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

motherofallhangovers - Although I understand the point you are trying to make, using Hackney as an example is not a good one. I lived in London during the 80's and worked in Hackney for a bit. It was a strange mixture of very expensive private houses - to rent or buy, and lots of poor quality social housing. But it was very expensive to buy or rent even in the 80's.

None of my work colleagues could afford to buy in Hackney. Everybody was forced to buy or rent in places like Enfield and commute in. Only person I knew who could afford to rent privately in Hackney was 1 person renting illegally a sub let council flat. Another colleague was "lucky" and had a council flat with cheap rent. I seem to remember 1 bedroom flats were renting for £150 a week in Hackney in late 80's - apologies if my memory on this detail is wrong.

London has always been very expensive to rent or buy in. And areas fairly close to central london have always been particularly expensive to privately rent or buy in, including "rough" areas.

Why the hell does everyone think it's their god given right to live in London - one of the most expensive cities in the world?!

I lived in London all my adult life and was in a very small 2 bedroom flat with my husband and 1st baby. I loved where we were living and really enjoyed all the facilities London had to offer. We needed a bigger place for a family BUT WE COULD NOT AFFORD IT. So we moved out.

We now live in a large 4 bedroomed detached house 200 miles away from London where 3 kids and us can live comfortably. I appreciate the area we live in as it's more rural but if we could afford it, we would still be in London.

Working families have to make these types of choices all the time. It's a fucking joke that those on benefits seem to be exempt from having to make these financial choices in life because it's seen as their god given right.

As for the numbers of people on ESA.......do you honestly believe that none of them are coasting the entitlement culture. I knew literally thousands of people in London ( through my job) who were normal, young, fit people who were off sick for reasons such as "back pain" and "depression" when they were playing all sorts of sports, going on more holidays than we could possibly afford and mostly working on the side.

Yes I'm sure I'll get a flaming from the MN PC ostriches who don't want to take their head out of the sand but this is what is happening in many areas and it is wrong on so many levels.

I am 100% supportive of a welfare state and the NHS but to just keep throwing more and more money into it is plain and simply WRONG.

Can I just repeat, because it gets lost, that this cap will apply to sick/disabled benefits.

Included in the cap: ESA (too sick/disabled to do any work)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carers Allowance (looking after a disabled person)

Household is exempt: DLA (so sick/disabled needs personal care or has severe mobility problems).

Rather obviously, there are a lot of sick/disabled people not eligible for DLA. They're still quite likely to need some level of care, and may live with extended family or incur extra costs to cope. And they can hardly be incentivised to, er, not be ill (wow, think what we'd save on the NHS if that were true!)

And the govt plans to cap precisely these households.

I don't know where to start.

Why the rent for a four bed place, why not three beds? We had three beds with three children when we were both working full time in the city.

If I was a single mum I would give up a bedroom and sleep on the sofa for my children. Worse things have happened.

We have lived in the worst flats, seriously, when the double decker buses went past the building shaked, it was infested with mice, we were broken into twice.

We have been grossly unaccomadated.

We have both just worked and worked. Yes London rents are high. You just take what you can afford and work your way up. Ask your Granny, she would probably say that London rents are high, they always have been and always will.

I didn't think this cap would affect low paid workers so much. I thought it was a cap on benefits. So someone could still earn £10-15k a year and get top ups.

£2128 a month equates to just over £25,500 a year.

That's the rent for a 4 bed in a deprived bit of London, you probably wouldn't want to live in, not a posh bit!

The problem is the price of rents, not the people.

Can't you see that?

"If you can't afford to live in an exoensive area, then move."

Can you think that one through for a minute?

Do you really think it benefits society for families who have lived in the same area for ages to move because of this cap?

It will cost the state more money, as people will have to move away from existing family and support networks they have, and some will have to reply on public services more as a result.

Children will be uprooted from schools and people forced to leave their jobs.

How does that help anyone?

Do you really think it would benefit London, for example, to only have rich people in it? Where will the people come from who do the shitty jobs?
Will they have to commute into London, creating a new generation of latch-key kids? Or give up work and go on benefits maybe?

It's a terrible idea.

It'll cause widespread relocation IMO. Probably to Sunderland.

"I think if you want to live in an area where the average rent is very high then you should be able to afford it."

I grew up in Hackney. I lived for many years next to a road dubbed "murder mile" on account of - unsurprisingly - the frequent murders around there. On my road there was obvious crack dealing, and very vulnerable looking prostitutes hanging about. Definitely not posh.

However I have seen house prices there go up from about £50,000 for a 1 bed flat to £250,000 since the 90s.

It costs £1000 a month for a 1 bed flat now.

Findaproperty says it's £2,128 average for a 4 bed house.

This is the reality in London, even in the rough areas.

Luxury 8 bed villa

Okay then

ashamednamechanger - trouble is most of the jobs will be where the money is won't it.

If you are on benefits then what's the chances you'll find a job in a depressed area? (Let alone how do you find somewhere else to live if you have no money/car moving costs to relocate).

bubbly it's from the Office of National Statistics and is based on job seekers registered at their local JC who have been looking for full-time work and only been able to find part-time.

