In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:32:08 on Tue, 20 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats, according
to some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to avoid the
bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people out
of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those more
deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of housing
benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the accommodation
in question[1].

Now comment on how that differs from the point I was replying to.

Converging with a question asked in another(?) thread earlier, they also
cap the benefit to the rental of an average(?) property of the size that
it's determined you qualify for.

If you are in rented accommodation (private or council) then it will
tend to encourage people to downsize, leaving the larger properties
available for larger households. Assuming you can even still get housing
benefit as an owner-occupier, they are the ones most likely to be
under-funded.

[1] For example, a family of parents and two children won't qualify for
more than a three-bedroom house. So if you happen to be living in a
five bedroom house, that two "extraneous" rooms.

All very good. Now explain how making an exiting property smaller would
meet any of those objectives. Unless there were an excess of larger
properties. In which case the bedroom tax *would* have been simply
punitive.

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.