Get What You Pay For

I can't get too worked up about this business of a so-called bedroom tax.

I heard some folks on Question Time the other night trying to argue that this was another Poll Tax - which seems to me a ludicrous argument.

Because all that's really happening is that tenants in the social housing sector are being brought into line - with everyone else living in the real world.

Which is that if you buy or rent a property in the private sector which has more space and more rooms - then you get what you pay for - the more room need or want the more you pay.

So, a two-bedroom flat in the centre of Glasgow (depending on its size and condition) would cost you, say, around £600 per month.

But if you only needed or wanted a one-bedroom flat you would pay around half that amount - or £300 per month.

Now the argument only becomes heated when you turn to people on benefits - because the new rules mean that if people want to have more space and more room/s - then they have to pay extra.

In future, because the people concerned aren't working and are not paying their own rent - the notional 'extra amount' is to be deducted from their benefits.

Unless the person moves to a smaller property, if they don't want to pay a bit more - or they lose part of their housing benefit for living in a larger property.

Now I would call such a system fair since the principle is that everyone should be treated in  broadly the same way - always remembering that social housing is already subsidised with public money.

The issue for me would be that if some people have very specific needs - then any new system should be sufficiently flexible to cope - which can only come down to individual circumstances, of course.

Always remembering that if everyone is a special case - then no one is really special at all - but the underlying principle involved is one of being fair to everybody.

I heard one person on a radio phone-in complain that their son was in the army and when he came home from serving his country -then  this brave soldier would have nowhere to stay - except the sofa in the living room, if his family had to give up their 'spare' bedroom.

Now this highly emotional argument seems to me to be missing the point - because why doesn't the son just pay the difference and then he would have a place to stay - if he didn't want to buy or rent his own?

Then everybody would be happy.  

The bullet that the country's politicians have to bite is that while every political party says it's in favour of welfare reform - as soon as anyone tables a firm proposal - all the opposition parties gang up to say it's unfair and a monstrous idea.

Which is the equivalent of telling people that you're going to make them a nice tasty omelette - without breaking any eggs.