Under 25s could lose housing benefit - Cameron

[skinnydipper]

What a ridiculous stereotype. I knew a chap who went to Oundle and he was a, well his, oh ok his dad was a Tory MP. Nice chap though.

You're one up on me then.

To the best of my knowledge I have never met an Old Oundelian

[davieG]

BBC

Younger people in the UK are losing out financially and politically to older generations, a report claims.

The Intergenerational Fairness Index suggests the prospects of younger people have "nose-dived" since the start of the financial crisis in 2008.

The index uses official statistics to compare different generations' stakes in key areas from income and employment to housing, pensions and education.

Co-author Angus Hanton said the plight of younger generations was clear.

"The index shows that poorer young people are financing richer old people as our society grapples with demographic change and increasing longevity."

The authors, from the Intergenerational Foundation, co-founded by Mr Hanton, focus on nine indicators they believe most affect young people's lives and outlook - unemployment, income, housing, pensions, health, education, government debt, the environment and participation in democracy.

Their stated aim is to show "the degree to which younger people in our society are at an advantage or disadvantage" and how much "future generations will be impacted by the ways in which we live our lives today."

They used official data from 1990 to 2011, excluded the effects of inflation and population growth and compared how much different generations put in and what they will get out.

'Rapid deterioration'

They used the figures to create an aggregate of how the balance between the generations has changed over the past 20 years.

They say the situation worsened by 28 points between 2000 and 2011 with a particularly rapid deterioration since 2008.

Some measures showed an improvement. For example in 2010 a greater percentage of national income was spent on education than at any time since the mid 1970s - but the authors say the prospects for young people overall are poor.

The report states: "Whilst government borrowing and pension debt have increased steadily, there has also been an increased shift in favour of the older generation through higher charges for education, rising youth unemployment and high housing costs.

"This index highlights... the increasing problem of poorer young people financing richer older people."

The authors say recent government changes for example to the financing of higher education in England as likely to shift the balance further away from younger people.

Angus Hanton said: "They now face an average £42,000 of debt from university, the prospect of long-term unemployment, record rent demands and now the abolition of housing benefit."

He called for benefits to be cut fairly across the generations: "Let's talk about those benefits that go to everyone over 60 years of age, irrespective of wealth - winter fuel allowance, free bus passes and free prescriptions."

Paul Johnson director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said: "The broad statement that young people have had it worse during the recession is true in all sorts of measures. Unemployment rates for the under-25s have risen steeply while this is not the case for the over-30s.

The over-40s have been able to continue spending as before but the spending power of the under-30s has gone through the floor as their incomes have fallen and they try to save to buy houses.

Poverty among the under-25s continues to rise with the poorest now no better off than their counterparts 40 years ago... the worst-affected have been those with low levels of education from poor backgrounds who are not going to be supported by the older generation."

Liam Burns, president of the National Union of Students said: "The issues affecting young people today already affect many poorer older people too.

"Pushing parents into poverty disproportionately impacts on the young people they care for and denying older generations access to education cuts the aspirational link that springboards their children to continue studying...

"Any intergenerational rebalancing needs to be underpinned by understanding rather than obscuring the huge and growing socio-economic inequalities in our society.

"We should be looking to find common cause across the generations, not advocating a race to the bottom where the poor, whether young or old, continue to lose out."

[MooseBreath]

Even students from the poorest backgrounds have to take out student loans. Yes they get grants but as of September English students will be expected to take out loans of around £12500 per year in order to study!

Yeah, I know.

Forget it, this is a lost cause.

[davieG]

I have met many people on benefits desperate to find work all under the age of 25. Why take benefits away from those that want to work but cant get work just because of a small minority of people who can't be bothered with life so sit at home and take what they can get. Why be so reactionary?? Why not tackle the U25's that can't be arsed rather than punish them all??

Its very easy to presume all people on benefits are scroungers but they are there for a reason - as a safety net when things go wrong! It is ridiculous to assume that all U25's should live with their parents! What if the parents can't afford to keep them! Will child benefits be available to parents for children until the age of 25?? I think not!!

The problem is virtually every benefit introduced for those in genuine need of help will suck in those that don't need it, the only way around it is complicated, expensive means testing that ends up costing more than you save.

As I posted earlier in this topic.

[glenny_fox]

davieG, on 24 June 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

The problem is virtually every benefit introduced for those in genuine need of help will suck in those that don't need it, the only way around it is complicated, expensive means testing that ends up costing more than you save.

