In hoping the benefits cap may prove to be A Good Thing?

i do agree somewhat with a cap but this would be a cap on how much cash was allocated NOT including rent

different parts of the country can vary alot.i think each county/council should set a reasonable amount regarding HB for their area

but cash benefits should be capped (disabled obviously generous disregards) the cap would include a cap on how many children would be payed for etc

no easy solution,and so many ???????

i also say this as a claimant with children but do see that for a variety of reasons benefit dependency is not good for anybody,and i suppose we have to start somewhere,trouble is its always going to be unpopular,whats the answer

I am not sure that the benefits cap will affect rents. My rent is high, in excess of 1k a month but it needs to be that high to cover the mortgage of the landlord. There is a glut of rented out houses because the owners had to move for worker personal reasons but they can't sell or won't sell at a loss. Ironically I have a despotic to buy a house saved in the bank and we earn enough to buy the house we rent. I will it pay what the owner would wish to sell it for and the owner does not want to sell what I , or most other buyers, would be willing to pay. So I am in my house waiting for the prices to drop, paying less than I would be for a mortgage, my deposit is in a high interest account and the landlord is paying for repairs.

My house, along with other expensive rented houses , would not be let out to someone on benefits. I have just been reading the Independent and in their Comments column they refer to benefits claimants who have never worked living it up in their West Hampstead pads. Most houses let to people on benefits are not luxurious pads in prime locations. I used to be a tenant on benefits, most places would not take me. I ended up in a damp house on a dodgy road where I was burgled by drug addicts twice.

There is also a difference between a single average wage which may be around 26K and a household wage. The benefits cap is for a household not an individual.

Having been homemade at the beginning of 2011 and having received not one ounce of help from the council as I work I may come across as bitter. However I do feel something big needs to be done to reform the country.
The housing situation can only get worse. The average small 3 bed semi or terraced house here is at least £200k and the vast majority seem to be being brought by buy to let landlords as the wages here don't allow people to buy their own homes.
I don't object to privatley rented houses, I live in one, but I do object to the huge rents that is charged. I am looking at moving areA, but first I need to find a job as what would be the point of moving and then having to claim full benefits as not working?
I bang my head in despair as I reAlly do not know how the country can rectify the problem?

thats rubbish. there's a lack of housing practically everywhere - especially in the south and london - in both cheap and expensive areas

beacause there aren't enough homes for them in cheaper areas. They will spend YEARS in temporary accommodation. Temp accom is expensive about £400pw. No saving , just social cleansing.

when i bought my first flat i couldn't afford to buy one in the area i really wanted to live in, and i had to get one in the much more downmarket location next door. i accepted this because thats all i could afford and i knew that no-one was going to bail me out.

why should people on benefits be any different? they should move to cheaper areas. And as to the social cleansing argument - may of these areas have already been cleansed of working people - i don't see any of you arguing against this

Oh OP, YABM

You. Are. Being. Misled.

So YABU

"But the 26k is an overall cap, not a cap on housing benefits - and this I agree with."

Lesley It's housing benefit that drives it up to 26k. In cheaper areas the max is nowhere near this. But the person with 26k will have the same income after housing costs as the person on much less. And it is on this income that they will either have to make up the rent shortfall or find somewhere else. So I actually disagree with it as some people will be forced to choose between eating or paying their rent. Some will be made homeless and very likely forced into bed and breakfast. This is because demand for private rentals outstrips supply NATIONWIDE.

The Tories won't let the rental market crash. They would lose far too many votes.

They are cleansing London and the south east of the people most likely to vote Labour. Even Boris Johnson thinks so!

"He said: ?David Cameron has got it wrong again and has shown that he is completely out of touch with the pressures on hard-working families across Britain by claiming that rents are falling across the country, when the evidence shows that they are rising.?"

www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/private-landlords-dismiss-cameron-rent-claim/6520018.article

1)Rents are rising despite LHA (housing benefit)cuts

2. A lot of misleading misinformation on this , see above article.

3. IDS and Cameron are nasty little cunts.

Step 2 Cut funding for Social Services so that mentally ill people and addicted people end up on the streets.

Lougle Would point out that benefits aren't taxed, in reality this equates to a taxed income (1 person) of around £35k. I couldn't be less tory, but I think this may be worth a try. I can't afford to live near family in central London, so I don't. I can't afford a bedroom for each potential child, so I don't have one. etc

How To Create Slums And Ghettos:

Step 1: make a person on benefits move to a place that has "affordable" rent.

