Costs soar as Labour voters told to pay their way

DevilsAdvocate1

pqrdef wrote: »

That'll be because of the shortage of jobs. People get on their bikes and go to places with better job prospects, like say Westminster.. Boingg, oh dear, irony meter gone again.

There are jobs in the north. Its not just one swathe of joblessness.

MacMickster

BobQ wrote: »

Well if you accept that the children of those who work long hours or who move due to redundancy are casualties then I do not see why the children of benefits claimants forced to move could also become casualties through disrupted education. In my view the are all victims. The only difference is that the examples you give are caused by the impact of global capitalism whereas those arising from benefits policies are caused by actions enacted in the name of taxpayers. I can see the argument that misery should be shared fairly, I am just not as comfortable about it as you and others seem to be.

Why do you assume that changing schools does damage to a child's education? If someone sends their child to a top public school, but their circumstances change and they can no longer afford it, should the taxpayer then fund the fees so as not to disrupt the education of the child?

There is an old saying that "Beggars can't be choosers". I appreciate that you won't appreciate the term "beggars", but those reliant on taxpayer support really shouldn't expect to be able to choose to live in some of the world's most expensive real estate.

But moving people who have lived in an area for a significant period is a slippery slope that will create areas where only rich people or only poor people live.

Those areas already exist throughout the country. Most people live in an area that they can afford. If they can no longer afford it they move. I am currently starting to look for a new home for my retirement and have quite a specific set of "wants". In reality, I will have to compromise as my wallet is unlikely to allow me to satisfy all of those wants.

chewmylegoff

ruggedtoast wrote: »

One of the most repeated complaints in the comments is that many of the benefit cap 'victims' work and therefore should be immune.

The woman in the article for example works, as a cleaner, for four entire hours a day.

After working for 4 hours a day she stands around staring into space waiting for her child to finish school. Of course there is no chance that her job is a sham designed to entitle her to working tax credit. Not a chance.

atush

But moving people who have lived in an area for a significant period is a slippery slope that will create areas where only rich people or only poor people live.

That is no slippery slope of economic cleansing. It is the life that the rest of us, the working population exist in.

If you think, that we don't have to move or sell our homes if we suffer a setback, you are sadly mistaken.

If you can't pay your rent, and the rent is over your highest available benefits you should move. I don't care how long you've been there. You have a right to welfare to provide food and shelter. Not 5 star dining, or a flat in inner London.

And get this, I am not for empty nesters staying in a 4 bed council house either. They can swap with a family who has 3+ kids in a one-2 bed.

dori2o

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I can't understand how anyone who actually works and pays taxes can approve virtually unlimited amounts of public money being handed over to private landlords so that people on benefits can live places people who work ad live within their means can't afford.

The thing you and many other fail to realise is that a substantial number of people on housing and CT benefit ARE working and ARE paying taxes.

Is it right that these people who ARE working in these jobs are packed off 20/30/40/50 miles away from their place of work, just to find an affordable place to live.

Someone obviously has to do this work, but how can it be right to force someone to travel 2/3/4+ hours to do a job which pays little more than NMW.

If you rid the expensive areas of London of all the people claiming housing benefit who exactly would do the jobs that are left behind. The jobs would still exist but there would be nobody to do them as nobody would be able to afford to live close enough to do them.

The problem, I agree, is private landlords and the insane rents they charge, often for properties no bigger than a shoe box and in a condition that would have made some medieval cess pits look attractive.

So the answer is to build more social housing and price the rents at an affordable rate, where people on lower incomes can afford to rent, and stay closer to their jobs, without the need for housing/council tax benefits.

ruggedtoast

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Your point would have more weight if many of the state schools in central London weren't among the very worst in the entire country. Moving people out of central London will more than likely result in them going to better schools and receiving a better education.

I made that point to someone on here once and they returned with some data showing that London actually has better state schools (according to OFSTED) than anywhere else in the country.

Seems counter-intuitive to me but those were the figures.

I still wouldnt want to bring up a kid anywhere near London.

