Ben cap

nannytone_2

tomtontom wrote: »

People already do travel into London each day - they're known as commuters.

You assume that all those on NMW are in receipt of benefits, you forget about those that choose to live to their means. People live with families, in shared houses - it is possible to survive in London on a low wage, you just cut your cloth accordingly.

as a singleton, perhaps.
but even a couple, with children, both working full time on NMW won't earn enough to support their family without some type of benefit top up.

a joint income of £500 a week will not pay rent ( unless social housing is available) council tax and day to day expenses for a family of 4, even with no childcare costs, in any of the london boroughs

Killerseven

nannytone wrote: »

as a singleton, perhaps.
but even a couple, with children, both working full time on NMW won't earn enough to support their family without some type of benefit top up.

a joint income of £500 a week will not pay rent ( unless social housing is available) council tax and day to day expenses for a family of 4, even with no childcare costs, in any of the london boroughs

We are only talking about reducing the max £500 week down to £445 week. That is £26k down to new cap of £23k.

So rents will just have to fall around £55 week to absorb the cuts.

But this is just the start, the trend is clear to see, more cuts have to follow and rents and house prices will slowly correct to where they should be.

nannytone_2

at the moment, there is no cap to benefits paid to working people.
i was replying to a post that says it is possible to live in london on a low wage as long as you 'cut your cloth'. i was pointing out that for families, it isn't possible without benefit top ups, even if both parents work full time on NMW and have no childcare costs.
its wages that have to rise along with falling rents ( though the rents won't fall, as long as demand outstrips supply, as it has for many, many years)
job creation is greatest in the south east, so people are still drawn there.
with no increase in affordable housing, there is only one direction that the rents will go

rogerblack

I find this notion that housing benefit is paid to the claimant and is some way theirs amusing.
Housing benefit is a benefit on behalf of the poor, paid to richer property owners.

The only real sensible solution to this problem is to build enough homes that the property prices in the congested areas crash by half or more.
This seems unlikely.

gayleygoo

billywilly wrote: »

If they are on benefits, living and working in London, then they would be better off leaving and going somewhere else that is cheaper.

If the rent is £23,000 a year only those earning in excess of £80,000 should be living there - they can afford it without recourse to public funds.

With London, there will have to be a general exodus of those who have to rely on benefits to survive. They are going to have to come to the conclusion that enough is enough and move away and let those that can afford to live there move in.

I think this is a dangerous move. If no-one who receives housing benefit (whether working or not) can live in London, then it changes the voting demographics. One day, only the richest people will be able to afford to live in London, and who they vote for will have an impact on poorer people who have no say in the politics of the city. It sounds to me like the richest people in the country don't wish to share their living space with the less affluent people who service their needs.

Benefits are being cut but very few counter-measures are being put in place to support the displaced. Are there thousands of new jobs springing up, with quality affordable childcare? Will the minimum wage rise to a level necessary to live in London without the need for benefits? There is no solid foundation on which to lay this welfare reform.

Cutting/capping out of work benefits, seems to me to be a bit like if I was hundreds of thousands of pounds in debt, and my only plan to address the problem was to buy tesco value beans instead of Heinz :rotfl:

micky2phones

gayleygoo wrote: »

I think this is a dangerous move. If no-one who receives housing benefit (whether working or not) can live in London, then it changes the voting demographics. One day, only the richest people will be able to afford to live in London, and who they vote for will have an impact on poorer people who have no say in the politics of the city. It sounds to me like the richest people in the country don't wish to share their living space with the less affluent people who service their needs.

Benefits are being cut but very few counter-measures are being put in place to support the displaced. Are there thousands of new jobs springing up, with quality affordable childcare? Will the minimum wage rise to a level necessary to live in London without the need for benefits? There is no solid foundation on which to lay this welfare reform.

Cutting/capping out of work benefits, seems to me to be a bit like if I was hundreds of thousands of pounds in debt, and my only plan to address the problem was to buy tesco value beans instead of Heinz :rotfl:

This was my thoughts regarding London

lighting_up_the_chalice

Killerseven wrote: »

So if all the families working and not who rely on housing benefit are forced to move out of London, who will do the min wage and low paid jobs? Can people really travel that far everyday, when they could almost certainly get an easy min wage job close to their new home wherever they end up outside London?

What minimum wage and low paid jobs? They won't exists in London. If you want to hire a cleaner, and that cleaner has to clear £30k a year to be able to live in London, then you're going to have to either pay the cleaner £30k a year, or not have a cleaner.

Sixer

rogerblack wrote: »

I find this notion that housing benefit is paid to the claimant and is some way theirs amusing.
Housing benefit is a benefit on behalf of the poor, paid to richer property owners.

The only real sensible solution to this problem is to build enough homes that the property prices in the congested areas crash by half or more.
This seems unlikely.

Plus, the landlords get tax relief on the mortgage payments!

It really should be called Landlord Benefit, not Housing Benefit.

Killerseven

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

What minimum wage and low paid jobs? They won't exists in London. If you want to hire a cleaner, and that cleaner has to clear £30k a year to be able to live in London, then you're going to have to either pay the cleaner £30k a year, or not have a cleaner.

Ha yeah the supermarkets are going to have to pay old ladies £15hr to sit at the tills!

poppy10_2

Killerseven wrote: »

Ha yeah the supermarkets are going to have to pay old ladies £15hr to sit at the tills!

Market forces, dude. London capitalists love free markets. They shouldn't want the government interfering by topping up the low wages they are paying.

If the government does not subsidise low wages in London, then corporations will be forced to pay the going rate. If they need to pay £15 an hour for a cleaner or a checkout attendant in order to attract people to do the job, then that's what they'll have to do.

Already happens in Switzerland.