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?

Hillingdon, unemployed people who live in areas with expensive rents who also have a lot of children.

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.

What proportion of the recent arrivals in Fulham, Islington, Shoreditch and all do you think this covers. The vast majority of "rich twats" are actually normal working men and women who have made good choices in their lives, from working hard to get good qualifications and a good job, to picking the right partner so they are still together and have/had a joint income, had kids at the right time financially, saved hard for a deposit initially on a small flat in the right area, etc etc. The meritocracy is far bigger than the aristocracy.

You probably look at them with envy and attribute to them trust fund status, so you don't have to confront the fact that financially, they've done better than many others.

Envy is a very destructive emotion. Far better to look at those who have done well and think "I want that as well as them", not instead of them.

Anyone really interested in this topic might like to read:

www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2014_0079_PressSummary.pdf (summary and if really got time on your hands the full judgments www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2014_0079_Judgment.pdf )

For the new £23k cap proposal:

"Lowering the benefit cap

the new legislation would lower the benefit cap so that the total amount of benefits a non-working family can receive in a year would be £23,000
a cap at £23,000 is equivalent to gross family earnings of up to £29,000
households are exempt where someone is entitled to Working Tax Credit or is in receipt of benefits relating to additional costs of disability, or War Widow’s and Widower’s Pension."

www.gov.uk/government/publications/queens-speech-2015-what-it-means-for-you/queens-speech-2015-what-it-means-for-you

All these people saying "but I can live on £23k why can't others?", why can't you step outside your own life?
Renting privately in the south east with more than 2 kids I'd imagine would cost a lot more than that. Oh "don't have so many kids then" I hear you cry but people can't go back in time and un-have kids and ultimately it is the children that will suffer.

What if the rent was only £600 when you first moved to that area, but shot up to £1,400 because of gentrification. Why should poorer people have to feck off and leave just because a bunch of rich twats have decided that it's a 'vibrant bohemian borough'?

What if the poorer people do leave and settle in a new area but a few years down the line this area too becomes a 'vibrant bohemian borough' and as a result house prices and rent sky rocket. Should they be required to move again?

Yes, yes and yes again. The welfare state should not pay £1400 to house someone who could be housed for £600 down the road. It's meant to be a safety net, not a 4 poster bed with a pocket sprung mattress.

well normal working people move all the time because of when areas become more prosperous, to find work, to get more space. I don't see why benefits claimants should be any different and nor do most people in the country - hence the election result. As the Supreme Court judgment says not a huge number of people are affects but the concept that benefits should not pay more than full time work and not be higher than family incomes of workers is regarded as very important by people including many Labour supporters or those who were Labour supporters I should say.

No Millie, the can't put the children back, but they can move to cheaper areas or start work. If they live in expensive areas, it's likely that there is work available. Neither of those two options would cause children to suffer, they are both things that people do quite happily all the time.

The only people getting anywhere near the cap are, as Ptolomysneedle said, this eliving in expensive areas, not working and wi several children. I know of a woman wih 8 children in social housing,no woukd say she is pretty much unemployable having dealt with her. Akthough in social housing I suspect she is near or over the benefits cap. A couple with one child wouldn't be anywhere near it...even in that child had a disability.
The cap doesn't affect those families where there is a disability though as often they HAVE to remain in the area where their support is, even if it's an expensive one.

I seriously would never choose this life. I found one if my old payslips last week....take home pay £1950 ...or thereabouts. I coukd have cried quite honestly as life was a breeze when I was earning, amazes me that anyone would choose benefits if they didn't have to,

Ttwk and Lotus are correct. I dont have a trust fund. Have a nice house outside London and children at private school but did exactly what TTWK describes.

Have also worked full time in a well paid role. I knew I wouldn't ever get anything like this again so stayed. People who make poor choices who bleat they cannot get a job in London even though they are living there, who think they are entitled to stay there regardless of the fact that people who are looking for work will move to where the jobs are making ME frothy and annoyed

The point of the cap is also as a disincentive going forward. That unempoyable woman with 8 kids - maybe if the cap had been in place when she was having all those kids she couldn't afford, she'd have thought a bit and not had so many.

I found one if my old payslips last week....take home pay £1950 ...or thereabouts. I could have cried quite honestly as life was a breeze

How much did you put aside in savings in those halcyon days in case life went tits up?

Exactly Eatup. The cap is also about preventing people from continuing to make negative choices in the future so that years from now, we don't have people making the same mistakes their parents made.

