Neets 'should not get benefits', say MPs

carolt

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8607014.stm

Sounds good to me.

Opinions, please?

Cleaver

carolt wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8607014.stm

Sounds good to me.

Opinions, please?

Yup, sounds fair. As usual, the caveat needs to be that if someone is in genuine need of support, they should get it. But I agree that if you're a 17 year old who is living at your parent's house and you're not doing anything then you shoudn't be entitled to benefits.

15% of 16 to 24 year olds in the situation? Ye gods. I would introduce some sort of scheme where those who are 16 to 24ish and are genuinely desperate for work should be able to pop along to the job centre and can volunteer with local businesses and organisations for free. I think it would then be fair to give them some sort of 'benefit' payment to help out and would also mean that they should be able to enter employment more easily as they are showing willing. Those who want to sit on their backside can continue to do so and will get nothing whatsoever. Maybe this sort of thing already exists, I'm not really up with the whole benefits thing.

treliac

carolt, I was just about to post this!

How do we create a future for the 15% of 16 - 24 year olds :eek: who go straight from school onto benefits. How do we steer them away from a lifetime of dependency?

It's truly frightening to contemplate the increasing circle of deprivation we're in unless we work out a way forward, in which young people feel motivated and enabled to have a productive future and to feel a proper part of society.

We should learn from other countries like Holland and have the courage to improve lives in the UK.

N.B. DD has a friend at uni who comes from Amsterdam who feels safe and comfortable to walk home across that city at midnight. Who would in many parts of London or any other large town or city here?

CLAPTON

treliac wrote: »

carolt, I was just about to post this!

How do we create a future for the 15% of 16 - 24 year olds :eek: who go straight from school onto benefits. How do we steer them away from a lifetime of dependency?

It's truly frightening to contemplate the increasing circle of deprivation we're in unless we work out a way forward, in which young people feel motivated and enabled to have a productive future and to feel a proper part of society.

We should learn from other countries like Holland and have the courage to improve lives in the UK.

N.B. DD has a friend at uni who comes from Amsterdam who feels safe and comfortable to walk home across that city at midnight. Who would in many parts of London or any other large town or city here?

all the many people I know in London either catch a bus/tube or walk home at night... however else are they to get home? (and they all go out regularly)

princeofpounds

I've never understood why benefits are given in return for nothing. It would be a lot fairer in my mind if you either had to have a record of paying in to society to get 'free' benefits, or offer some kind of service to the community if you have never contributed through tax and NI. It wouldn't even have to be especially onerous, to leave plenty of time to job search. Might be difficult to come up with a productive idea and administrate though.

Mind you, I think this proposal is deeply unfair in one respect - why is it only 17-24 year olds who would be penalised in this way? At 23 you are in no way necessarily able to reply on parental support, and why does a 25 (or 30, 40, 50) year old deserve unconditional benefits when they are also NEET?

Cleaver

treliac wrote: »

How do we create a future for the 15% of 16 - 24 year olds :eek: who go straight from school onto benefits. How do we steer them away from a lifetime of dependency?

It's truly frightening to contemplate the increasing circle of deprivation we're in unless we work out a way forward, in which young people feel motivated and enabled to have a productive future and to feel a proper part of society.

In essence you're correct, 15% is a frightening figure. But looking at it in a positive light (which I normally do) then 85% of our youngsters are in a job, education or some form of training. Which is good. So it's a significant (very significant) minority that aren't.

I'm not normally so straightforward and Whitehorsish, but if you took away benefits for that 15% tomorrow, I imagine a good 50% of them would find something to do by the end of the month.

I think a lot of it is your upbringing. During their school, college and university holiday's my parents had temp jobs. My friends had temp jobs. In fact, there was a bit of competition between pretty much all of my friends to get the best / well paid temp jobs. It was a bit embarrassing if you didn't have one. As for my parents, they wouldn't have allowed me to go on the dole as a teenager living at home. When I came home at summer from Uni, I got a job. I was pretty much expected to get a job, as that's just what people did. When I finished uni I couldn't get a job in the area I wanted, so I got a job as a waiter for 12 months whilst I looked and I'm very glad I did too, it taught me loads. If I couldn't even get a waiter job then I would have volunteered somewhere. This would have enhanced my CV and also make my parents proud of me, and they would have probably been happy to let me live at home rent-free as they knew I was at least doing something productive with my days. So I think a lot of this is a society and cultural problem.

carolt

But at the end of the day, it's a wrong-headed incentive problem.

If that 15% suddenly had no cash at all - no benefits whatsoever, then they'd find the option of voluntary work/training etc, even if they couldn't immediately get a job, a hell of a lot more appealing.

I suspect the 15% would prettty quickly reduce to near 0%.

treliac

If you put on one of the news channels now, Cameron is talking about tory plans for a National Citizens Service for young people.

treliac

princeofpounds wrote: »

Mind you, I think this proposal is deeply unfair in one respect - why is it only 17-24 year olds who would be penalised in this way? At 23 you are in no way necessarily able to reply on parental support, and why does a 25 (or 30, 40, 50) year old deserve unconditional benefits when they are also NEET?

If your child goes to university, you are expected to support them until the age of 25, unless they have already moved away from home and become indpendent of their family. Up until they are 25 they will only get a loan based on parental income, which parents are expected to top up accordingly.

carolt

treliac wrote: »

If you put on one of the news channels now, Cameron is talking about tory plans for a National Citizens Service for young people.

Can you tell us any details?

Cleaver

Just out of interest, what jobs did everone do between the ages of about 15 to 21? I did:

Paper-round
Washing up in the canteen of a shower factory
Night work unloading and loading lorries at a distribution warehouse
Cocktail barman (I was sh*t at that, kept dropping everything)
Worked behind the bar in a traditional pub
Worked for the council teaching kids to play football and took them on trips (that was ace)
Door to door cold calling and selling double glazing (quit after a day, it was awful)
Night porter in a large hotel
Waiter
Did a few weeks labouring for a gypsy family who did drives. Which was interesting.