to think the south east has started to expel the poor

[ubik]

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/13/london-council-relocation-benefits-cap

Basically Camden Council cannot cover the housing benefit for these families due to government cap on benefits. These families would have to find an extra £90/week to make up the shortfall. As I understand it, there is nowhere in the south east cheap enough for these people to live.

So they are considering moving them to a cheaper region up north, hundreds of miles away from their families, schools, jobs, friends, neighbours.

I find this incredibly depressing as someone who grew up in a normal family in London.
Is the south east expelling the poor?

[fromparistoberlin]

suprise it all got political

and yet again anyone who sees this as common sense is a "chav hating, cameron loving TORY Daily Mail loving cunt", to maybe paraphrase a tad!
and "I cant afford to live in Chelsea, so why should BENEFITS"
such a simplistic view,,,,


yawn, yawn, yawn

Its Westminster. A high cost area in a high cost city.
London is huge and has a massive tube Network, people could find more affordable rent in most places Zone 3 outwards


and it would be a hell of alot greener than Camden too I dare say

[JakeBullet]

too many people dependant on the state to find their lifestyle


Or perhaps just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table eh? Many people would need less support if they were paid a living wage.


The State funds my lifestyle...as the parent of a disabled child.
It finds my friends lifestyle to care for her disabled child while she works part time.


I don't have holidays
I don't live in Chelsea
I DO live in the south east near my family who support my care of my son

I am not affected this rent cap but I would be mightily pissed off if I were because my support network is vital. I can bet there are others in the same position as me in the areas people are discussing.

It's fault of successive Government .....and this one is tackling buggar all and ignoring the warnings of respected organisations and people who are telling them this is wrong.

[Viviennemary]

The simple fact is this. And it has already been said. You just cannot have people on benefits receiving a substantial amount more money all tax free than people who work and don't qualify for benefits and pay tax. That is why this Government is trying to do something about the unfairness. Young people are stuck in rented accommodation because they cannot afford to buy. Or are stuck at home with parents because they can't afford rents.

[StormyBrid]

Viviennemary - I think we'd all broadly agree with "You just cannot have people on benefits receiving a substantial amount more money all tax free than people who work and don't qualify for benefits and pay tax".

What I and many others here don't understand is why some people think the logical response is to decrease benefits. Benefits are set at the minimum level required to survive. That means people who earn less than they could get in benefits (and I am not suggesting such people exist in any great number or at all) are working for less wages than they need to survive.

Why are people happy to work for such a pittance? And why do so many of you think that it's right that we should all be happy to work for such pitiful wages?

[myrubberduck]

plenty of people on benefits are in work ( legitimately!) . At the moment the benefits system subsidises low wages in the private sector and subsidises private sector rents keeping them high

That cannot be right. But I feel very uncomfortable about simply letting 'market forces' correct the problem because in the short and probablly medium term it is the low paid workers who loose out by being forced to move. And not being able to live closer to their work until either (a)wages rise to make it economical to live in London or (b) private sector rents fall as they ineviatably will once the HB 'prop' is partially removed.

Not sure what the solution is really.

[Viviennemary]

I agree with Rhiannon86. You do not need £2000 a month plus to survivie. You need that amount to make a lifestyle choice to live in what (someoby else said it) is one of the most expensive cities in the world. And minimum wages won't rise to £36,000 a year.

Paying out those colossal amounts in housing benefits in London has made the situation much much worse and has made people too dependent on the state. And has fuelled house prices. And has encouraged property developers. And has driven ordinary working people on reasonable wages out of those very areas these other people think they are entitled to live in on public money. Sorry but it's one of the best things this government has done.

[wordfactory]

stormy the logical response is to decrease benefits because the claimant is actually benefitting! The landlord is.

These properties are simply not worth the rent. If the LL had to get a non HB renter there is no way he would get that level. Why should the tax payer line the LL's pockets?

[wordfactory]

Soory the claimant isn't benefitting. The landlord is.

[StormyBrid]

Depends entirely on how many dependants you have and what your rent is, Rhiannon86. As has been said repeatedly, most benefit claimants don't receive anything like £2000 per month. And while I fully agree that tax credits prop up low wages, I can't see how removing them would cause wages to increase. Do feel free to enlighten me on that one.

