How does expecting people on benefits to potentially share a bedroom equal homeless?

I am confused why a cap on benefits payments should be opposed by those who say its OK for benefits payments to equal or exceed the equivalent of salaries approaching £50k per year?

It is extraordinary how anyone can think its morally acceptable for the state to provide benefits which equate to a salary nearly double the national average wage?

One Bishop this morning claimed that cutting benefits to the extent that some children in families in receipt of benefits might have to share a bedroom equates to making those families homeless - what arrant nonsense.

Bishop John Packer, Bishop of Ripon & Leeds

The state benefits system is there to provide a basic safety net for those unable to look after their families, not as an alternative to gainful employment.

Ian Duncan Smith has it seems got the right balance between an appropriate safety net for those that need support & doing away with the benefits culture which afflicts some families who have depended on the state for support over generations:

'It's not about punishing people but about fairness': Duncan Smith launches last-ditch appeal to bishops not to derail plans to impose benefits cap of £26,000 a year
But it seems that the plan could be derailed by the House of Lords.