Preparation for mass exodus of poor from London

[SkippyjonJones]

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/24/exodus-poor-families-from-london

lowrib Or:

You take out insurance while earning a massive salary (which I don't, by the way), to make sure that when things go wrong you don't have to rely on the whims of politicians.

You don't live in central London during the good times. Instead, you live more frugally in zone 3, and invest the savings.

You then take out an mortgage offset against your savings account in the good times, which enables you to repay as much as possible - thereby making the bad times bearable.

And of course, if things go really badly wrong, benefits should be there to help you get back on your feet. However, you understand that they are limited and temporary. You don't dream of being on unemployment benefit for more than a year.

Soon, after sending off dozens or even hundreds of CVs, you get interviews, and get a job. If that doesn't work, you start your own business, maybe starting out on eBay or Amazon marketplace so there are no startup costs.

i'm off.

And if you don't do all of the things on that list, you are clearly deserve everything you get.

On a side issue, I'd just like to point out that buying a 2 or 3 bed house or flat in zone 3 is no longer feasible even for many higher rate tax payers if they haven't already built up substantial equity, let alone living frugally and saving there. Longfingernails, have you ever actually been to London.

ZephirineDrouhin Other than during my various spells at university, I have lived in London all my life.

longfingernails, so everyone should move out of central London

Can you see the slight hole in your argument there?

Then you ought to know about the house prices in zone 3

lol lowrib. I think the idea is that it will be like the Green Zone in Baghdad.

Grannieonabike, thanks It's exhausting trying to explain this to some people (but strangely it seems infinitely more attractive than the studying I should be doing tonight!) The irony is that it's actually the rich who should be up in arms about this - it means if they end up on their arses their homes won't be protected.

ZephirineDrouhin I'm sorry, my misunderstanding!

The only people paying those EXTORTIONATE rents mentioned (capping housing benefit at £400 per week) must be living in emergency hostels.

I know of a landlord of such an emergency hostels who already tries to take advantage of any gullible tenants they have.
Now, what will it be, massive over crowding, and landlords turning a blind eye because they want their rent paid.

For those who earn very good salaries, I think it responsible for provide a year's safety net for themselves and their families.
If they can still afford to live in central London after that, then they should go for it.

I think people on average or slightly above wages should be able to save at least 5% of their net income every month. For those around the 40% threshold, it can rise to 10% without making life impossible.

Just as Labour is addicted to national debt, too many people became addicted to credit cards and Northern Rock style subprime mortgages.

ZephirineDrouhin: "generally undeserving types like public sector workers"
A public sector job could be almost anything, from accountant to legal work to fire man to eduation...
What is the point of your contribution as quoted above?

Or, why don;t we all pay into a central pot out of our wages - lets call it national Insurance, shall we. We could also pay some taxes too. We could pay on a sliding scale, depending on what we earn. And then if then if we end up in trouble (through events such as global recession) we can get the help we need.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Mild satire on the cuts PR, LadyFantastic. Obviously too subtle.

Not that old chestnut about the national debt, longfingernails. As I'm sure you know the UK's national debt is considerably lower than that of France, Germany, US, Canada etc etc

I'm all for it. The poor people wont be able to afford train tickets, so i will get a seat.

LadyFantastic I suggest you actually read the thread properly. If you do, you will discover two things.

1. The HB cap starts at £250 for a 1 bed. Using this as an example, the average rent of a flat in most London postcodes (including some pretty rough areas) is over the cap.

1. ZephrineDrouhin was being sarcastic. Can you not see what she's trying to say?

lowrib Why should I pay for someone elses fecklessness?

Personally, I don't mind paying for the disabled and carers, or for very short-term limited, and very conditional unemployment benefit.

I'm not convinced that housing benefit is particularly useful at all for a functioning economy - it artificially inflates rents and house prices, and depresses wages at the bottom end - but it should be phased out slowly rather than completely cut in one go.

The State is there for emergencies, to maintain security and law and order, to help those who genuinely can't help themselves, and to create the conditions and infrastructure for economic prosperity. Beyond that, it should get out of the way.

lowrib You still haven't explained why the 50th percentile should be used as a cap rather than the 10th, 30th, 80th or 100th percentile.

30th sounds "fair" to me. It is below average, but not much below average. If you are on benefits (excluding various disability related benefits) I don't think it is fair to ask the State to fund an average lifestyle.

Eh?! I'm not advocating any kind of cap!

I quoted those figures to give you a better idea of what London rents are like in reality, as some people seemed to think that we were only talking about rich areas. If you think I was advocating a cap you are much mistaken!

I'm fed up with banging my head on this wall (although ZephirineDrouhin you did make me smile!)

I'm off to bed.

or was there a hmm face there....

Well, the current cap is the median of local rents.

The new cap will be the 30th percentile of local rents, or some fixed limits like £400 for a 4-bed, whichever is lower.

Are you seriously suggesting that caps be removed altogether? That the system should be even more open to abuse than it is at the moment?

I am sure Abdi Nur, Nasra Warsame and their ilk will be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought.

Actually longfingernails I'm curious. If you phase out HB, what do you expect will happen to those on HB now?

Do you assume they're all there through laziness and will decide to get a job? (If so this is extremely naive).

Or do you accept that most would become homeless. Are you OK with that?

Or some other scenario? What do you think would actually happen if the state got "out of the way"?

lowrib If you made it clear that housing benefit was to be phased out over 20 years, with a 5% (in current terms) real-terms reduction every year, I think it would be manageable.

Wages would rise and rents would fall, and the process would be gradual enough to not be a shock. Those in work wouldn't really notice a big change.

Of course, those who are unemployed for long periods would be hit - but then, the State shouldn't unconditionally pay people to be unemployed for long periods without very strict conditions attached.

I'm not convinced that housing benefit is particularly useful at all for a functioning economy - it artificially inflates rents and house prices, and depresses wages at the bottom end - but it should be phased out slowly rather than completely cut in one go.

Tell me you're joking. You ARE joking aren't you?

Oh you are a one!

How would, say, a single mum with no family to help care for her child, thus unable to go out to work manage to pay for accommodation?