George Osborne....Limit amount of children for benefits

mazza111

Percy1983 wrote: »

How about means testing child benefit, how much of it gets spent on fags, cider, sky tv and iphones rather than children.

I agree with this one too. Not because of the fags or the iphone. It costs a lot more to feed and clothe a child than you get in child benefit. As it should. That's classifying all parents the same with sweeping statements like that. I get child benefit, I smoke (keep trying to quit), I have the very occasional bottle of !!!!!! juice @ under £2 a bottle. I don't have an Iphone, I just don't like apple products. I don't have sky TV. But that's through choice, but I can assure you, no child benefit is spent on MY little luxuries. My child benefit is well and truly spend on my child. Or in the past children.


I'm actually of the belief that most if not all benefits should be means tested. If the means have already been tested for things like IS, IR ESA, PC etc then there's no additional costs to means test again.

I'd rather see them means testing things like heating allowance than targeting the under 25s the way they are doing now. It would make a refreshing change.

I'm not anti pensioner btw, I just don't see why we should be paying for the rich pensioners' heating. Or the bus passes, they could get a concessionary rate, rather than a free pass, just like they do with children at the moment. I also believe our pensioners should be living a comfortable life, so I'm not saying cuts all round, just a place where savings could be made. You'll hear pensioners saying, we've worked hard for it, we deserve it. And I would agree completely, those who are less well off deserve it, but you take the amount of well of pensioners who don't need it and a lot of savings could be made.

Gracchus_Babeuf

Graham_Devon wrote: »

George Osborne has stated he is looking at limiting the number of children that will attract benefits, as they announce they are determined to wipe £10bn off the benefits bill.

They also want to:
- Limit housing benefits to those under 25....stating they can live at home.
- Possibly cut child tax credits further.
- Look at removing the benefits link to general inflation, and measure it alongside wage inflation.

The lib dems state they will not allow this to happen, and want to see a mansion tax. The tories state they will not allow a mansion tax, as their party members don't like it (in reality - will have to pay it). So we'll probably get some u-turns and a very watered down version in a couple of years.

Theres no detail on limiting the amount of children that will attract benefits.....but can anyone really argue that this is the wrong approach? It's likely, of course, to be going forward, not a reversal for those already in receipt.

Madness. Under 25s cannot always live at home - this isn't Spain or Italy. This measure would cause mass homelessness among the young.

Dropping inflation indexation of benefits and linking them to earnings is simply weird - during boom times this would actually increase benefits needlessly and cause a distortion rather the current system which at least keeps a steady and predictable increase. Sounds to me that the real aim is to freeze benefits and not increase them at all.

One more reason to vote Labour.

ILW

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Madness. Under 25s cannot always live at home - this isn't Spain or Italy. This measure would cause mass homelessness among the young.

Dropping inflation indexation of benefits and linking them to earnings is simply weird - during boom times this would actually increase benefits needlessly and cause a distortion rather the current system which at least keeps a steady and predictable increase. Sounds to me that the real aim is to freeze benefits and not increase them at all.

One more reason to vote Labour.

Sounds like a good reason to vote Tory.

mazza111

ILW wrote: »

Sounds like a good reason to vote Tory.

Those on low benefit incomes though, like the under 25s who need to live alone due to circumstances still have to heat their homes on £56/week though. The £70 (ish) pounds for over 25s is more than enough to live frugally. But for the under 25s who find themselves in this position, it's pretty hard going.

When my dd was in this position, I found myself having to pick her up clothes in the sale if I seen anything in her size. It's pretty hard trying to run a home on £56/week.

I fail to see the difference between a 24 year old running a home and a 25 year old running a home. Maybe they should have had the £56/week for those who are living at home with parents, not those who have had no choice but to leave home.

With ever increasing fuel bills for us all, yes it's hard, no doubt about it. But I think it will be even harder for that group of young people that no one seems to give a damn about. Of course, then if there's no heating in the house it will lead to dampness, more repairs needing done (talking council and theoretically), more ill health due to the dampness.

Seriously guys, have a wee experiment and see how easy it is on £56/week. Leave out rent.

Electricity
Gas
Water Rates
Food
Clothing

Now granted. You won't need clothes every week, but imagine finding yourself homeless as many youngsters do, and have to learn to make £56 cover everything mentioned above. You don't have a stock cupboard to fall back on either. It can be done, but it is a struggle.

ukcarper

mazza111 wrote: »

Those on low benefit incomes though, like the under 25s who need to live alone due to circumstances still have to heat their homes on £56/week though. The £70 (ish) pounds for over 25s is more than enough to live frugally. But for the under 25s who find themselves in this position, it's pretty hard going.

When my dd was in this position, I found myself having to pick her up clothes in the sale if I seen anything in her size. It's pretty hard trying to run a home on £56/week.

I fail to see the difference between a 24 year old running a home and a 25 year old running a home. Maybe they should have had the £56/week for those who are living at home with parents, not those who have had no choice but to leave home.

