Ben cap

nannytone_2

i personally know of very few people where no one in their household works ( apart from a couple that are disabled and a couple that are VERY full time carers for elderly parents) yet i know a lot of people that live in social housing.
i also know quite a dew non workers that privately rent, along with workers that privately rent.


it sounds like london would become a great place to live. ghetto's where the menial workers live , and then the rich that can afford to pay their own way with the ever increasing private rents/house prices.

rather like the plantation owners that have their workers housed nearby, so they can be called upon when needed, but far enough away not to offend ..../B]

gettingready

missbiggles1 wrote: »

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.

I always thought that. People who work in London can not afford to live in London, pay massive money to commute and spend ages on commute.

People who do not work and frankly have no need to live in London (they could be "professionally unemployed" anywhere) are blocking affordable housing.

(preparing to be shot here now)

missbiggles1

nannytone wrote: »

i personally know of very few people where no one in their household works ( apart from a couple that are disabled and a couple that are VERY full time carers for elderly parents) yet i know a lot of people that live in social housing.
i also know quite a dew non workers that privately rent, along with workers that privately rent.


it sounds like london would become a great place to live. ghetto's where the menial workers live , and then the rich that can afford to pay their own way with the ever increasing private rents/house prices.

rather like the plantation owners that have their workers housed nearby, so they can be called upon when needed, but far enough away not to offend ..../B]

Most social housing was built specifically for that purpose, so that workers could live near their work. That was the case with the garden cities, Port Sunlight, Bournville, the post war new towns and many more.

How exactly that makes them ghettos I fail to see.

OhWow

Sixer wrote: »

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

Landlords are worried by this cap saying that it will drive rents down in London.

One landlord said on the forums that 40% of those who moved to London, could not pay their own rent and claimed HB:eek: How daft are we!

gettingready

all it would mean is that London and the south east will be a no go area apart from the most wealthy.

No, no for the most wealthy but for the WORKING people, those ones who pay for the others to stay at home all day and collect their benefits - so they do not have to commute for 3-4 hours per day, pay a fortune for that commute too to get to WORK.

missbiggles1

gettingready wrote: »

I always thought that. People who work in London can not afford to live in London, pay massive money to commute and spend ages on commute.

People who do not work and frankly have no need to live in London (they could be "professionally unemployed" anywhere) are blocking affordable housing.

(preparing to be shot here now)

I won't be shooting you, it's exactly what I think as well.

gettingready

Thanks but I will still be shot on here any second LOL

OhWow

gettingready wrote: »

People who do not work and frankly have no need to live in London (they could be "professionally unemployed" anywhere) are blocking affordable housing.

They got caught in the last benefit cap.

This benefit cap is for those who don't work enough hours to keep their family or pay their rent, but who like to live in an expensive part of the country. Something they could never do if they worked enough hours to keep their own family without benefits.

Then there is the UK's annual welfare bill cap that started this tax year and will also bring about welfare cuts to keep to that cap.

nannytone_2

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Most social housing was built specifically for that purpose, so that workers could live near their work. That was the case with the garden cities, Port Sunlight, Bournville, the post war new towns and many more.

How exactly that makes them ghettos I fail to see.

i was awake early this morning (6ish) and was listening to a property show. there was a 2 bed workman cottage. built specifically for the low paid workers in london.
portobello road.
as a total dump it cost 700k. after a revamp it sold for 1.2 m.
why? because the wealthy have decided that it is now a desireable place to live.
just like places like stratford and brixton .... not so long ago, they were places that no one wanted to live, so the poor lived there.
now where do the poor live?
places like dagenham and Gilford ... dumps, but property prices are on the rise, so pretty soon they won't be able to live there either.


too many people see houses as just buildings that we inhabit, rather than homes and communities. it does everyone good to live in places with a mixture of other people rather than sefrefating those unable to work from the working poor, from the middle class, from the rich.
london is a very transient place compared with how it was 20 years ago.
i moved away 11 years ago, and don't recognise the place anymore.
where i live now is like london was when i was growing up. communities where people looked out for each other. where people noticed if they hadn't seen you for a few days.
people becoming isolated ( regardless of income) and everyone looking out for themselves.
if that is the type of society you want, then it looks like you will have your wish.
but you need to think more carefully about what you wish for

missbiggles1

nannytone wrote: »

i was awake early this morning (6ish) and was listening to a property show. there was a 2 bed workman cottage. built specifically for the low paid workers in london.
portobello road.
as a total dump it cost 700k. after a revamp it sold for 1.2 m.
why? because the wealthy have decided that it is now a desireable place to live.
just like places like stratford and brixton .... not so long ago, they were places that no one wanted to live, so the poor lived there.
now where do the poor live?
places like dagenham and Gilford ... dumps, but property prices are on the rise, so pretty soon they won't be able to live there either.


too many people see houses as just buildings that we inhabit, rather than homes and communities. it does everyone good to live in places with a mixture of other people rather than sefrefating those unable to work from the working poor, from the middle class, from the rich.
london is a very transient place compared with how it was 20 years ago.
i moved away 11 years ago, and don't recognise the place anymore.
where i live now is like london was when i was growing up. communities where people looked out for each other. where people noticed if they hadn't seen you for a few days.
people becoming isolated ( regardless of income) and everyone looking out for themselves.
if that is the type of society you want, then it looks like you will have your wish.
but you need to think more carefully about what you wish for

That in no way answers my point.

Anyway, London has always been a transient place as is the way of cities. As an example, take Brick Lane. Nowadays it's home to a large Bangladeshi community, but before that it was almost totally Jewish and before that colonised by the Huguenots - that's the way it works.

I lived in London when you would've been growing up there and , of course, it was diferent then. However, it was nothing like the cosy soap opera world that you describe and I doubt it ever was. My husband is a Londoner born and bred and grew up even earlier and he doesn't think it was like that, even in the 50s.

IME, the poor, the middle class and the rich never live in the same area and it's daft to think they would or ever did.