous benefits.  Cost cutting policies during a recession should not hit those most in need and it should definitely not hit them the hardest.  I don't see how making the poor even poorer will help us out of a recession.

(Huge thank you to friend who provided the insight into local authority housing)