To think that a 23k benefits cap will drive some families in the SE

[Minifingers9]

... Into destitution?

I live in a pretty unappealing and comparatively cheap part of greater London but you can't get a 3 bedroom rental for under £1400 a month.
If we lost our jobs we wouldn't be able to live on 23k a year as a family of 5. Not when 15k of it was going on rent.
Why don't they have regional benefit caps?

yeah but surely the rent or most of it would be paid by the state anyway?

This is why we need some serious house building schemes and rent capping. But yes yanbu, people on low incomes and benefits will be forced to move away.

I agree that they should look at the cost of living in different areas when proposing a benefits cap. I'm not sure if the 23k cap includes rent, but it seems ridiculous to have a blanket limit across the whole country.

The £23k cap includes any money paid onwards rent.

Then you rent a two-bed flat like plenty of us in the SE already have to (!)

I can see the argument for regional benefit caps, but I can also see the argument for regional pay for nurses, teachers, police, fire fighters (endless list). They all get paid the same across the country but some have far higher living costs than others. Unless pay is varied according to region I don't think benefit caps can be.

I think when there is no disability involved, a cap of £23,000 is fair. I'd think that if two adults both lost their jobs at the same time, then them both being out of work would only be a short term thing, and if it was to turn in to both partners being unemployed long term, then that's when it's time to look at living in a cheaper area.

I see where you're coming from with the regional differences, but the places with high living costs also tend to be the places where there are jobs available, so there's no reason to think that in the situation you describe, a couple living in an expensive area would both be out of work long term.

Then you rent a two-bed flat like plenty of us in the SE already have to (!)

True, but does the cap apply no matter the size of family? I imagine there are some families with 3 or 4 children who couldn't fit into a 2 bedroom flat.

Lots of people who own property in the South East do so on a large mortgage. If they lost their jobs they also would be in trouble. So what? London is an expensive place to live, a Porsche is an expensive car to drive, Lobster is an expensive food to eat. If you lose your job you may have to give up expensive things.

I think the idea is that London is for the rich - and you only live there if you can afford it. I'm not sold by that plan, though.

On the other hand, regional caps would only work if wages were regional too.

For example, my DF worked for an international company and in the eighties it closed down a factory in the north west. Employees, who were all paid the same across the country, were invited to relocate to another factory in the south. They were shocked by the sudden drop in their spending power such a move would create and wondered how their southern colleagues had coped.

I moved out of London to the coast, all of the activities my children do are more expensive here than they were in se London!
We had swimming for free - now I pay £12 for 3 of us
Overdue library book for kids were free - now there's a charge
Cubs was £1.50 in London - it's £3 here

I personally think you can't regionalise the benefits cap.

But that would leave you 8k for food, travel utilities Tec, is this really not doable? It's £153 a week!!

True, but does the cap apply no matter the size of family? I imagine there are some families with 3 or 4 children who couldn't fit into a 2 bedroom flat

I've yet to meet an employer who paid a larger salary to people with more children so i can't see why it should be any different on benefits.

London and SE has always been out of reach for most people north of Birmingham, I know its worse now but it doesn't matter if it is 2x or 10x out of your range, if you can't afford it then you can't afford it.

Me and dh would have loved to stay and work in the North when starting out.
We had family and friends up here and would have been lovely for our dc growing up with family.
There wasn't the work at the time, so we had to move 250 miles away to where the work was.
It took us 12 years to be able to move back here again.

All you can do is go with what is available at the time, unfortunately.
Any benefit cap should be the same nationally.

A lot of people have to move out of London and surroundings areas because of high house prices. So I don't see why the state should subsidise people to live in those expensive areas. House prices cannot be propped up by the state. There is another world outside London though you sometimes wouldn't think so.

I live in London. But not in Kensington. I'd like to live in Kensington. But I can't afford it. I do not expect the state to help me to live in Kensington. Lots of people can't live where they want to live due to lack of money. So what?

London prices are out of reach for most people in the SE. Even when they are families where two adults work. There's no reason why an unemployed couple should be able to afford to live in London indefinitely entirely on benefits.

It's going to cause huge problems like you say Because the cap includes everything. So 1400 rent is £16800 minus say child benefit for 3 kids is £2500 that leaves the max of £3700 for the family to live on per year which is £71 a week! That's the same as one adult would get on JSA.

At least before cap each child would get tax credits/child benefit around £70 per week plus each adult would get an allowance.

There is such a demand for housing it's unlikely to push rents down its more likely for someone to charge max rent for the u safest grittiest place going knowing only people on benefits will take it. As no one will rent to anyone on benefits.

Once rent is paid there should be a mim each family member should get its just going cost more in the long run

It would be very harsh to say that any parent who left single parent or gets sick and dosnt go back to work straight away or loses their job must immediately leave their home, schools families and area. With no home of every coming back because "no one on benefits should live in London!" Let's hope none of you get widowed or wake up with aide changing Illness in the morning

So they'll have to move. I couldn't afford to live in London so I don't. Alluding to something a pp said, I can't afford to eat in the Savoy every day so I don't. I can't afford to have a holiday on a private yacht so I don't.

I moved 200 miles away from family and friends for a job. I didn't give it a second thought.

Sorry but I think its a bit unfair to expect people living in cheaper parts of the country to be entitled to less in benefits, simply because the rent is cheaper in their area.

Most working people couldn't afford to live in London, so why should those on benefits be able to, in the long term?