MSE News: Prime Minister David Cameron plans welfare crackdown

dawyldthing

My generation won't have any pension at all as there is no money in the pot now so there will definately be no money in the pot in 45 years time (when i'm 70 odd)

bargainbetty wrote: »

Because the pensioners may have been making payments for 40 years, and therefore might be expected to get something back....? Many pensioners are working because they have to. 60 year olds will not qualify for state pensions - 65 and up. I'll probably be 70 before I can retire.

I disagree with the policy too and agree with the argument that rents should be controlled. However, I do think that the loopholes exploited by the tenants should be tightened up. Why should a young person get a paid private flat, what's wrong with a room in a shared house? Children should be expected to share bedrooms unless they are teenagers of different genders. (Parents should not automatically assume that the largest bedroom is theirs - they can take a smaller room and split the larger room with dividers etc). There are ways of reducing the bill without taking the rooves from over people's heads.

We're in it together, remember that Dave? Seems that this is a manifesto for the 2015 election, as the Lib Dems have already said they will reject any attempt to do this during the coalition.

dundeediva

:j:j:j:j

Well done Mr C, finally sorting things out. Why should young people (as thats what the changes are about) get help with a new house when they could and should be living with parent/guardian until they can afford it???? I moved out when i was 17, had a motgage at 18 and bought my "forever house" at 24. Thats because I worked my a$$ off scraping money together, working FULL TIME, choosing not to start a family untili was in a financial position to do so. Why should people get to scounge everything from taxpayers??

He has hit the nail on the head...there is a pandemic of "entitlement culture" going on and its not fair to those who get off their a$$es and get a job, stay in the job, even when it sucks!

Mike J, you lost your job, got almost nothing for weeks after and now have to commute to work. I bet it sucks but at least you have a job and your pride We need more people like you around, teach some people how its meant to be done.

I would just add that i do think there is an exception to the rule and if disabilities are involved then different rules should apply (and by that i mean PROPER disabilities, none of this i broke my toe 6 years ago so cant stand for long...get a job where you sit down lol!) Mazza I wish your daughter all the best x

Lifes_Grand_Plan

CKhalvashi wrote: »

As already stated above, the demand that's coming through my own council is that the poor do need them for many varying reasons.

And therefore, as I've stated all along, there is no one unique solution to the problem, without giving the individual officers discretion.

Why the constant battle to stop young people in genuine hardship from going (back) onto the streets?!

I won't repeat myself again :mad:

I'm not sure where you have repeated yourself the first time, but hey-ho, you are a Councillor so must be superior to me...

If you had read the finer detail of what DC was suggesting, you'd know that there is no battle to get people onto the streets, merely to make people live within their means... i.e. if you live at home (i.e. with parents) then you stay at home until such a time you can AFFORD to move out...

It may be a novel concept, not doing something until you can afford it, rather than quoting how its your "uman rites" to have your own place and so someone else should pay for it.....

Of course there will be exceptions, and of course there will be exceptions to the rules to allow for circumstances, so I think we agree on that.

Lifes_Grand_Plan

dundeediva wrote: »

Why should young people (as thats what the changes are about) get help with a new house when they could and should be living with parent/guardian until they can afford it????

Thank you so much for understanding what these changes are all about... something a lot of the nay-sayers ignore when they jump on the band wagon of "nasty government making cuts that are going to leave me eating bread and water and walking the streets in rags...."

Lets be clear.... these ideas are that kids living with parents should stay there until they can afford a place of their own... rather than the current "i'm 18 now, I don't have a job but I don't care, I want a place of my own and someone else should pay for it"......and "if you don't give me a place of my own then i'll get 'knocked up' and then you'll have to give me a place".... and then "this 2 bedroom house is too small for my 4 kids, you have got to give me a bigger house despite the fact that I have never worked in my life and didn't give a second thought beforehand to how I would manage with 4 kids in a two bedroom house".....

Morlock

The-Gaffer wrote: »

weres the money gonna come from if we dont agree with the plans? were not having less kids in the UK are we? people are living longer, were still a top immigrant destination its not there fault, but its the reality more and more people are havin kids moving here and contributing to unemployment, our public sector last i checked is still completely imbalnced in reference to the private sector which is where the only real money comes from, we cant afford to keep on the way were going can we? unless we all wanna pay even more in taxation somethings gotta give, were the next greece at this rate were just ignorrant about it, no one realises how fincially screwed the country really is or they do but choose not to think on it, either way its gotta stop and camerons making a serious move towards tacking our CRIPPLING debt what we owing nowadays anyway isnt it TRILLIONS? we cant as a country continue this way THATS THE REALITY

:money:

I think a big problem in the UK is the education system. A lot of immigrants have a better grasp of the English language than people born and bred in the UK. Who wants to employ an adult with the literacy and intellectual standards of a nine-year old?