[cantspel]

The whole country is screwed.
Wages are driven down due to the plentyful supply of eastern europeans willing to work mw and below but they all need housing even if they are prepared to live in substandard housing and over crowded.
A large number of these young men will flock to the south east and london as that is where there is more work.
Then you have people moaning about the lack of affordable housing and the lack of jobs paying a living wage.
The simple truth is we cannot afford to keep letting more and more people into the uk. We cannot house the ones who are here nor can we supply jobs.

The country cannot afford the benefits system as it stands, nor can we afford to offer the same benefits to everyone who wants to make their home here.

Sits back and waits for the all the calls of racist.

[StormyBrid]

Wordfactory - agreed that the landlord benefits. But capping housing benefit doesn't bring rents down. If you decrease housing benefit because rents are high, then people reliant on housing benefit cannot afford to rent privately. There isn't the social housing available for them. So where are they supposed to live?

[wordfactory]

But stormy HB and Tax credits and all the rest allow the likes of Starbucks to pay piss poor wages. These benefits subsidise big business!

[wordfactory]

Capping benefits will bring certain rents down, becuase those LLs will not be able to charge that rent to the non HB market.

If they could, don't you think they would be doing so?

These tend to be large old houses...for which there is much less demand in London.

[StormyBrid]

I know! We appear to be totally in agreement on that point! So what do we do about it? I would suggest that merely capping benefits while taking no action to address the issues of low wages and high rents is not going to solve the problem.

[Viviennemary]

I haven't had a single Starbucks coffee since the scandal about their tax emerged. And won't be having one. Benefit should not be subsidising private business. And that includes landlords. I don't care who is benefitting from these subsidies. It isn't me that is for sure. I want benefits to go to the needy and that doesn't mean people living in expensive areas that most of us can only dream about living in. And if that's envy then so be it.

If people are needed to work in London then the employers should be paying them sufficiently not robbing other people to pay them.

[maisiejoe123]

Can I please understand - some people are being paid £1500-£2000 in their bank accounts to cover their rents in London, some of these people are not working at all. It is the equivilant of earning £35k without doing a stroke of work

Blimey......

What stops them pocketing the money and allowing the rent to just stack up. Landlord trieds to evict, all the pressure groups come out saying you cannot evict, 2 children etc etc. Renter finally leaves having trashed the house....

Surely capping benefits will force the prices in London down? And realistically if you are not working and havent been for a while there must come a time where you lose the option to live in London. If and many others lost their jobs we wouldnt be able to afford to live there. Full Stop. Why is it any different for people claiming benefits

[maisiejoe123]

And what about people coming from Romania and Bulgaria next year... Take a typical scenario - Family plus 3 children present themselves at Heathrow. They are homeless and unskilled. They would like to try and live in London. Thats where all the jobs are apparently.

So, are we going to agree to this with them having paid NOTHING into the system?

Still just checking that this couldnt possibly happen could it....

[gaelicsheep]

Can we please please separate the outrage over the amount people have to pay in private rent, necessitating huge housing benefits payouts that go into the pocket of private landlords, and the actual amount that the average family actually sees to live off? People are not being "paid" £2000 a month tax free to sit and do nothing. It is a ridiculous thing to say, it is not true and never will be. There may be a few exceptions for very large families, but that is what they are - exceptions, unusual cases.

Housing benefit and the amount people have to live off are two totally different things. Later on I will try to look up some figures, unless anyone else would care to do so/has done so.

[maisiejoe123]

They are being given a certain amount of money to 'pay' for where they are living. If the money goes to the landlord they are gaining the benefit of living in a house that are way beyond the dreams of most working families.

I am of course talking about people who have no one working for their household, of course they are looking but have for example not had a job for 12 months. When does the council start to look at moving them out of the area? Others would need to leave if they lost their jobs. I am wondering what is so different about people on benefits. Do they need protection in some way?

[gaelicsheep]

Some people are implying that if moved to a cheaper area families on benefits will still be living the life of riley on £2000 a month. It is crap.

And I don't know how many times it needs pointing out that most housing benefit claimants are working people, in the case of London many of them are the people doing the essential public service jobs that you rely on.

I bring home around £2000 a month after tax. Why am I not up in arms about this like so many on this thread? Because I try to inform myself rather than allow kneejerk jealousy to take hold.