Jennifer_Jane

dori2o wrote: »

The thing you and many other fail to realise is that a substantial number of people on housing and CT benefit ARE working and ARE paying taxes.

Is it right that these people who ARE working in these jobs are packed off 20/30/40/50 miles away from their place of work, just to find an affordable place to live.

Someone obviously has to do this work, but how can it be right to force someone to travel 2/3/4+ hours to do a job which pays little more than NMW.

If you rid the expensive areas of London of all the people claiming housing benefit who exactly would do the jobs that are left behind. The jobs would still exist but there would be nobody to do them as nobody would be able to afford to live close enough to do them.

The problem, I agree, is private landlords and the insane rents they charge, often for properties no bigger than a shoe box and in a condition that would have made some medieval cess pits look attractive.

So the answer is to build more social housing and price the rents at an affordable rate, where people on lower incomes can afford to rent, and stay closer to their jobs, without the need for housing/council tax benefits.

It used to take me 45 minutes to get to work in my North West area. It takes my partner, in London, about 1.5 hours and 3 trains to get to work. I have heard, anecdotally of course, of someone living in Rugby to get to work in Westminster, and managing it very well, although her hours were changed to let her get to work. This is not always possible especially with shiftworkers.

My partner, as I keep mentioning, gets no benefits at all and shares a 4 bed house with 4 other people (it's not him that's doubling up!).

This is what happens when you get slightly over the amounts allowed for benefits. You do much better if you are on benefits than if you are lowish income, but above the limits.

He earns about £25,000 and over £1,000 a year goes on his Oyster card.

Yes, he is planning to move to a cheaper area, which is what most people have to do.

No sympathy with the lady who is complaining about being moved from Westminster to Brent. She benefits from an extremely generous welfare system, and now she's complaining it's not generous enough!

atush

Is it right that these people who ARE working in these jobs are packed off 20/30/40/50 miles away from their place of work, just to find an affordable place to live.

Yes, it is right. Just like the rest of us have to commute to work. Is it right they would get to live in london JUST because they are poorer than some? No.

sammyjammy

dori2o wrote: »

The thing you and many other fail to realise is that a substantial number of people on housing and CT benefit ARE working and ARE paying taxes.

Is it right that these people who ARE working in these jobs are packed off 20/30/40/50 miles away from their place of work, just to find an affordable place to live.

Someone obviously has to do this work, but how can it be right to force someone to travel 2/3/4+ hours to do a job which pays little more than NMW.

If you rid the expensive areas of London of all the people claiming housing benefit who exactly would do the jobs that are left behind. The jobs would still exist but there would be nobody to do them as nobody would be able to afford to live close enough to do them.

The problem, I agree, is private landlords and the insane rents they charge, often for properties no bigger than a shoe box and in a condition that would have made some medieval cess pits look attractive.

So the answer is to build more social housing and price the rents at an affordable rate, where people on lower incomes can afford to rent, and stay closer to their jobs, without the need for housing/council tax benefits.

People that work and claim Working tax credits are unaffected by the benefit cap, their housing benefit will not be reduced.

N1AK

dori2o wrote: »

Is it right that these people who ARE working in these jobs are packed off 20/30/40/50 miles away from their place of work, just to find an affordable place to live.

Someone obviously has to do this work, but how can it be right to force someone to travel 2/3/4+ hours to do a job which pays little more than NMW.

If you rid the expensive areas of London of all the people claiming housing benefit who exactly would do the jobs that are left behind. The jobs would still exist but there would be nobody to do them as nobody would be able to afford to live close enough to do them.

Is it right that people who are working and don't get benefits can't afford to live in the very areas that you are suggesting the unemployed or very low earners should?

You can commute to London from most of the South East in less than an hour. I know people who pay higher rate tax who live out in the commuter belt (one as far up as Kettering) rather than pay London prices; but sure the taxpayer should be funding a NMW cleaner's Islington apartment :rotfl:

Your argument is effectively that firms are using benefit as a subsidy because they'd have to pay better wages if their workers couldn't live locally on housing benefit. How does that make sense?