Is London living cost affordable?

MrsE_2

princeofpounds wrote: »

It kind of destroys the whole idea of welfare being a safety net, because we are not paying for people to live in acceptable conditions - we are paying them to live in conditions that no normal working person with exactly the same personal situation except the unemployment could ever dream of. So yes, you can only live in chelsea if you are a) rich or b) 'poor' and on something like LHA..

Its obscene & I find the people protesting against it fairly sickening. Ordinary workers can't dream of living in central London, yet we have to pay for non workers to live there......

ukcarper

MrsE wrote: »

Its obscene & I find the people protesting against it fairly sickening. Ordinary workers can't dream of living in central London, yet we have to pay for non workers to live there......

As has been pointed out a lot of people claiming LHA are working, in London you can earn quite a lot and still claim LHA.

movilogo

Current monthly season ticket, including zone 1-6 travelcard from:

Maidenhead - £267
Reading - £386
Wokingham - £338
Horsham - £347
East Grinstead - £248.50
Bedford (Bedford!) - £407.10

The parking in stations around £100/month.

So from Bedford/Luton/Harpenden/St Alban, the total cost of journey to London every month is £500. If you consider someone on 40% tax rate, this translates to £800 gross or £9600 per year.

It means even if you get £10,000 salary hike in a new job in London you are actually not gaining anything. That even leaves the physical toil of commuting to London everyday!!! :mad:

MrsE_2

ukcarper wrote: »

As has been pointed out a lot of people claiming LHA are working, in London you can earn quite a lot and still claim LHA.

OK, its obscene that we are paying any sort of benefits to enable people to live in central London.

Only the very wealthy & those on benefits can "afford" to live there......

CLAPTON

movilogo wrote: »

[/B]The parking in stations around £100/month.

So from Bedford/Luton/Harpenden/St Alban, the total cost of journey to London every month is £500. If you consider someone on 40% tax rate, this translates to £800 gross or £9600 per year.

It means even if you get £10,000 salary hike in a new job in London you are actually not gaining anything. That even leaves the physical toil of commuting to London everyday!!! :mad:

on the other hand if you are unemplyed in Liverpool and can get a job in London on 30k then it's a wonderful place to live at least whilst young

ukcarper

MrsE wrote: »

OK, its obscene that we are paying any sort of benefits to enable people to live in central London.

Only the very wealthy & those on benefits can "afford" to live there......

Don’t get me wrong I agree something has to be done but you will always need people to do the low paid jobs and you can’t afford to commute very far on minimum wage. Obviously you don’t need to live in Kensington and Chelsea but how many claimants do.

Cleaver

DervProf wrote: »

I don`t have to presume anything, and in a lot of cases I don`t.

I didn`t presume that the banks in the UK could continue lending like they did, and they didn`t.

I did presume that if I spent less than I earned, I wouldn`t be in financial trouble. Guess what ?


That`s right.

Sorry Derv, but I don't really understand what you're saying. I was just saying that most people in London could be considered solvent, i.e. they have enough money to live in London.

Malcolm.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It obviously is for the 7,000,000 or so people who live there.

Over 6 billion people don't live in London.

sticky23

As some people have already said - London is obviously affordable, as there are so many people willing to live here. However, it's not always an easy life. I rent in Tower Hamlets with my partner. We pay £1100 a month for a two bed flat. This is actually quite cheap for the area, but we are a good 25 minute walk from a tube station, so commuting takes just as long as if we were living in the suburbs.

What bothers me about the benefits situation, is the way people are financially rewarded for having children. I would be financially better off by having a child - and I would have a chance of getting social housing. However I wouldn't have a chance in hell of ever getting on the property ladder, and being a working mother is out of the question, as childcare is so expensive. Just typing in different scenarios into entitledto.com tells me that: If I gave up work to have a child, we as a couple would get approx £1100 a month in benefits. If, however, I had to give up work due to illness or unemployment, I would only get approx £450 a month. I cannot see how it can cost £650 a month to have a child with no childcare costs?

In effect, the benefit system in this country traps people, as work doesn't pay.. It also encourages the wrong kind of people to have children: the people who doesn't think twice about bringing children into this world, as it gives them a lifestyle they otherwise would have had to work incredible hard for.. I don't blame them - I blame the system.

Fot the record: I don't think poor people shouldn't be allowed to have children. I just don't think we should reward the parents for their failure to use contraception - we should instead use the money to improve schools and nurseries in deprived areas, so these children have the same chance in life as everyone else..

Malcolm.

sticky23 wrote: »

In effect, the benefit system in this country traps people, as work doesn't pay.. It also encourages the wrong kind of people to have children: the people who doesn't think twice about bringing children into this world, as it gives them a lifestyle they otherwise would have had to work incredible hard for.. I don't blame them - I blame the system.

Labour's legacy of social cleansing?