Skip to main content

The bedroom tax is cruel because it is indiscriminate and fails the test of justice.

Since publishing my previous article on the cruelty of  the 'bedroom tax', several readers have pointed to the unfairness of people occupying houses with 'spare' rooms whilst others are in need. It is an argument repeated by government ministers. Often they cite the numbers of empty houses, as if the two could easily be matched.

But pointing to one unfairness, the shortage of suitable homes, cannot justify another, the indiscriminate injustice of forcing the poorest deeper into poverty, or for them to lose their homes. It is  particularly unjust if it is unlikely to resolve the problem, for it cannot then be justified on any utilitarian ethical consideration. It fails to give an equal consideration to the genuine interests and needs of all concerned. It neither addresses the plight of the homeless or those in overcrowded accommodation, nor does it address the problem of low pay and families struggling to pay their bills. Justice requires that people should be treated fairly.

The 'bedroom tax' is cruel because it is indiscriminate in its effect. It fails to take account of circumstances and real availability of housing stock. It seeks to turn one sector of the community against another. And it should be clear, the objective of the 'bedroom tax' is to reduce spending, not to solve the housing shortage. It is disingenuous for government ministers to suggest otherwise.

The Secretary of State, Mr Ian Duncan Smith says “These changes are about fairness. We will be able to make better use of our social housing stock, and help more families into their own home whilst keeping the welfare budget sustainable.”  This is not so.

Freeing up accommodation according to  'need' is at best a secondary objective, and from the studies cited in the DWP impact assessment,  is unlikely to be effective. Indeed, this is acknowledged by the DWP  in their impact assessment:

 "If all existing social sector tenants wished to move to accommodation of an appropriate size, there would be a mismatch between available accommodation and the needs of tenants."

The real cause of the shortage of suitable homes is the lack of social housing stock, not under-occupancy.  The stock of social housing is pitifully low.

But there are  two problems with the the empty housing argument. It makes the assumption that 1) a 'spare' room is not 'needed' and 2) that matching those who might need to move with available empty properties would be easy.  Simply counting the numbers of unoccupied social houses doesn't make them available or suitable for those who might be forced out of their homes by the 'bedroom tax'. It assumes the homes will be located suitably for available work, schools, transport links. it also fails to address the social cost of families being forced to move from communities where they have established ties. Focusing on the number of empty properties distracts us from the real need to build more homes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As