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?

You need to earn £30,000 to get just over £23,000 after tax etc

It's over fifty pounds per week loss which is a lot for any family especially if they are also paying bedroom tax. Then again I know a family it will affect and their tenth child was born after the last cap was put in place. These measures will only punish the existing children.

CunfuddledAlways no £153 after rent for a family is five is not " doable" . Did I really need to clarify that?

That's £153 a week.

30,000 and people are moaning .we both work full time ,I earn 12k ,partner 30k, and so.done can sit on their area all day and get 30k .ffs

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.

^ This is very sound.

Longtimelurker- so you wouldn't describe people who expect the government to give them more money in benefits so they can live in an area with ridiculous rent prices as entitled folks?

Well that's 2 years reprieve to get the mice off the ground whilst training to do something else .... Those rules have been in play for years ... The definition of viable is open for very wide interpretation and £96 per week isn't insurmountable dog walking, baby sitting, car washing, CV writing

It should be...
Someone can sit on arse for 30 k , poor souls

So we give free money to some one earning £96 per week?

Most of these people doing these vital services are in receipt of housing benefit. Our capital would come to a standstill without them.

They won't be affected by the cap. If you work enough hours to claim WTC you are exempt from the benefits cap. Also exempt are pensioners and any household where the claimant, their partner or their child receives DLA, PIP, Attendance Allowance, the support element of ESA, industrial injuries benefits or war widows'/widowers' pension.

Really tired no, working families with at least two children earning £23k receive top up in tax credits. Average income is £35k if you include tax credits. So there are no families managing on 23k none.

No working families on 23k

London will always need its NMW workers, people for whom the cost of commuting isn't doabke which is why there always needs to be some form of social housing in London.

The benefits cap already does affect people negatively and it will affect more once it drops. These will be normal families, including those wo have always worked but suddenly cannot for whatever reason,

I get WHY they have introduced it but not why it doesn't take into account regional differences. If you live in the expensive South East you might well need to stay there ....not everyone can move away.

As others have said, the cap only applies if you're not working

London is an area of huge employment opps. If you are long term unemployed there the either you're not fit to work, of you're unemployable. Either way, you don't need to pay a premium to be near jobs.

Ahhh trying to do two things at once. I meant there are no working families with two dc with a total income of 23k , if there is they are not claiming everything they are entitled to claim.

As someone who had to make the decision to move outside the M25 in order to find a home we could afford to buy, and commute in every day before becoming a SAHM/with a DH who commutes in every day and in a town where pretty much every family has at least one parent commuting in, I do find this "but how will the lower paid jobs be filled if London is just for the rich?" argument does seem to be fuelled by the sort of person who seems to think anything outside the M25 might as well be Russia.

The answer is probably what happens already - the cleaners, the lower paid staff, will live in cheaper areas outside the capital and get on the trains to London.

There are many areas of the south east where you will easily be able to rent a 3 bed house for considerably less than £15k a year and have decent train links in. It's a choice that many people make, yes, it's nice to stay somewhere where you already know lots of people, it's nice to have a sub-30 minute commute, but many people take the decision that a higher standard of living is worth making new local friends and spending an extra half hour/hour commuting each day.

Train links in the south east are fabulous compared to other parts of the country. Living in London rather than just commutable distance, is an expensive choice. It is, however, a choice.

Drivel, the lot of it. " I didn't cause I couldn't afford it" rubbish is often sited on mumsnet, well bugger me if I don't use the economic data available rather than the anecdotes of someone on the the internet.

80 % of benefits that are not claimed by pensioners are paid to those in low paid work. In London who will sweep the streets, work in the supermarket, do your childcare if there are limits on benefits? Oh dear, it may mean paying more for those things so we can actually have them in London. Mumsnet goes into a whirl again...

When actually very few of the people living on benefits are shirkers, the misery these caps will force on people is unforgivable.

Some people on mumsnet won't be happy till we see a return to the workhouse, and sit in their pompous positions discussing what people " deserve" makes me sick.

How do you k ow they are "sitting on their arse" candles?

Most families will get nowhere near this amount.....am sure you'd have to have several children.

I am in benefits and I don't get £30k...and nor do I "sit on my arse". I have a disabled child and so I get extra benefits....I still achieve nothing near the benefit cap and nor do I want to.

Housing benefit is, sadly, basically set by private landlords. There's not that much social housing anymore so most HB goes straight to the pockets of private landlords, who can name their own price.

It's fantasy to think that capping benefits will make private sector landlords lower their prices. They never, ever, will. It's just not how it works. In London, particularly, there will always be some sucker who will pay. They might only afford to stay for 6 months instead of 6 years, but someone will be desperate enough at almost any price.

YANBU OP but all the same, talk of families receiving £23k in benefits always seems a misnomer to me - if you're on housing benefit, it doesn't matter to you whether your rent is £100 a week or £800 a week if it's the same flat. You won't see a penny!

If you want to tackle the size of the Housing Benefit bill you have to introduce rent controls or build more housing, preferably both.

BTW why does anyone think someone should commute for a low level job? two hours travel a day to make the minimum wage and thousands extra spent on commuting? Gosh you live in your ivory towers here don't you.

People will just get jobs round the corner instead ! then where will we be?

Let's assume, although it's mostly rubbish, that "normal" people could no longer afford to live in the London area. So no roadsweepers, no bus drivers, no hospital workers, no shop workers or restaurant staff. What would happen?
What would happen is that London would become an undesirable place to live, with no restaurants, filthy streets, no bin collections etc. People would want to leave and then.....house prices and rent would fall. Until it found a balance and "normal" people moved back again.

The state should not subsidise people on benefits or who are down on their luck to live in an area where people who are not on benefits and who aren't down on their luck can't afford to live in! It's an utterly ludicrous expectation.

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

I'm a home owner.

I have a 15 year old dd, an 11 year old ds, and an autistic 9 year old ds. Would fully expect my two boys to share. Don't expect my dd to have to share with two boys.

Buy in a less expensive area?

Maybe London has become so extreme that it's not the best place to start. Would £23K a year push people into destitution (needs more definition that word) in less extreme areas?