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

Rochdale_Pioneers

BTW the alternative solution is to tackle the problem - cap rents. If landlords don't think the capped income is enough they are free to sell.

Going4TheDream

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

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".

For working people I agree, however can we really continue justifying unemployed families living in accommodation that they would clearly be unable to afford even if they were working even with the capped proposed benefits. These are obviously two different angles on the spectrum and perhaps each needs to be addressed differently.

Clearly a one size fits all solution isn't going to work and yes I agree some form of rent cap may have come into play. I do have a house I own outright that I rent out so perhaps a rent cap wont affect me as it would others who have large loans on the property, but it does seem to me that some landlords, whilst providing a much needed service have taken advantage of the 'easy' rent provided by LHA etc. Perhaps it is time for the dog to wag the tail and not the other way round and redress the balance?

Pennywise

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

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.

But the jobs they give up will be taken by others so why more unemployment? If the firms need the staff, they'll pay more if they have to. If landlords need tenants, they'll accept less rent.

London is a blip. Sooner or later the differences in wages, cost of living, housing, etc., has to be addressed to reduce the differential to the rest of the country.

This is the first step, hopefully, of a more level playing field. It's been the govt paying rents that caused the house price & rent increases to unsustainable levels in the first place. The housing allowances should never have been allowed to get so high and should have been capped years ago. Now, like always, corrective action has to be more extreme.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Pennywise wrote: »

If landlords need tenants, they'll accept less rent.

This is the first step, hopefully, of a more level playing field. It's been the govt paying rents that caused the house price & rent increases to unsustainable levels in the first place. The housing allowances should never have been allowed to get so high and should have been capped years ago. Now, like always, corrective action has to be more extreme.

Well you'd think they'd accept less rent. But the evidence from retail is that they'd rather have the place empty!

And I agree with the need to correct housing costs. So why not cap rents rather than evict tens of thousands of families? its not the people who will be forced to move that put their rent that high, nor do they receive a penny in actually cash for their rent.

drc

It's kind of ironic that the nasty Tory party of capitalists are the ones that have capped huge housing benefit payments to landlords and cut tax credits (subsidies to big business) whilst the socialist Labour government endorsed these payments for years for some reason. Labour = the party for rich landlords and big business.

Conrad

The cap is about setting a new tone where the something for nothing lifestyle and having as many kids as you like without fear or thought becommes less acceptable.

There is nothing progressive about a society that tacitly encourages ever greater numbers to choose the welfare lifestyle, and the real victims are of course millions of kids growing up in homes where no one ever works and aspiration extends to the comming 48 hour warhammer game online.

People living within thier means, whatever next!

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

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".

What you are basically describing here is that for the working people, the cost of living is basically more than they can make working.

That's a problem. And it's not really a benefits problem. It's a housing problem. Some regulation could go some way to helping this problem, but if what you are describing is true, we'd end up in a situation whee only those claiming benefits could afford to live in expensive areas.

Obviously that needs looking at!

I'm not sure how many working people will be displaced. It would take one very large rent to displace a working family, as you have to remember, often they will be paying some part of the rent out of their own income, with top ups. Different to someone living entirely on benefit income.

carefullycautious

The_White_Horse wrote: »

not only should this 25k limit per year be 12k (1k a month is more than enough hand outs) - a person being given a free home should NEVER be entitled to anything more than a 2 bedroom flat. if they want to put people in houses, they can share with others, like students and young WORKING people do.

1 bedroom flat for singles and couples

2 bedroom flat for everyone else - no matter how many kids they have. that wil stop the scum breeding like bacteria.

Will it really. Its never stopped them just go back a little and there were millions of families living in overcrowded conditions in two up two downs.

Going4TheDream

carefullycautious wrote: »

Will it really. Its never stopped them just go back a little and there were millions of families living in overcrowded conditions in two up two downs.

In the days before easy access to birth control, it can hardly be used as an excuse today.

FTBFun

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

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.

Article 8 is a qualified right though, in that it can be infringed in certain circumstances - the article says:

"2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Important bit highlighted in bold. I would say it is arguable that it isn't against their human rights in this case.