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?

The answer is to work 16 hours in whatever capacity, start selling knitted mice on eBay and call yourself self employed

I think 23k as state benefits is enough. State benefits are meant to bridge a gap, not necessarily to live on.

I would think that if someone had to live on benefits for a period of time, then greater London may not be the best option

I don't think anyone's saying that people who fall on hard times should immediately have to leave their home, and they wouldn't have to leave immediately with this benefit cap. Long term, they might have to, but that's just life for most people.

most claimants have jobs
most benefits go to landlords
who will empty bins/clean offices/drive buses?
will wages rise?
no - so benefits basically subsidise low pay
use the same public money to build genuinely affordable homes

There is a world outside London. Personally I would like it to be made more attractive to move to other parts of the country. There is no where to build new houses in London and empty houses in other parts of the country. A family that moved to say Luton could still visit family in London. Moving out of London is hardly bring sent to live in the gulag!

Why should working people pay for people to live in areas they cannot afford? 23k is more than a lot of working people have to live on.

trufflehunter said 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.

I agree, but (off-topic) I do know someone who was denied the same pay as a male colleague in exactly the same job with exactly the same experience because "he has a family to support".

So some employers might do it, we just call it sexism. And illegal.

As for benefits cap forcing people out of London or other expensive areas, I have to say it's basic budgeting. Once we had our third child we couldn't afford to live in London anymore the way we wanted to so we moved.

Landlords are taking the piss in London. And probably elsewhere too. But here the rents are ludicrous. And it's outrageous that taxpayer's money is going to these vampires.

Wow!

The level of ignorance on this thread is shocking

Remember- There for the grace & all that!

Several pps have said don't live in London unless you're rich. But what about the cleaners, care workers, shop workers and other low paid staff? They are needed in London.

I do think that for London and other expensive pockets, those working in low paid yet necessary jobs should be given extra help with living costs.

I sympathise with the OP's position to point. I don't think that it is good that London is only for wealthy people and I say that as someone who can afford to live here. I think there is a real risk that London could become even more segregated on economic grounds than it already is.

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

Well, I'm certainly not saying that someone on benefits shouldn't live in London. But the examples you provide are just as valid and difficult for someone not in benefits, ie, life-changing event occurs and adjustments need to be made, regardless if whether the income was from a spouse or the state. So I fail to see how these examples mean that people in London should receive higher benefits than others throughout the nation.

In any case the cap is only going to apply to people who are not working so no point in using what will cleaners and bus drivers do as they won't be affected.

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!

Why do you deduct child benefit like it doesn't count? Child benefits are part of the money you use to live on - unless I have misunderstood you.

so the family of 3 kids would have £6,200 after housing which is still very tight when you factor in bills like power and insurance and phone etc on top of food, but doable in the short term I would think.

And yes if you're long term unemployed then sadly you will have to live somewhere you can afford - I downsized dramatically when I wasn't working because I couldn't afford the mortgage and couldn't predict (at that point because of illness) when I would be able to work again. It's no different really.

But what about the cleaners, care workers, shop workers and other low paid staff? They are needed in London.

Could we hope that they might at last be paid a fair wage ?

From a personal point of view, I think more people should move out of London. It is very very crowded here right now.

On a less personal level, I still think it would be better if less was concentrated on just one city. There is such an imbalance between the capital and the rest of the UK. I can't pinpoint why it seems wrong, but it does.

I think the problems will come when people lose their jobs, have little or no savings and are tied into a 12 month lease.

I don't know why anyone would live there for anything but work, it's nice enough to visit but after a weekend I'm ready to leave, I guess it's dear of the unknown but really I'd have to be earning stupid money to work there nevermind live there

YY Conference - it would still be a struggle with London prices being as they are.

I feel the sensible and fair thing is to have housing that is available at a reasonable price.

Must admit, one of the great mysteries of life to me is how ordinary people afford to live in such expensive places.

You can get out of leases under those circumstances Kew, you go to court or you apply to the discretionary housing fund and hope you get a job ASAP

No, I have sympathy. I think it's unfair to assume that if a family fall on hard times they immediately have to choose between moving away (which is also way harder than it sounds. I just moved from London to Glasgow and it cost a fortune in deposit, and rent up front and moving costs) and losing their entire support network or being drive into poverty.

I mean, what if they have kids in the middle of exams? Do they basically have to risk their entire futures because dad lost his job? Or what if someone is a single parent who relies on their support network for childcare or works in an industry that doesn't exist really outside of London?

I also loathe the notion that London is for the rich, I think it's destroying the city and what it used to be. When I bought my flat in London I was working in an art school. I knew loads of creative and innovative people and I lived in a lovely diverse area. Now it's filled with the exact same sort of people, most of whom work in the city. And all the artists and creators and a lot of the entrepreneurs are moving out. And maybe that's fair enough, but I think it makes London as a city a lot more grey and bland and less fun to live. Also, in the long run, it'll make it a lot less functional.

we desperately need rent caps. The £23 000 is totally adequate if your rent is fair.

I think the idea is that if people can't afford those sky high rent because housing benefit won't fund it any more, rents will have to come down, or landlord will have empty houses.

Brutal for those involved though, if you lose your home.

Several pps have said don't live in London unless you're rich. But what about the cleaners, care workers, shop workers and other low paid staff? They are needed in London.

The economically correct solution is for employers to pay whatever it takes to get people to do these jobs. Or go without the service they provide.

Knitted mice on ebay? How is that the answer?

"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."

They could and would fit into a 2-bed flat if they had to. Boys in one room, girls in another and parents on a fold-down bed in the lounge.

I'm not saying it's aspirational living, but equally over-crowding in the South East is hardly front page news either.

99.99% of those who pay their own housing costs have to choose between size and/or location.