Ben cap

gettingready

Killerseven wrote: »

Where do cleaners and checkout attendants get £15hr? More like min wage and topped up with benefits?

Not cleaners working as self employed - they charge 10-20 (sometimes more) per hour (London) and live quite well on that with several clients they clean for on regular, weekly basis.

gettingready

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.

No, as that cleaner will have several clients and combined from all those will have what they aim for earning wise. So it is not like one person will have to pay 30k for a cleaner.

My one charges £10.00 per hour and comes for 5 hour per week so say £50.00 per week x 52 weeks = 2600 per year. She has about 15 regular clients with anything between 2 and 10 hours per week each. She is self employed and her £10.00 per hour rate is quite low for London.

NorthFin

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

So if the proposed cuts go ahead, are we really talking about ALL the low income families being forced to live outside London? Either that or rents will come down to correct levels they should have been without the artificial prop called high housing benefit payments!

NorthFin

OhWow wrote: »

Benefits have pushed rents up. They are using the same to lower rents.

I dont think they want to lower rents, its just they cant afford to keep propping them up so high. If these cuts go ahead for everyone working or not, then rents will fall. Either that or there will be record numbers of evictions due to not being able to afford the rents out of their own pockets.

I suspect a bit of both.

missbiggles1

Killerseven wrote: »

Where do cleaners and checkout attendants get £15hr? More like min wage and topped up with benefits?

I never said anything about checkout operators but cleaners usually charge upwards from £10ph, with £15 not uncommon in the right area for the right person.

You can't even get a cleaner on the IOW for NMW and that's been the case for many, many years.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

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.

Or you import cheap foreign labour - people who will sleep 20 to a house and not mind being paid below minimum wage...

...there are 500,000 Africans in Libya trying to cross the Mediterranean - many will end up in Calais before smuggling themselves across to Dover - they will all need somewhere to live and a job.

rogerblack

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2015/06/an-inconvenient-problem-2/ is an in-depth look at this issue.

An employed family, losing a job can easily hit levels of arrears due to not having enough money to pay rent that they risk eviction in only several months.

Local authorities may have a duty to house these people.
Any families with more than one child may not be housable in temporary accommodation as this would breach the benefit cap limit.
There is a real problem.

nannytone_2

LUTC suggests that london wages for people doing 'menial' jobs ( supermarket staff, cleaners ( not self employed ones, but hospital/publically employed cleaners) will be paid £15 an hour to cover the higher costs. so wouldn't that mean that everyone will be paid more? someone currently earning £15 an hour, will need to be paid £30 an hour to denote their skill level as compare4d to a shelf stacker ...
so the overall wages would be higher and the rrents to rise to reflect this.
how this solves the housing problems, especially in London, i really don't understand.
all it would mean is that London and the south east will be a no go area apart from the most wealthy.
even those in the historically low paid jobs will have to be wealthy or perhapss would be in servitude to those who could afford to live there.
they exchange their labour in return for food and lodgings.
back to the good old days of the nobility and the serfs

missbiggles1

rogerblack wrote: »

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2015/06/an-inconvenient-problem-2/ is an in-depth look at this issue.

An employed family, losing a job can easily hit levels of arrears due to not having enough money to pay rent that they risk eviction in only several months.

Local authorities may have a duty to house these people.
Any families with more than one child may not be housable in temporary accommodation as this would breach the benefit cap limit.
There is a real problem.

But the benefit cap doesn't kick in until rather longer than that.

"If you are recently unemployed, the Benefit Cap won't be applied for the first 39 weeks if you were in paid employment or self-employment (this doesn't have to be full-time) for 50 of the 52 weeks immediately before your last day of work."

missbiggles1

nannytone wrote: »

LUTC suggests that london wages for people doing 'menial' jobs ( supermarket staff, cleaners ( not self employed ones, but hospital/publically employed cleaners) will be paid £15 an hour to cover the higher costs. so wouldn't that mean that everyone will be paid more? someone currently earning £15 an hour, will need to be paid £30 an hour to denote their skill level as compare4d to a shelf stacker ...
so the overall wages would be higher and the rrents to rise to reflect this.
how this solves the housing problems, especially in London, i really don't understand.
all it would mean is that London and the south east will be a no go area apart from the most wealthy.
even those in the historically low paid jobs will have to be wealthy or perhapss would be in servitude to those who could afford to live there.
they exchange their labour in return for food and lodgings.
back to the good old days of the nobility and the serfs

Hopefully people in low paid jobs would be allocated social housing rather having non workers in it, as is often the case at the moment.