Under 25 housing benefit

homelessskilledworker

I think that the total welfare Bill is something like £230 Billion per year, which is just incredible.
They should just set a target tonight, pensions excluded, and set a plan to reducing it to £150 Billion. And if they don't at the very least get £80 Billion back in the way of services and work from those claiming it.

WE DO NOT HAVE £230 BILLION'S WORTH OF HARDSHIP AND POVERTY IN THIS COUNTRY.

We have and entitlement and way of life problem that urgently needs to be addressed, and it's not all the fault of those abusing the system.

pqrdef

Is anybody still pretending that benefit cuts have anything to do with the financial crisis, and aren't just ideological?

ILW

pqrdef wrote: »

Is anybody still pretending that benefit cuts have anything to do with the financial crisis, and aren't just ideological?

Is that a problem?

pqrdef

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

WE DO NOT HAVE £230 BILLION'S WORTH OF HARDSHIP AND POVERTY IN THIS COUNTRY.

Probably because of the benefit system.

But you contradict yourself. The logic of your argument is that we should start by means-testing all benefits that aren't currently means-tested, mainly pensions.

The savings from that are potentially huge. The savings from cutting benefits that are already means-tested are much smaller. Because we all know that IDS's claptrap about getting people into work is a non-starter really.

silvercar

pqrdef wrote: »

Is anybody still pretending that benefit cuts have anything to do with the financial crisis, and aren't just ideological?

We need to make financial cuts to the welfare budget and the way to do it that meets the approval of the decent public is to cutback in the areas that suit our ideology.

I haven't an issue with that.

When people grow up and get jobs they think whether they can afford to move out of their parents home. So now those who choose to spend their lifetime on benefits will be forced to stick around at home until they are a little older too. Only bringing parity to 2 different lifestyles.

I'm all for benefits at a time of need, but not as a career choice.

And to those parents whose main motivation in having kids was more child benefits, tax credits and housing benefit, they are now expected to have their children living with them that much longer - if that means that they make an effort to ensure that what they produce is something they would be happy to live with, then all the better.

Sampong

ukcarper wrote: »

Personally I don’t think it is fair to remove the benefit from one age group.
I can’t see how you can defend giving all pensioners WFA and bus passes while at the same time making some under 25s homeless.

Ah well let me explain that to you. The majority of pensioners will have worked hard, contributed to the UK economy, and paid into the tax and national insurance system all their working lives. That's how it is supposed to work, pay something in, and reap the benefits.

The under 25's particular group I think this targets, probably haven't ever done a day's work, see having children as a career choice, and basically put a strain on the taxpayer.

Harsh but fair. Sorry about that.

lemonjelly

I've worked in the welfare field for 12 years. I find this move by Cameron to be a completely bizarre method of pandering to the far right of the party, and a ludicrous thing to be publicly saying at this time.

The notion of conditionality had been brought in to the welfare system by the previous government, specifically with the introduction of ESA.

What the tories are doing though is taking it beyond an extreme. They have already forced through the Welfare Reform Act using the parliament Act, despite protestations from many disabled groups, and the House of Lords.

Yet the devil is in the detail, & the welfare reform act being passed says very littl until the regulations are drafted & put into law by the secretary of state. These regulations will have a phenomenal impact on the welfare system. So even without these reforms being in place, dave is already saying he wants to go further?

Either he has no faith in IDS, or he wants to be even mre extreme & is trying to pander for this already to strengthen what IDS will do.

Lets not forget, under 25's already have restricted housing benefit - they can only get a single room rent allowed (circa £55 per week locally - hardly crushing the economy that, is it?). Tjis is planned to increase under the new WRA to under 35's, not just under 25's.

Plus, has been said before on this thread, the reason that the housing benefit bill is so huge, is the vast sell off of social housing, implemented by the tories (shocker!) with not one penny of the thousands of council houses sold off being re-invested in social housing since the right to buy was introduced. Meanwhile, private rents have gone through the roof - subsidised by housing benefits. All this housing benefits bill is going into making landlords rich. Perhaps a cohesive social housing policy, with appropriate investment, & the re-introduction of the rent officer (guess who also cut them?) would have a greater effect than Camerons bullcrap.

The market did not solve the nations housing problem, as we were told in the 80's. What it actually did, was create a huge bill for taxpayers, whilst we sold off assets at a loss...

brit1234

In my line of work you regularly see parents kick out their teenager children who often have children of their own and don't work fully knowing they will jump to the top of the housing list and get re homed in their own flat. There are also men in there 40s-50s who go round having upto a dozen children with different teenager/girls in their early 20s and leaving them. Strangely these new mothers all get new homes.

It has to stop.

HappyMJ

brit1234 wrote: »

In my line of work you regularly see parents kick out their teenager children who often have children of their own and don't work fully knowing they will jump to the top of the housing list and get re homed in their own flat. There are also men in there 40s-50s who go round having upto a dozen children with different teenager/girls in their early 20s and leaving them. Strangely these new mothers all get new homes.

It has to stop.

That is so rare that you would only see them in the Daily Mail.

HappyMJ

Sampong wrote: »

Ah well let me explain that to you. The majority of pensioners will have worked hard, contributed to the UK economy, and paid into the tax and national insurance system all their working lives. That's how it is supposed to work, pay something in, and reap the benefits.

The under 25's particular group I think this targets, probably haven't ever done a day's work, see having children as a career choice, and basically put a strain on the taxpayer.

Harsh but fair. Sorry about that.

That's just it though...they have paid in but the money they paid in went to their parents and grandparents as their pensions. There is no big pot of money ready for retired people to draw on. It's a big ponzi scheme relying on new people paying in to the system to be able to pay the pensions of those now retiring.