With ever increasing fuel bills for us all, yes it's hard, no doubt about it. But I think it will be even harder for that group of young people that no one seems to give a damn about. Of course, then if there's no heating in the house it will lead to dampness, more repairs needing done (talking council and theoretically), more ill health due to the dampness.

Seriously guys, have a wee experiment and see how easy it is on £56/week. Leave out rent.

Electricity
Gas
Water Rates
Food
Clothing

Now granted. You won't need clothes every week, but imagine finding yourself homeless as many youngsters do, and have to learn to make £56 cover everything mentioned above. You don't have a stock cupboard to fall back on either. It can be done, but it is a struggle.

If you are under 25 you only get LHA for a room it is possible to find rooms that include electric and water rates so it is possible but it would be hard.

I agree that not all people under 25 can live with parents and that LHA should be available especially if they are in a low paid job.

　

mazza111

ukcarper wrote: »

If you are under 25 you only get LHA for a room it is possible to find rooms that include electric and water rates so it is possible but it would be hard.

I agree that not all people under 25 can live with parents and that LHA should be available especially if they are in a low paid job.

　

There are a lot of homeless kids get moved into shared housing here(temp). They still have to pay electricity. When they get moved into their own 1bed flat, they would then have water rates and fuel to pay.

I was actually using council housing as an example. So would be HB not LHA. I really only know how this works with homelessness in this area. Hence why I used that as an example. I believe the HB for a small council flat may be even less than for that of a room in a shared house.

But I can see a lot of homelessness arising from this. Yes, it may encourage youngsters to stay at home longer, but for the ones who can't..... I hate to think

Don't get me wrong, £56 is more than enough for those kids staying at home with parents. I just think it's very hard to do when you're running a house on your own. My dd had very little left for food/clothing after she had paid her bills every week. Especially the clothing part. Thankfully her DLA now helps her out a wee bit with that. Ok, not what it was intended for, but I'm picking up the cost of her travel so she's got that wee bit extra in her pocket every week. But Id definitely say it was a struggle for that year that she was living on the £56/week.

Just before the bb starts, my daughter worked full time while she could and would love to get back to work, unfortunately her illness won't allow her to at the moment. We're hoping with surgery and lots of physio, she will get back there. We're on ortho consultant #3 who's supposed to be very good, so fingers crossed!!!

ukcarper

mazza111 wrote: »

There are a lot of homeless kids get moved into shared housing here(temp). They still have to pay electricity. When they get moved into their own 1bed flat, they would then have water rates and fuel to pay.

I was actually using council housing as an example. So would be HB not LHA. I really only know how this works with homelessness in this area. Hence why I used that as an example. I believe the HB for a small council flat may be even less than for that of a room in a shared house.

But I can see a lot of homelessness arising from this. Yes, it may encourage youngsters to stay at home longer, but for the ones who can't..... I hate to think

Don't get me wrong, £56 is more than enough for those kids staying at home with parents. I just think it's very hard to do when you're running a house on your own. My dd had very little left for food/clothing after she had paid her bills every week. Especially the clothing part. Thankfully her DLA now helps her out a wee bit with that. Ok, not what it was intended for, but I'm picking up the cost of her travel so she's got that wee bit extra in her pocket every week. But Id definitely say it was a struggle for that year that she was living on the £56/week.

Just before the bb starts, my daughter worked full time while she could and would love to get back to work, unfortunately her illness won't allow her to at the moment. We're hoping with surgery and lots of physio, she will get back there. We're on ortho consultant #3 who's supposed to be very good, so fingers crossed!!!

Where I am a lot of shared accommodation includes bills but in general the rent is a bit more than LHA but someone would still have £50 a week for food etc not a lot but possible to do, but there would be no room for luxuries.

I believe that the age at which you can get LHA for a self contained flat is now or soon will be rising to 35.

I believe you are right and if they stop housing benefit LHA for under 25 it will increase homelessness as not every body could or would move back to their parents.

I hope all goes well with your daughter.

mazza111

Thank you.It will!!! Positive mental attitude!!! Last flare up she had was only 2 dislocated ankles and she recovered well from it, and was almost 14 years ago. So we're hoping she'll get through this flare up too, even though it's more severe this time, ankles, knees, shoulders, wrists, fingers, thumbs. But she's working hard at her physio, so fingers crossed!!!

GeorgeHowell

BobQ wrote: »

Wonderful ! Gideon moralises and preaches and then decides a policy of punishing the children for the deeds of the parents. How jolly Christian of him. I am not a believer but anyone who visits poverty on children is capable of anything.

What about someone who wants to disincentivise irresponsible people who cannot afford to have more children from having more children. Is that un-Christian too ?

N1AK

mazza111 wrote: »

I fail to see the difference between a 24 year old running a home and a 25 year old running a home.

There is none. The difference in Jobseekers and housing allowance for under 25s is nothing but blatant ageism. It says everything about the conservatives current priorities that they won't consider taking bus passes off multi-millionaire pensioners (not that I think they should) but will happily screw over under 25s.