In the United States, there are an abundance of these laws. For example, in Lee County, Alabama, it is illegal to sell peanuts after sundown. In New York, you can receive a fine of $25 for flirting. In Switzerland, it is illegal to hang clothes to dry on a Sunday. These of course, are laws that time has typically forgotten about. They are old and generally ignored and, one would think, if a situation arose whereby someone was apprehended for such a "crime" as these, the law-makers and courts would no doubt throw out the case and review the law quite quickly. At least, we can hope so.
We are no stranger to strange laws in Ireland and the UK. In Ireland, people can receive a jail term for up to a year, and face social ostracizing, if convicted of practicing witchcraft. In the United Kingdom, under the reign of William III of Orange, they introduced the "window tax". The window tax was designed to raise the revenue generated by the government from more prosperous members of British society. However, the end result, due in part to the housing booms experienced in up-and-coming urban areas, was that windows were bricked up and social upheaval ensued. It was deemed to be a most unnecessary inquiry into people's personal finances (something that they felt the government had no right to know). All across Britain, once beautiful house fronts were tarnished with cheap and hideous masking that can still be seen today in parts of the UK's cities and towns. The law, while eventually deemed unreasonable, was introduced in 1696 and was not repealed until 1851.
One can almost excuse the government of the time for introducing the law. There was a far lesser understanding of the living conditions of people from less privileged backgrounds and there certainly were far fewer systems whereby government, its actors and agencies could interact with citizens to get contextually rich estimations of living standards. Bear in mind, this is not a statement of validity nor a vindication for the law, it is simply a comparison between social channels and understandings possessed by governments of the time and of those of the present.
We look back at all of these laws and we jeer and joke about their stupidity. We can make an effort to understand the rationale behind their introduction and, in some cases, we can. In other cases, we deem them ridiculous. And rightfully so in both cases. We generally are glad and are happy with the progress we feel that democracy has made and it re-emphasizes any faith we have in our systems of government and our leaders. For clarity's sake, it allows us to reaffirm our belief in electing people to represent us.
However, it seems that Bob Dylan was wrong and the times, they aren't a changing. As a part of the UK's Welfare Reform Act 2012, the introduction of, what is now dubbed, the "Bedroom Tax" looks ever more likely to be introduced in April of 2013. "What's the bedroom tax?", you say. Well, in a nutshell...
According to housing.org.uk
Welfare reforms will cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home.
The size criteria in the social rented sector
will restrict housing benefit to allow for one bedroom for each
person or couple living as part of the household, with the
following exceptions:
- Children under 16 of same gender expected to share
- Children under 10 expected to share regardless of gender
- Disabled tenant or partner who needs non resident overnight carer will be allowed an extra bedroom
The cut will be a fixed percentage of the
Housing Benefit eligible rent. The Government has said that this
will be set at 14% for one extra bedroom and 25% for two
or more extra bedrooms.
The Government’s impact assessment shows that
those affected will lose an average of £14 a week. Housing
association tenants are expected to lose £16 a week on average.
The proposal will affect an estimated 660,000
working-age social tenants – 31% of existing working-age housing
benefit claimants in the social sector. The majority of these
people have only one extra bedroom.
Seems to weird to be true right? According to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government, it doesn't.
To be fair, it is seldom that social welfare reforms baffle me, it is seldom that I find them completely unreasonable. It is simple to understand and reconcile with the notion that, in times of economic hardship, government's need to tighten their belts. In Ireland, social welfare payments to young adults was reduced by 50%. It seems drastic, but it did prove to be a worthwhile cause in that is stimulated many within the demographic to take up back-to-work programs. Many went back into education. It perhaps was not the most tactful way of going about it, and was indeed very Thatcherite in its rationale, but it has had a seemingly positive effect on young people. Recently, changes to the pension schemes for long-time career public servants were amended which forced many people working in government institutions to seek early retirement. This had positive and negative effects of course. Firstly, a huge contingent of experienced and, I use the following term loosely, relevant workers to leave their posts early. Secondly, it meant that, in some cases, people who would otherwise not be tenured enough in a job were thrust into higher positions they perhaps were not ready for (an issue that has been highlighted by many academics in Irish educational institutions who were forced to retire). On the otherhand, it has allowed for many people to enter into the workforce in positions that would otherwise not be available. As well as this, it has removed much of the "old guard" (another issue that has been highlighted by the same academics but, is viewed positively).
Indeed, while this is one feature of the welfare reforms experiences in Ireland, there are a number of others that are met with much greater furor and condemnation by members of Irish society.
However, the problem that has emerged is that the British government has reverted to archaic methods that make little sense and are, for all intents and purposes, moronic. To penalize those living in council housing for having 'unoccupied' bedrooms is both unfair and unjust. They seem to ignore the fact that a large number of these people are elderly and may have lost a family member or more and are thus, living alone. This is most insensitive and inexcusable. What''s more is that they are encouraging people who are in possession of an unoccupied bedroom to seek lodgers to take over the room. There is something rather unsavory about a government suggesting that people take in strangers into their homes when we live in a world where we hardly know our own neighbors anymore. Also, in all fairness, it is not the governments place to tell people to open up their homes. It's quite perverse and haphazard on the governments behalf.
Let's examine the scenario. Let's pretend I am an elderly man who, due to the social reforms, is forced to seek a lodger to let a room in my council house. What if this lodger attacked me and stole my personal belongings? Will the government compensate me? It was, afterall, their suggestion. In fact, they told me to do it if I wanted to maintain my current benefit payment. What if I can't get a lodger but have tried hard to do so? Will the government recognize my efforts and give me a waiver?
These are just a few suggestions and issues that arise when I think about this reform. In all, it is a most careless, ruthless and perhaps dangerous law to enforce. There are many more issues, such as the large numbers of people it will force below the poverty line.
With any luck, the government will review this potential and planned reform so that it is not as ridiculous or dangerous. It comes across as a desperate and, to be honest, lazy attempt as cutting costs in social spending. If a reform like this was introduced, it would spell the potential for more bizarre conditions that would lead to a loss of benefits. The British government have been spending too much time listening to Ryanair's Michael O'Leary. Maybe the coalition government's tagline should change from "Freedom, Fairness, Responsibility" to "Con-Lib: The No-Fair Regime" (pronounce 'Regime' as 'ray-gyme').
Let me know your thoughts on this matter. Email smokinghotcoffee@gmail.com with your comments or questions.
