£480 wk ben cap not enough for families in London to live on.

ukcarper

robmatic wrote: »

£70 isn't a great deal for working 35 hours.

No it's less than £2 a hour but you are better off.

pqrdef

Engeroosi wrote: »

So what if benefits aren't enough to live in London, if your on benefits and not working then there is no major reason to live in London so move somewhere cheaper!!! Somewhere you might actually not require so much benefits and you never know, you might actually find a job!!!!!

The rest of the country has enough depressed areas already. The last thing it needs is to be a dumping ground for London's rejects while London gets richer.

London boroughs brag about having the lowest council tax in the country. They can afford to take their share of the burden.

In fact they can afford to take a bigger share - and they've got loads of big houses which could be turned into social housing for large families from elsewhere. I suggest they start with the houses closest to Hyde Park.

kabayiri

drc wrote: »

Why do we have to bribe them? It's not their money, it's the taxpayers. That's like saying we should pay interest to people that we have lent money to.

Poorer people tend to respond well to bribes.

Plus, it wouldn't take long to be in credit. I am tired of hearing about rights and fairness when we have passed the £1trn debt marker. We need positive action now.

ukcarper

According to BBC it will save £290million not a very big chunk of overall cost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16682854

Rochdale_Pioneers

The bulk of benefit payments pass straight to the landlord, so the "riches" being handed out don't actually get seen by the poor sods working flat out on minimal wages to just about have enough money to be broke. The proposed solution seems to be to cap benefits, which in practice means cap housing benefit. Anyone want to bet how many landlords will cut their rents?

The cause of the problem is a lack of social housing. Which when you sell council houses off and bar councils from spending the receipts on replacement housing is no surprise. What the cap will mean in practice is that people won't be able to afford to live near their jobs, and many won't be able to afford to pay to commute. So more people out of work needing more benefits and paying less tax.

Niv

kabayiri wrote: »

Poorer people tend to respond well to bribes.

Plus, it wouldn't take long to be in credit. I am tired of hearing about rights and fairness when we have passed the £1trn debt marker. We need positive action now.

No need to bribe them, just stop giving them money. If the cap of £26k is there, then people will just have to learn to live to their means (or the taxpayers anyway).

Newsflash: many people that work all their lives cant afford to live in London. Why should a bunch of out of work people get to?

Niv

heathcote123

robmatic wrote: »

£70 isn't a great deal for working 35 hours.

So the trick is to cut the benefits by another £70 and then it's worth doing!

Going4TheDream

[QUOTE=Rochdale_Pioneers;50536103_What_the_cap_will_mean_in_practice_is_that_people_won't_be_able_to_afford_to_live_near_their_jobs,_and_many_won't_be_able_to_afford_to_pay_to_commute._So_more_people_out_of_work_needing_more_benefits_and_paying_less_tax.[/QUOTE]

I know many people who commute as they cannot afford to live in the big cities and even though it does eat into their disposable income they are still better off than not working.

People need to start standing on their own two feet and accept that what they have come to know will change and they have to change with it, happens every day in real life

bobthedambuilder

FTBFun wrote: »

Would it?

Which article is it breaching?

I was attempting to be facetious about using the Human Rights Act, but your post prompted a quick search, and a trawl of my memory bank.

Is it not the case that someone (?) has quoted Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which the Human Rights Act 1998 requires us to abide by) to avoid being moved from a place of residence on the grounds that "they will separated from their local communities and from such social links as they have been able to establish."

Article 8 actually provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence".

It would not surprise me one jot to see this being trotted out at some point.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I know many people who commute as they cannot afford to live in the big cities and even though it does eat into their disposable income they are still better off than not working.

People need to start standing on their own two feet and accept that what they have come to know will change and they have to change with it, happens every day in real life

I know plenty of those two. And although I don't pay for my own fuel I do have a 95 miles each way commute, so I do know something about not living where you work.

The point is this. If you choose to take a job further away, you factor in the additional costs/time of the longer commute - thats a choice. Few people would voluntarily move further away from their job knowing its going to leave them worse off. Even fewer would move knowing that it won't leave them enough money to live on once they factor in commuting costs.

And that is exactly the scenario awaiting (by the government's own numbers) tens of thousands of the working poor. Compulsarily evicted as HB cuts no longer cover rent, forced to live somewhere further away with higher travel bills. If we were in boom times and there were plenty of jobs this would be less of an issue - you could viably argue that the people moving could find another job. But as we know jobs are like gold dust, so if you have one you generally don't want the disruption.

Even if you wanted to cut benefits, and wanted to ignore the lack of movement likely from the landlords who have pushed up the bill, now isn't the time to enact the change. Just watch, it'll end up costing money like so many of the other "savings".