Ben cap

missbiggles1

nannytone wrote: »

you can't return the social housing to the people that earn low incomes because the social housing doesn't exist anymore. its in the hands of the buy to let landlords.

and yes, there was a mix of people ( though not aristocrats obviously)
there were professional people, the self employed businessmen and the factory workers living side by side.
on our terrace, there was a factory worker ( my dad) a civil servant, a self employed mechanic with his own garage and the landlord of the local working mans club.
or isn't that diverse enough?

Well, depending on the level of the civil servant, that's pretty solidly working class by most people's standards.

bloolagoon

nannytone wrote: »

its just the oppose!
the lower paid workers will be kept away from their more affluent neighbours, and house in the generally poorer quality housing with fewer amenities ( businesses will want to base themselves where the money is)
as i said preciously .... the low paid workers in the big cities will exist merely to do the bidding of the wealthy, with poor facilities and a worse quality of life

But only a few years ago that was me. On over £60,000 combined income. You don't get the cost of none social housing in London. I could stay and move to a dive - still paying a fortune or long commute affecting family life. There's no choice for none council / LA renting.

missbiggles1

nannytone wrote: »

you can't return the social housing to the people that earn low incomes because the social housing doesn't exist anymore. its in the hands of the buy to let landlords.

and yes, there was a mix of people ( though not aristocrats obviously)
there were professional people, the self employed businessmen and the factory workers living side by side.
on our terrace, there was a factory worker ( my dad) a civil servant, a self employed mechanic with his own garage and the landlord of the local working mans club.
or isn't that diverse enough?

Although too low, the percentage of London households in social housing is still around 25% (about the same % of all privately rented housing, including btl owners) and has only dropped a couple of % points in the last 20 years.

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Housing%20in%20London%202014%20-%20Final_1_0.pdf

As you can imagine, I'm very much in favour of more being built, particularly if allocated to working people.

missbiggles1

nannytone wrote: »

its just the oppose!
the lower paid workers will be kept away from their more affluent neighbours, and house in the generally poorer quality housing with fewer amenities ( businesses will want to base themselves where the money is)
as i said preciously .... the low paid workers in the big cities will exist merely to do the bidding of the wealthy, with poor facilities and a worse quality of life

Well, of course! Surely you don't expect lower paid workers to live in luxury mansions while the rich live in terraces? Heaven knows I'm a socialist but even I know that's not the way things work.

lighting_up_the_chalice

NorthFin wrote: »

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!

It'll be a bit of both. Rents will fall to make it affordable for some, but benefits will also fall to price those reliant on HB out.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

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.

You do yourself a disservice with that argument.

lighting_up_the_chalice

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.

Not really. They just secure suitable accommodation that falls below the cap. That may not be in London, of course.

lighting_up_the_chalice

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

That's quite a leap of reasoning. I guess the counter, and equally ridiculous, argument is that we fill London with the long term unemployed, turn it into some 4 star Dickensian hell, then tax the workers, who are now spending half their wages on commuting, the other half of their wages to pay their inflated rents.

lighting_up_the_chalice

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]

London would be a great place to live. It would be free of the unemployed with too much time on their hands and the social ills that go with it, crime, drugs, ASB etc etc etc. Where do I sign? You might want to surround yourself with those dregs, I do not.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

you can't return the social housing to the people that earn low incomes because the social housing doesn't exist anymore. its in the hands of the buy to let landlords.

Try telling that to the 3.9 million households currently living in social housing.