Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

987 replies

Minifingers9 · 28/05/2015 11:14

... 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?

OP posts:
Fluffyears · 31/05/2015 00:02

I earn less than £23k working full time. it seems unfair that I earn less than people on benefits and I am considered to have a good wage. I'd be happy on £23k tax free. I still have to pay all my living costs as well plus monthly travel to get to my employment then I pay tax and NI before I see a penny of what I have worked damn hard for!

irretating · 31/05/2015 00:04

I stand by my rich twats comment. Gentrification can come about by deliberate government policy, this is particularly true in London. Local people are not consulted and their needs are not taken in to account. You'd have to be an amazingly big twat to not think about the impact on local people when making these huge decisions about the area in which they live.

It's just stupidity to think that people on benefits should be moved out of these sorts of communities. How in the hell is it a good idea to concentrate poverty in to a few areas that are considered so undesirable that not even the most optimistic urban developer will bother buying up land to build on later?

Hillingdon · 31/05/2015 00:06

Fluffy is right. And that is why Cameron got in with a majority. People did not trust Labour to not mess it up. Look at the current state of the party. In fighting. Back tracking on statements they made during the election.

They are a complete shambles.

HelenaDove · 31/05/2015 00:08

JustAnotherLurker During a placement it ceases to be JSA and becomes a Training Allowance.

irretating · 31/05/2015 00:08

I earn less than £23k working full time.

Do you have children?

CadieAgain · 31/05/2015 00:09

£20 per week on clothes for a family with three DC is £4 per week each for day clothes (summer and winter) jackets, coats, pants, bras, tights, winter shoes, shoes for summer, boots, wellingtons, swimwear, school uniform, nightwear / pajamas / robes, socks, winter hats, scarves, gloves and sun hats and perhaps Shock a nice outfit for parties and weddings twice a year.

DH and I are carers to our two so we rarely buy clothes for ourselves unless we need to replace something (all our clothes fit into a single wardrobe) but children grow.

HelenaDove · 31/05/2015 00:11

Needle please dont be so bloody stupid People can easily spend £10 a week on a phone applying for jobs.

You know some of you on here really remind me of the family in JB Priestley"s An Inspector Calls.

CadieAgain · 31/05/2015 00:36

Not to mention the demands for costumes and extra clothing from schools. Yellow in February and superhero days Hmm

The bankruptcy forums on mse are very interesting. Official Receivers have a much more realistic guidelines as to what constitutes acceptable expenditure and they are the experts.

Not that they are over-generous. Christmas and birthday presents for a family with DC are not allowable expenses in a s.o.a post-bankruptcy.

CadieAgain · 31/05/2015 01:22

Also, an adult jobseeker would need vaguely current smart interview clothes, shoes and coat for summer and winter.

DH and I with our single wardrobe got caught out this way when my mother died and we had nothing suitable for the funeral given that we had been unemployed carers for a few years and had stopped buying clothes for ourselves.

Eatupnow · 31/05/2015 07:43

bunch of rich twats

And there you have it - inverted snobbery, envy and class hatred in one.

Original poster
Minifingers9 · 31/05/2015 08:23

"How in the hell is it a good idea to concentrate poverty in to a few areas that are considered so undesirable that not even the most optimistic urban developer will bother buying up land to build on later?"

But that's EXACTLY what people on this thread do think.

Move unemployed people out of the areas in the SE where there are plenty of jobs, and where there is consequently pressure on housing. Move them to places like Hastings where there are fewer jobs and cheaper housing. Then penalise the fuck out of them for not finding work and blame them for living 'a benefits lifestyle'.

OP posts:
Original poster
Minifingers9 · 31/05/2015 08:27

"bunch of rich twats

And there you have it - inverted snobbery, envy and class hatred in one."