Most women in part-time work will not be on the radar of the statisticians anyway, since if their partners are working they do not count.

sunshine: "1.3 million people are now working part-time because they are unable to find a full-time role"

Do you know their reasons for certain? How many are choosing to work PT so that they can fit around family commitments and are making use of the flexible working schemes that have only really become available in recent years? Do you have a proper breakdown of that figure?

Madnortherner the families affected by these "nasty cuts" as you put are still going to be getting £35K,they are simply going to have to move to live within their means(like we all have to).

Not sure getting in touch with charities is necessary as thousands of families have to do this for work reasons every year,kids in forces families will do it every 1 or 2 years. Nobody on these threads bemoaning families having to move seem to give a stuff about them.

This will probably put the cat among the pigeons, but....I think if you want to live in an area where the average rent is very high then you should be able to afford it. If you can't afford to live in an exoensive area, then move.
Most folk will probably argue that they NEED to live in posh areas to be close to work, but those with huge families and no jobs obviously don't NEED to live in those areas.
My DH earns about £20K. We live in an area where that is a very good income. But, if we suddenly decided to upsticks and move to Chelsea or wherever the 'place to be' is at the moment, then we would not be able to afford it. So, we stay where we are, enjoy a good income/lifestyle in an area that allows us to do this.
We do not get ideas about moving to a luxury 8 bed villa in a posh area that we KNOW we cannott afford.
That is the poblem....people living on benefit beyond their means.

I will most likely lose my job later this year. I spent years qualifying for it, it is my passion (if it infuriates me at times because it is my passion), I am completing an MSc in it at present, I am pretty skilled at it.. forgive me if I don't think it's amazing that "there are LOTS of jobs out there, maybe not ones people want to do". I don't earn a fortune as it is, but I am absolute shockingly bad at cleaning and it would destroy me. This is not to say I think the state should sustain me long-term on benefits, but I would like the opportunity to "find my feet" and devote some time to perhaps getting a job in my field where I can continue to contribute usefully to society than just "keep my pride" and do something that takes up all my time and energy and takes away all my confidence.

The hard-core benefits users, the ones who know how to maximise what they get from the system, will find a way around this cap. It will disproportionately affect people who are temporarily unemployed due to the recession/mass cuts in the public and private sectors and whose skills really are better utilised in providing services/their skills in some other way than taking on a job in Poundland that is the only option for some who don't have the same skills to fall back on.

I agree with sheepgomeep that affordable childcare would be a good incentive for parents to get back to work. At one of my workplaces the nursery was means tested for all staff. The consultants would pay the full amount and lower paid workers such as Healthcare assistants and cleaners paid a percentage of the fees. As a result we had very loyal hard working staff

Are there lots of jobs out there? Really? Why then the recent ONS figures stating that there are:

2.68 million unemployed (don't forget this only includes the visible unemployed, so will not count the unemployed wife of a working man who desperately needs to get a job herself in order to pay the mortgage)

1.3 million people are now working part-time because they are unable to find a full-time role: the highest number since records began in 1992.

On average, there are 23 people applying for every available job. Some sectors have as many as 50 applying per job, while graduates are competing against 69 rivals for each job.

So much depends on where you live, your transport links and whether or not you have children. It is not always as easy as 'there are always jobs out there, just get one.'

I now realise why I usually steer clear of AIBU threads - only came here because it's made discussion of the day.

This thread has depressed me almost more than the news it's discussing. Can someone point me to a charity or still-running council service where I might be able to help the children of families who will be affected by these nasty cuts?

The people who lose out most in any benefit system seem to be the single people with a mortgage.

It seems grossly unfair to me that if as a single person you have a modest job (let's say earning £25k before tax) and a mortgage, you can lose your job and be entitled to nothing more than £67.50/wk JSA and council tax benefit.

In the same position but renting and with a child, you'd be entitled to VASTLY more money. Not just a reasonable amount to cover the expenses associated with raising a child.

How can that be fair?

I went to see the Da Vinci Exhibition at the National Potrait Gallery today and about half of the staff working there were not British as is the case with most places in London. I think the current benefits system means you are not significantly better off by working in lower paid jobs so if you can claim benefits you do, so these jobs are now being done by immigrants who are not entitled to benefits. Madness!

More money should go to working people both those with kids, and those without. You should never be better off on benefits than working. Sadly, this is not the case at the moment.

OH. and I hate hearing people saying there are no jobs out there. There are LOTS of jobs out there - maybe ones that people don't want to do (cleaning jobs for eg) but if you needed a job, you would find one. Last year I worked 4 jobs side by side, 7 days a week. Cleaning toilets, public areas, barwork - all crappy jobs, but they paid my mortgage. But then I'd rather have my pride than sit on my ass sponging off hard working tax payers.

Wants to live where sheepgomeep lives.

There aren't enough jobs. For the love of all things good and holy will people please start to understand this fact before posting that people should work. Of course they should and in ideal world they would. In reality that will never happen.