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?

"I am happy for my taxes to help someone who had 2 or 3 who has now fallen on hard times."

To me this smacks of a God complex

What's a God complex?

Wanting to dish out benevolence and money to those who have fallen on hard times, I guess.

Other people's money is always easy to spend!

That confuses me even more then, I'd have though it was a good thing if we want to help people who have fallen on hard times!

The problem stems ultimately from the fact we don't get to decide who has fallen on hard times and who has not. I think we all accept anybody can be in a difficult situation and no one begrudges them help from the state while they get out of that situation.

My concern, as someone already saliently pointed out, that that can quickly become somewhat patronising as well as irrelevant. 'Well, their life must be sooooo hard anyway so let's just leave them to it' is both unhelpful and largely pointless.

Absolutely agree that it takes effort and organisation to plan, to move, to build up links in a new community- but that's not an excuse to not expect people to do it.

Let's be honest: change is hard for most of us. I would have found it far easier to stay living in the SE where I was born and raised, where family still live, rather than be pushed out of my comfort zone and move to a cheaper area of the country. But that's what I did- and tens of thousands like me- because it would never have occurred to me to have some weird entitlement to be housed there paid for by others.
we've also moved a few times for work, which has necessitated change of schools for the children. Again, it feels hard initially but it's absolutely no bad thing long term.
We're in a very different world now to that of yesteryear when people barely moved from where they were born, and people who werent 'local' were viewed with suspicion!

Yes yes yes to higher NMW, more social housing, the creation of structures and training opportunities to support people back towards independence. And yes to support for those who genuinely cannot work.

But frankly the entitlement shown by some of the stories on this thread, about non working people with large families complaining that they can't live in some of the most expensive areas of Britain, or non working families complaining that they 'ought' to have a bath as well as a shower, are frankly, an embarrassment and an insult to the genuinely needy

Julia is right, but a family with two kids would not be receiving the upper end of the cap...by any means.

"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."

No - that's simply not true.

There are not many families on benefits who will be severely affected by the benefit cap as most UK families have fewer then 2 children.

In areas where it has been piloted very little money has been saved, as the cost to councils of social services input, and rehoming families who were evicted after falling short on rent due to the cap has cancelled out most of it. Only a tiny percentage of those who were affected by the cap have increased their hours at work or moved into work, regardless of the impact of the cap on their families.

The benefit cap is about punishing people who are deemed lazy, and making a point, not about saving large amounts of money.

Quoting from here

"Of the 42,000 households getting more than £500 per week in benefits in May 2013, about 2,000 had someone in the house get a job over the following 12 months in response to the cap."

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies put it, “… the large majority of affected claimants responded neither by moving into work nor by moving house”.

"But frankly the entitlement shown by some of the stories on this thread, about non working people with large families complaining that they can't live in some of the most expensive areas of Britain"

Ffs - people aren't complaining about not being able to live in Kensington and Westminster, they're complaining about being unable to live in a WHOLE REGION, ie, the South East.

If all people had to do was move 10 miles to find affordable housing, but to move out of the region where their families are, where their children are at school, AND WHERE THE JOBS ARE! is inhumane.

"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."

Yes - because we all know that putting a huge strain on already disadvantaged households, and increasing their levels of poverty so that they have to buy cheaper food for their children, and live in the worst and poorest quality housing will definitely have a positive impact on their children's life chances.

You know, how the poorer children are the more likely they are to make different choices from their parents, succeed in education, start their families later, experience less family breakdown and physical and mental ill health.

Oh, hang on, I've got that the wrong way around....

How many times must it be said that the benefit cap doesn't apply to people in work. If it's true that many people can't afford to live in the SE I don't see how that is the rest of the country's problem to subsidise housing there Many of them inlcuding me probably can't afford to live the the SE either. Other parts of the country have their expensive areas too. And guess what. Only better off people can afford to buy and rent there.

Viviennemary

Did you see the link for UC I put on here?
It's talking about working households, self employed. it is replacing tax credits, that many working households receive, it's already been cut once.
Please look at the system because people always point these things out to you and you either aren't capable of remembering or you choose not to.

So what is your suggestion then mini? Do you think it's right that we continue to subsidise people to live in expensive areas and to conceive as many children as they want while they're unemployed?

If you were in power, what would you say to appease those families where both parents are working, having some of their earnings taken in tax and who struggle to maintain a basic standard of living while also denying themselves a much wanted third child because they know they can't afford it?

What's the point in enabling people to stay where the jobs are when they've already proven that they won't work and they will make irresponsible family planning choices?

Do you just tell them to screw themselves because what they want doesn't matter while people who contribute nothing and take a lot deserve to live where they want and have all the children they want?

How do you go about preventing people from finding themselves in this situation in the first place? How do you incentivise people to take responsibility for themselves and their children?

The whole of the SE Certainly can't be lumped together as there is a fair bit of variation in housing costs across the whole region. Having said that, I moved completely away from the SE where I was born and raised and where my family still are. I never for a moment considered I was treated 'inhumanely'.
Open your eyes to what goes on globally if you want to see some definitions of inhumanity.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at minifingers tiny violin about having to buy cheaper food. What - like 90% of working families earning less than £29 K , then?

This article in yesterday's Guardian is interesting.

It seems to have been forgotten on this thread and elsewhere that it is children who will suffer the most from this proposal.

The Guardian would say that, wouldn't they?

While this cap does target London specifically, I am positive I've seen some figures floating around that it will also affect families outside of the SE in areas such as Birmingham, Cardiff and Leeds, etc

Did you read the article, five?

Just that the leak comes from the governement's own ministers. The Guardian is simply reporting it.

No - I don't read the Guardian, sorry. It bothers me as much as the Wail

I read it. Usual load of hysterical nonsense that merely reinforces exactly why the cap is a good thing.

And seriously, if £29 K a year is poverty we are all fucked.

For you Suburban I have read it.

I agree with Eatup, sorry. It's logical children will be most affected by the cuts because most of the people claiming them will be families.

Here we go again with links to the guardian as if it were the pope quoting the bible.

I started to read the article, I stopped when I realised how misleading it was four sentences in.

No one's forgotten that children will be impacted as a result of the benefit caps.

What we are arguing over is whose fault that is, and whose responsibility it will be to make changes to improve the children's lives.

i.e the parents or the government.