I envy people who've got massive trust funds and who had incredibly expensive schooling. Who live in luxury which was handed to them on a plate. Not so much that it makes me unhappy - but then I have a decent home, a good job and have reasonable schooling. But if I had none of these things I'd probably feel more unhappy about inequality. I do hate the fact that people who have absolutely no experience of life as is lived by 98% of the electorate are now making policy decisions about education, housing and health and that their policies seem to be so ideologically driven.

OP posts:
LotusLight · 31/05/2015 08:30

Not at all. I live in zone 5 outer London because 30 yeras ago and today I cannot afford to live in Central London. People live out here and further out and commute in for jobs as needed - that is mothers and fathers who work full time. Lots of young couples who perhaps rent closer into London when they have children have to decide if they stay in their one bed flat or buy or rent a larger place. There is no reason benefits claimants should be exempt from this and they are not now that we have the £26k a year benefit cap which may come down to £23k. We are just asking those of them who work to do a bit longer commute like the rest of us or find a job nearer where they live further out of Central London.

In fact in a case recently the court held that a lady could be moved out of the centre (but not as far as Milton Keynes - MK apparently was beyond the pale - they can be quite socialist our judges at times unfortunately)/

Binkybix · 31/05/2015 08:39

bunch of rich twats

I'm not sure how I feel about the benefit cap, but name calling like this is exactly the sort of reason why reasonable people switch off to decent arguments against it.

I now live in a part of London that has become a bit gentrified. I don't think I'm a rich twat, although I guess I am middle class. I moved here because at the time it was the only area close to work I could afford. I suspect many others are in the same boat.

LotusLight · 31/05/2015 08:55

Yes, my ancestors flew the Irish potato famine for what was then a very prosperous area with a boom going on and lots of jobs and money - the mining area of the North East. People have always had to move near work (except in the rare times when benefits enable them not to have to do so I suppose).

merrymouse · 31/05/2015 09:06

30 years ago nobody wanted to live in Tower Hamlets, Brixton, Shepherd's Bush etc.

merrymouse · 31/05/2015 09:19

Well obviously some people wanted to live there but there wasn't a drive to build investment flats and people aspired to live in leafy suburbs, not the run down inner city.

Areas have always changed but it makes as much sense to say there should be no social housing inside zone 3 as to say there should be no social housing in the Cotswolds because people like to have holiday houses there.

Hillingdon · 31/05/2015 09:45

Whether some like it or not things are changing. No more more will people on benefits or relying on the state be entitled to do and stay wherever they like. To use the state as a crutch and to get frothy,aggressive and start name calling when they don't get their 'entitlement'.

PtolemysNeedle · 31/05/2015 09:46

There should absolutely be social housing for people in expensive areas, but it is going to be used much more efficiently if it houses low paid workers than if it houses the long term unemployed.

GratefulHead · 31/05/2015 09:57

Thank goodness YOU are not in charge then Hillingdon. Currently people like me are able to live in the expensive south east. With the support network we need to cope with disability in the family. All indications are that the Govt are not as right wing as you appear to be. Even THEY have some kind of understanding that some people will need to remain in those areas for reasons beyond their control.

That's not being "entitled", it's being realistic.

GratefulHead · 31/05/2015 10:01

...and just to reassure fluffyears, I have a disabled child and get extra benefits as a result. I get nowhere near the benefits cap and nor will most others.

I earned far more in work and had a nice life.why anyone would CHOOSE this life is beyond me.

PtolemysNeedle · 31/05/2015 10:17

No one does choose to have a disabled child Grateful, which is why a cap is irrelevant to those families.

Hillingdon · 31/05/2015 10:18

If people who are looking after disabled people and don't get anywhere near the cap who on earth is.

Eatupnow · 31/05/2015 10:24

No, no one able bodied with a work ethic, morals, decency and the werewithal to earn a reasonable living would ever choose a life on benefits.

Not everyone has all those things, however..

Stitchintime1 · 31/05/2015 10:34

Apparently around 50,000 people have had their benefits capped. I presume they live in expensive areas. There was a TV documentary about sanctions and that seemed to be the main reason. Private rentals are very high.

Swipe left for the next trending thread