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?

No interest on savings and low mortgage rates so people got in on buy to let.

To be fair, BTL has been a popular investment vehicle for over a decade now, combined with the flipping of typical FTB properties as encouraged by such programs such as Homes under the Hammer et al, then it shows there is a lot more to this housing crisis other than just BTL.

Who are the shareholders of The Bank of England and who recruits those who have responsibility in the banks? I don't think it's stare owned.

state owned

The bank of England set the Interest rate, the State has no direct involvement with this whatsoever

It isn't fair because this isn't what London used to be like and it is solely greedy landlords pushing up their rents. This is where jobs are, particularly in my field. This is where our support network is. Why should we be pushed out because of inflated housing costs?

London has always been like that, but even if it hadn't, it's unfair because things have changed?

If your landlord is greedy why not move 100m down the road to a better place for less money? Unless he isn't greedy at all but is charging the market rate. You know, the rate set by the market due to the high demand, because as you say, that's where the jobs are.

Sorry but you whole argument smacks of "I want the perfect place in the perfect area and it's not fair that I can't afford it."

Well if those are the rules, I want a Porsche 911 Turbo S Cabriolet but I can't afford it. It's not fair.

The Bank of England is a public sector institution wholly owned by the British government and accountable to Parliament.

I grew up in the se but we couldn't afford the life we wanted there - we're talking a modest 3 bed not a mansion. We moved away from family and now live in the sw. I didn't expect the state to fund me to live where I want to live.

grateful, previous posts have already said that cap does not apply when involves disability or people are working, and if people are doing voluntary work, good for them.lots of employed people also do voluntary work. Not all people o. Benefits are scroungers but neither are they all saints.a gross salary of 30k is a good salary in my opinion and I still do not see why anyone who is fit , healthy and able to work should be given that for no effort, regardless of where they live.families earning less all have to make decisions about where to live, what to buy, etc.based on income.why should people getting 23k net be exempt from making the same choices working families have to make.as regards moving away from networks etc people make those type of decisions every day. Not everyone who lives outside London lives in the area they were born in surrounded by family.

It gained operational independence in 1997.

We are a family of 5 after rent we do not spend anything near £153 a week and we live in the south east!! So yes I do think you need to clarify! What are you spending that per week on :/ we spend around £100 per week, everything else is saved

Housing shouldn't be seen in the same way as a car.

The tax burden of benefits is borne by working people, many of whom earn less than 23k a year, some of whom could not afford to live in expensive London rentals if they paid 100% of their wages as rent.

I appreciate that people have to think about the practicalities of life and I don't want to sound judgy towards those people, but perhaps contemplate on how these expectations will seem to people who work for low to average wages.

What saucyjack said

Housing shouldn't be seen in the same way as a car.

Wanting to live in an area you can't afford to live in and expecting taxpayers to pay for it is as ridiculous as demanding a car you can't afford.

The state should have a benefits system that puts a roof over your head and food in your belly. It should not be paying for you to live exactly where you want, in a property that meets your every whim.

It's ridiculously entitled.

Justanother
The Bank of England is an organ of the State. It is a Central Bank owned by the State.
"Originally established as a privately-owned institution, the Bank of England was nationalised after the Second World War, but retained its broad but largely informal public service mission.

This changed in 1997, when Parliament voted to give the Bank operational independence with a clear remit to pursue price stability, which had been the most significant challenge facing macroeconomic policymaking for the previous two decades.

However, the financial crisis demonstrated the need for a new approach to financial regulation in the UK. This has resulted in a major expansion in the Banks responsibilities, which came into force in April 2013.

In some respects, this represents a return to the broader role that the Bank exercised in the past. However, while the Banks commitment to serving the public good would be recognisable to its seventeenth century founders, its responsibilities are now clearly defined by Parliament."
www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Pages/default.aspx

So a state owned entity sets interest rates to meet its statutory objective of pursuing price stability.

This is the type of property you could buy up here for 200 k

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44222348.html

I can't afford to live in London. I couldn't give the shiniest shit if people on benefits do.

What are we aiming for here? London to end up like a ghastly pocket of wealth like Monaco.

Like many other working people, I moved from the SE and family because I couldn't afford to live there. It's really not the end of the world- there is life beyond London! Ok so it means making more of an effort to visit family, but I guess that comes down to how much you appreciate them, or whether you're only bothered to see them when it's at your convenience.
Surely it's a rather outdated concept that people remain in the area they were born? I certainly don't assume that my children or generations of my family to come, will all feel entitled to live and work within a small radius of where I do

I can't afford to live in London. I couldn't give the shiniest shit if people on benefits do.

Until your tax goes up to fund their benefits. Then you will give a shit!

Well said TTWK.

London becoming like Monaco. Not going to happen.

What are we aiming for here? London to end up like a ghastly pocket of wealth like Monaco

No, but i don't see that anyone has a right to live somewhere they can't afford. And as far as I am concerned, there are much better uses of taxes than paying loads of rent for someone not working just so they can live in zone 1 in london. Absolutely no need.

we live in a 2 bed council FLAT in the NW and we can barely afford that. DH works full time and I work part time...I'm disabled and it would be incredibly tough for me to go full time. We're emigrating. Things here in the UK look so grim.

Morethan I've just had a look at my nearest town on RightMove and £200,000 gets you a one bedroom flat. You get get two bedrooms from £270,000. I don't live in London.

Which takes me back to my first post - until wages are paid according to regional variations there isn't a very strong argument for benefits to be regionally adjusted.

TTWK scenario wouldn't happen (though I agree that rents need to come down)

There is no easy answer to what to do

We need people on median wages (council workers/teachers/public sector workers who earn less than 30k a year to be able to live in London). Minimum wage jobs are often picked up by students who already have accommodation.

But we can't price out public sector workers like tube drivers and nurses - these people aren't the ones I suspect people mean 'on benefits'.

It's fine (ish - you still have to at least give some thought to families who've lived there their whole lives) to say no 'non working' people should really be living in London.

But saying 'no one that can't afford to live there without housing benefit/tax credits should live there' is just idiotic.

That's half the people in normal jobs - theyre not bankers! (Apols to any bankers on this thread)

Let's not go down the politics of envy - oh I can't afford to live in London so no one should.

Those nurses in a tiny flat, they're not in your 4 bed detached up North but they're still doing an essential job and need somewhere to live