I wouldn't choose a life on benefits either, but tbh I think that's an irrelevant point in this debate. It kind of implies that because, generally, these families we're talking about have a shittier life than your average person who isnt on benefits, that we should somehow leave them alone and not have an opinion on whether the benefits cap is a good thing. I find that argument - 'well, you wouldn't want to swap places with them" - a bit patronising tbh. It's a question of simple economics, not about hand wringing

As someone who grew up in poverty I am in two minds about this. Firstly I agree that the government are pleased to have us scrabbling over this to distract from the fact there is so much tax avoidance at the top, and that the tax payer is subsidising big business with tax credits. However, it's also not right that the government past and present have presided over a situation which has some people slogging their guts out while others get the same money for doing a lot less (and in some cases bugger all). It's not on that non working or mimimal working able bodied people have been earning the equivalent through benefits of what a top of band 5 ward nurse gets. Society isn't helped by able bodied people being benefit dependent. There is a lot of societal unrest building as working people see unfairness at both ends of the spectrum. I lived in a very poor area growing up (my mums still there) and our level of poverty was a lot lower than anything today, but everyone worked and there was an expectation that you did. This was reflected in a level of pride and care among the community. I would say everyone on mum's council estate is financially better off today, on benefits or no but there has been a massive surge in crime, antisocial behaviour and general mess. There are jobs in abundance but of course some people are now unemployable as they are unable to contemplate a life of structure.

The poster who mentioned meritocracy got to the heart of the problem

People do think that working people are superior across the board and indeed many on here seem to be positively wanting large families on benefits to suffer poverty as some sort of punishment and life lesson.

I don't think that working people are 'better across the board', I don't think anyone be lives that unless they are particularly small minded because we are all well aware that there valid reasons not to be in paid work do exist.

But in general, and with all the usual valid exceptions, someone who has chosen to be financially responsible for themselves and their children is better than someone healthy who has made irresponsible choices by opting to conceive numerous children while they are unemployed or are on a single low wage, or when they have nowhere to adequately house them.

Responsibility is better than irresponsibility. Obviously.

I don't think it's about punishment, but there is a lesson to be learned so that children brought into these situations don't continue to make the same negative choices when they are older.

2 bed flats in Croydon are just under £1k a month = £11k a year
that leaves about £1k a month for eg 2 parents + 2 dc
gas + leccy = £800 a year (? )
food £3k a year
other bills eg phone, water, travel
all adds up as can be seen - it would be a huge struggle
cheap council housing would make a massive difference

There is a lesson to be learned..through educating children from a young age, not through punishing those who are ready here.

weird idea. I don't think working people are 'superior'. I just think a little more equity is in order. If someone working and not in receipt of benefits has to move/limit their family/ make life choices to live within their means, why shouldn't someone who isn't working?

Julia is right.

many on here seem to be positively wanting large families on benefits to suffer poverty as some sort of punishment and life lesson.

Oh ffs! People on benefits should be poor! Not homeless, nor starving, nor naked, but they should not be doing ok on benefits. They shouldn't get to live in expensive areas on the state, but they should have a roof over their head. They shouldn't get to eat lobster at the finest restaurants, but should be able to feed their families with the basics. They should be able to clothe themselves but not from West End boutiques.

Therein is the incentive to get off benefits, or to think in advance about the number of children you have. I had 2. I would have been financially better off had I had none, and poorer had I had 4. You don't have to be Einstein to figure that out. These are the decisions grown ups have to make, and live by the consequences. All of us. I took the decision I couldn't afford to have 4, so I resent paying for someone else to have 8! I am happy for my taxes to help someone who had 2 or 3 who has now fallen on hard times.

Additional support should be available for the disabled to cover the additional costs of living with disability.

Parents are a child's first educators though, and there is very little that can be done in limited school hours to reverse the effects of a negative and damaging example they are brought up with every day.

Julia is right. But it would also make a massive difference if one if those adults found a job, which shouldn't be too difficult from an area like Croydon.

London does need a lot of workers, more than it can reasonably house. When I was still working (2 years ago, so not a lifetime!) - all the 'middle income' staff (the secretaries, reception staff, IT support, HR, researchers, those on between £30-45k) who had DCs lived outside London. The Partners were in London, the cleaners and catering staff were in London, the younger support staff without DCs were living in flatshares or in small flats with their DPs, but staying in London after having DCS seemed to be a choice for the rich or the poor, or accepting living in very cramped conditions.

These people, the huge army of people who commute in each day from across the SE to fill London's staffing needs, these people who've started again in new areas, faced the question "can I afford a 3rd baby", who've sat on trains an hour each day, these are the people who would have to pay more tax to stop benefits from being capped which will push poorer people out of the city. The Tories won because they won over people like this.

The cap is clever, setting it at the equivliant of £29/30k is hard to argue against when that's still above the average wage. The problem is, it's not cheap or quick to move somewhere else, and it takes organisation and effort to research new, cheaper areas. And if you aren't the sort of person who can get themself sorted to get a job in an area with so many job opportunities, you probably aren't the sort of person who will have the capacity to think about moving somewhere new and starting again.

Well, especially with the cap, some won't be able to afford to feed their family with the basics hence the increase in food Bank use.