Sixer

business_man wrote: »

High earners use tax avoidance because no living soul should have to pay 50% +NI on top of their hard earned income. Simple as.

Yes, but that's rather misleading. Anyone on 40k plus pays reduced NICs of 2%. And the top rate of tax is now 45%.

So our realistic tax rates are 12%, 32%, 42% and 47% - not 20%, 40% and 50%.

(The 12% is for people earning more than 5k but under the income tax threshold - Class 1 NICs payable on over 5k approx).

stephief

I agree something needs to be done about the benefit enetitlement culture that exists. But I think the govt are picking on the wrong people half the time.

Should parents really have to have their children living with them til they are 25? I am not being nasty but I pray to god my kids are not still living with me when they are 25! But I also dont think they should be neccesarily paying for anything more than a room in a shared house, it would provide a basic accomodation for those who fall on hard times and cannot live at home. Of course if by then you have a family of your own (I had two kids by that age!) then its not really sensible to live in a shared house and there should be exceptions (same as if you are disabled and unable to live in a shared house)

I truly believe that no one fit and well should be able to claim out of work benefits until they have actually, at some point, been in work first. Housing benefit included. It shouldn't be a lifestyle choice but for some it is. There should be a real incentive to work, and with the current system there isnt always that incentive there. Why would some people choose to work when their own parents have never worked and when they know they will be supported if they CHOOSE not to work? That just isnt fair and shouldnt be encouraged. But there is a real shortage of work at the moment and that needs to be balanced properly. We dont have enough jobs for people and welfare reforms that are going to have a real impact on those who simply cant find a job rather than just the workshy will never be popular.

allison445

I am a mother to five children one still in full time education two still living at home and working and two left home.
I would never encourage my children to leave home unless they could financally afford to do so.
Although this doesnt affect me as I dont receive housing benefit and im well over 25 I genuinely beleive no child wants to leave the family home unless there is a very good reason.
More needs to be done to help young people who need the extra support.
How much revenue from rent will the councils lose ?
Why target just the under 25s ?
I feel sad for all the under 25s who now face losing there home just another worry for them on top of having no job and no money.

mazza111

There are a lot of pros and cons to this.

My daughter could certainly afford it when she moved out. As I said, she applied for a house that had been empty a while, got accepted. She was working full time and had a reasonable wage.

There's no way on earth we could have foreseen the disability happening with her, although it's a hereditary illness, she was the first one to really suffer from it. Since we knew about her we can see bits in ourselves if that makes sense, although none of us are nearly as bad as her, just have wee aches and pains from it.

The other thing that worries me, is the kids that have come from abusive homes that are maybe struggling to get jobs. I'm sure some of these vulnerable ones will slip through any safety net.

I still don't like the fact that under 25s pay the same tax as anyone else, but don't get the same benefits as anyone else. Will DC then cut the taxation for under 25s?

Dundeediva - I thank you for your concern. I would have thanked the post but i disagreed on the part about DC


We've just had her first appointment at the appliances department, which wasn't quite as bad as we expected it was going to be or what we were led to believe she needed. He's started her on braces on both wrists, a brace on one knee and insoles for her shoes. Hopefully given enough time these will help straighten her out a bit. So she looks at the moment as if velcro is holding her together, but if it prevents any more dislocations it will be worth the struggle Road to recovery rather than road to wheelchair

I know she'd love to get back to work, but she can't even get on a bus to go at the moment. I think it would be almost easier having her at home so I could look after her properly, but.... won't go into that one again. I really would need to hang her from the ceiling :rotfl:

Anubis_2

Mike_J wrote: »

I worked for over 25 years before this recession cost me my job. Told by DWP that I was basically entitled to £60 per week to pay the bills for family of 4. After that I would get sod-all as I had decided that it was my responsibility to care for my family and therefore saved. Even had a small part time job on occassional Sunday for 4 hours but this would have been taken off my jobseekers apart from £5. Got off my a##e and found a job. 45 mile commuter, 7 am start 5pm finish. What gets infuriating is not that my boss has enough money to pay an accountant to best utilise the tax rules (dont blame the tax "avoider" its the rule writers that screwed up) but that I know quite a few families (SOME have never worked) who get more in benefits for doing nothing than I bring home for being a decent working class bloke.

OK I admit there may be people who lose out under some of these changes due to circumstances rather then "rightly losing" the handouts BUT there are currently a damn site more who are creaming the system at the expense of workers. Over the last five years benefits and pension have both increased. Due to the job market I haven't had a pay rise in 5 years and it now cost me more to commute than it did. Why do I do it ? Often asked myself the same question but it comes down to pride.

Change away Mr C .....(but as I stated in previous post, if you think you might lose some votes, you wont)

Plus your CTC, plus CB, plus CT, plus help with rent/mortgage and After six months you would have gone onto income based JSA of the same amount