Under 25 housing benefit

pqrdef

PaulF81 wrote: »

Won't believe it till I see unemployed families of 10 picking through bins for food though.

More likely to see more kids being handed over to social services.

As for stopping JSA after two years, that only results in more disruption to trains caused by jumpers.

Joe_Bloggs

Army numbers cut by 25%. Youth 'neats' 950 thousand. I am sure that that any Whitehall lessons learned have been long forgotten or hidden away from the present administration. Policy development is done by texting each other or random strangers in the press.

Perhaps this conscripted force could be tasked in to a strike busting resource in times of employment dispute.
J_B.

Graham_Devon

Going4TheDream wrote: »

Personally I like the idea in theory, why should young people unable to support themselves expect to be able to secure a flat or similar, placing further burdens on the welfare state.

Why should people of any age?

Norfolk_Jim

This does kind of assume that everyone has nice supportive parents.

I'm all for families pulling together and the extended family unit like in 60's sit coms but working in Education I see that many "homes" are broken and It's no surprise that the youngsters want to move out from them / need to move out (Cheaper than prisons and hospital)

There was a time when employment often provided housing, which was a first step and an alternative to living at home but it wasn't good for profits since you can get a dozen migrant workers to put up with a filthy caravan in a muddy field and our youth are less keen on that arrangement (Though I've seen some who accept it)

What concerns me is that if it goes ahead, yes good that those with decent parents not encouraged to become entitled - but the others we will end up housing anyway , in a prison unit, Mmmm Pricey.

Its infuriating though isn't it? - My evil witch little sister gets a nice flat provided free of charge even though her elderly mum lives in a 3 bedroom house with 1 bed unoccupied but she goes there all day long every day and only goes "home" to her flat to sleep there - Why the hell is that allowed? She never works, has no intention of working ever and simply parasitises the state and anyone she can defraud or exploit - having a lovely life of leasure on the back of our taxes

But what can be done? The welfare state desperately needs reform but its going to be a messy and bloody business

PaulF81

Cameron mentions welfare supporting 150000 families with more than 3 kids on child benefit. Hardly a drop in the ocean for all you socialists.

Re comments about disruption to trains. Public transport is s working class. If it cuts the deficit, I gets my vote.

cord123

Why all the young people bashing!? I have worked since I was 16 and was financially able to move in with my now husband and 23, if we had both been made redundant at 24 what would be have done without help to tied us over? Age shouldnt come into it? The basis of the reason you need the room should... had a baby and parents kicked you out - tough luck!, messed around at school and cant get a job - tough luck!!


What about lowering the amount of savings allowed? That would delay people going on benefits for a while.... £6k? I dont have that in the bank so can I claim benefits until I do so we are all on levelpegging?


The whole system is flawed!


Pensioners and free travel... my grandparents are not hard up by any stretch and they get it - why? They have even said that cant believe they get it!!


It needs a grass routed overhaul!

chewmylegoff

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

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.

This source re: benefits payable in 2009/10 indicates that total benefits were £190 billion. http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf

If you wanted to cut the benefits bill as you suggest, to £150 billion, so achieve £40 billion worth of cuts, whilst ringfencing benefits paid to the elderly, then you'd have some trouble doing it in my view, for two reasons (i) a lot of the benefits that you would need to cut are paid to people of all ages e.g. DLA, housing benefit, therefore you would need to create a twin track system; and (ii) the sheer amount of money required to support the elderly would necessitate very deep cuts elsewhere to achieve that goal.

total benefits to elderly people come in at £78 billion in the attached link. however, that is not the end of the story as a significant amount of the £20 billion housing benefit bill and the £28.5 billion benefits for sick and disabled people is paid to the elderly (for instance this link suggests that £6.7 billion of DLA is paid to those of working age, suggesting that about the same amount of the total bill (2009/10 was £11.7 billion, the link relates to 2010/11) although not sure if claims paid in respect of children are counted as paid to their parents in these stats http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/writev/1493/pip53.htm)

It seems to me that total benefits paid to the elderly could be as much as £100 billion, but let's estimate them as £90 billion.

So, if you ringfence these, then you are left trying to make a £40 billion cut from the other £100 billion that isn't ringfenced for the elderly. So basically for your proposal to work, anyone claiming benefits who is of working age needs to have all of their benefits cut by 40%.

If the right thing to do is to cut the benefits bill aggressively, then it is very difficult to do it without cutting benefits to the elderly. This is a factual point only, rather than me setting out my agenda for sending those poor old people to the workhouse, before anyone starts...

pqrdef

Norfolk_Jim wrote: »

She never works, has no intention of working ever and simply parasitises the state and anyone she can defraud or exploit - having a lovely life of leasure on the back of our taxes

Well there may be a certain moral deficiency around. But over on the tax avoidance thread, nobody wants to talk about morality. The prevailing view is, if it's legal, it's just fine. Odd, that.

pqrdef

Isn't it strange how Labour has abandoned class-war politics but the Tories feel the need to reinvent it?

Conrad

pqrdef wrote: »

Isn't it strange how Labour has abandoned class-war politics but the Tories feel the need to reinvent it?

Nope, it's about building a better society.

Endemic entitlment mindset is ruinous for society. Worst of all it dims the horizonsa and aspirations of millions of children growing up in !!!!less households (nope, didn't read it in the DM - I see it daily with our letting agency in my office here).

Girls on Radio 4 today saying they HAD to have HB as thier parents only had a 2 bed flat.

Jeeze how did me and my 3 Brothers ever survive living in a small 3 bed house with parents. Classic entitlment something for nothing society.