A working family have to move to an "affordable" place to buy so why shouldn't a person on benefits move to a place that has "affordable" rent.

I live in Canada where there is no equivalent of HB for singles and the unemployed. They do give poor working families something like HB. You had better believe that there are lots and lots and lots of people sleeping on the street. I have worked in shelters here and in the UK and it is much worse here.

I earn a wage for 40 hours a week I also £56 a week HB, £47 WTC and 96 DLA.

I have no children at home, thats just for me.

!!! URGENT BENEFIT CAP UPDATE !!! Government have updated their Benefit Cap impact assessment by removing 3 sentences from the original. This is scandalous and it looks like a deliberate attempt to apply 'spin' upon this afternoons debate and a sure sign that they are running scared. I urge peers and the public alike not to be influenced by this FLAGRANT attempt to manipulate the impact assessment to suit the governments own agenda. The new version says: The cap is likely to affect where different family types will be able to live. It is not possible to quantify these costs because they are based on behavioural changes which are difficult to assess robustly. And this is what the old version said, in the same space. The cap is likely to affect where different family types will be able to l...ive. Housing benefit may no longer cover housing costs and some households may go into rent arrears. This will require expense and effort by landlords and the courts to evict and seek to recoup rent arrears. Some households are likely to present as homeless, and may as a result need to move into more expensive temporary accommodation, at a cost to the local authority. It is not possible to quantify these costs because they are based on behavioural changes which are difficult to assess robustly. The three embarrassing sentences (in the middle) have just been deleted from the new version. PLEASE SHARE!See more
From Benefit Claimants Fight Back fb

They wont lower their rents they just wont rent to those on benefits, its hard enough for someone on benefits to rent, it will just be harder.

"sleepyinseattle Mon 23-Jan-12 16:50:52

I'm not sure why people are doubting that people are claiming in excess of 26k in benefits and that there isn't a huge disparity between working vs. not working exists - there is... taken from a previous poster that I spotted last week:

^Wages (20 hours per week) £209
Housing Benefit £188 (leaving £7 for us to pay)
Council tax benefit £19 (leaving £3 for us to pay
Tax Credits £196
Working tax credits £13
Child benefit £60.50
Thats over £35K tax free! DH's fulltime wage was £34k before tax.^

Ummm...well take off the £209 because that is wages, so already subject to tax, and not benefits.

so £476.50 per week in benefits (£24,778)

£269 per week is actual 'cash benefit'

Take off £60.50 per week because all parents get it

£208.50.

They would not be entitled to school meals because they get £13 per week in Working Tax Credit.

For example, I have 3 children. School meals would be £30 per week, but because we receive £8 in WTC, we aren't entitled to free school meals, which means that in effect we are £22 per week worse off.

sounds like it will affect people living in expensive areas the most. since many working families can't afford to live in these places it seems a bit off that people on benefits can - especially those on benefits over 6 months. and i guess people living in very big properties - again many working people can't afford them so why should benefit claimants have them?

people will have to move to cheaper areas, which is what many working people do when they try and buy houses - especially at first

I think the cap to housing benefits is a different issue and I think this is having a big impact in some areas. Where I live you could rent a house no problem for that, but in some areas where house prices are high, the rental market is very tough.

But the 26k is an overall cap, not a cap on housing benefits - and this I agree with.

I'm not sure why people are doubting that people are claiming in excess of 26k in benefits and that there isn't a huge disparity between working vs. not working exists - there is... taken from a previous poster that I spotted last week:

^Wages (20 hours per week) £209
Housing Benefit £188 (leaving £7 for us to pay)
Council tax benefit £19 (leaving £3 for us to pay
Tax Credits £196
Working tax credits £13
Child benefit £60.50
Thats over £35K tax free! DH's fulltime wage was £34k before tax.^

Then you also have to add in:

• Commuting costs not needing to be paid (public transport pass or forced to run a car, potentially paying parking or tolls for the bridge or congestion charge, or buy a bike - whatever)
• Work clothes not needing to be bought / less wear and tear on shoes/coat
• Childcare stuff
• School meals potentially
• Eye exams / glasses
• Dental bills
• Prescriptions

I think the above highlights that if you're on a middle wage, earning just about too much to get help so having to fund most of your living costs yourself, it can easily spiral that you end up in a worse situation financially than someone on benefits.

Sorry, part of that was to lesley.