As I posted earlier in this topic

Like you said, the best way is to means test every single case which would end up costing more, so that leaves taking it away full stop and hinder the people that are genuine, or leave it as it is and continue the culture SOME have of breeding for profit.

[cambridgefox]

You're one up on me then.

To the best of my knowledge I have never met an Old Oundelian

Ha ha,I nearly went,but a long time ago before the girls school was introduced,my best mate left our school to go to oundle and you would never of guessed he even went to a private school ,let alone oundle.He was always in trouble ,as he didn't quite fit the mould.He was fantastic at all sports mind you.

[Captain...]

Daggers I am not going to challenge you directly on this topic because clearly you have done your homework much more than me, and you appear to have the big ol' book of stats ready and waiting. But I just want to ask you a question:

- Do you think it is 'right' for people working to contribute via taxes to fund services for the unemployed on benefits, when they themselves cannot afford those services?

For me the answer in no. I think that the welfare system should provide an amount of money to give people the bare essentials, such as food, gas & electricity, petrol, and other basic ammentities. If you want anything more, then you should have to work to be able to afford them.

With benefits slashed, we would be better off as a country. An episode of yes minister comes to mind here. People would have more incentive to work = less benefits and more tax = economy grows.

You are missing one thing in your analysis though, there is a serious lack of jobs at the moment, and it is being exacerbated by crazy plans to make everyone work longer.

If the old are going to work longer then the young should study longer, create a much more skilled work force to balance this out, but we are doing our best to make staying in further education as expensive as possible.

When it comes to benefits it is our moral responsibility to look after the poorest in society, but just throwing money at them will not work, we need to provide with the basics they need to survive, shelter, electricity, heating and food and make sure they don't get any more than that. We also need to find a way for them to occupy themselves, and working for the society, such as cleaning graffiti, picking litter even helping run social groups, because otherwise they will be bored out their mind and have no money to do anything with and as we all know the devil makes work for idle hands.

[davieG]

davieG, on 24 June 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

The problem is virtually every benefit introduced for those in genuine need of help will suck in those that don't need it, the only way around it is complicated, expensive means testing that ends up costing more than you save.

As I posted earlier in this topic

Like you said, the best way is to means test every single case which would end up costing more, so that leaves taking it away full stop and hinder the people that are genuine, or leave it as it is and continue the culture SOME have of breeding for profit.

The only solutions politicians of all hues come up with are just media headlines.

[Captain...]

davieG, on 24 June 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

The problem is virtually every benefit introduced for those in genuine need of help will suck in those that don't need it, the only way around it is complicated, expensive means testing that ends up costing more than you save.

As I posted earlier in this topic

Like you said, the best way is to means test every single case which would end up costing more, so that leaves taking it away full stop and hinder the people that are genuine, or leave it as it is and continue the culture SOME have of breeding for profit.

Nobody breeds for profit, check the figures, there is no way you could make a profit off child benefit.

Some people "breed" because they have no other way of finding value in their life, yes the government supports them but the alternative is malnourished children.

[skinnydipper]

Ha ha,I nearly went,but a long time ago before the girls school was introduced,my best mate left our school to go to oundle and you would never of guessed he even went to a private school ,let alone oundle.He was always in trouble ,as he didn't quite fit the mould.He was fantastic at all sports mind you.

If you had gone to Oundle you would "never of" posted that

With it being all boys at that time it must have been some relief that you weren't sent there!

[davieG]

Nobody breeds for profit, check the figures, there is no way you could make a profit off child benefit.

Some people "breed" because they have no other way of finding value in their life, yes the government supports them but the alternative is malnourished children.

I don't think it's for a profit but there are certainly people out there seemingly misappropriating their benefits spending it on themselves and on unnecessary 'luxuries' rather than on the welfare and well being of their children.

[skinnydipper]

I don't think it's for a profit but there are certainly people out there seemingly misappropriating their benefits spending it on themselves and on unnecessary 'luxuries' rather than on the welfare and well being of their children.

A sky dish is NOT a luxury.

What else are the poor mites meant to do whilst they wait for the babies to drop out of the production line?

[cambridgefox]

If you had gone to Oundle you would "never of" posted that

With it being all boys at that time it must have been some relief that you weren't sent there!

He hated it.His parents are really down to earth,not at all snooty,but his dad was a very successful businessman .Sometimes you can't help where you go to school if your parents were lucky enough to afford it.He ended up working for yellow pages as an area manager,although doing very well,you may feel with the money spent he might have been a high flyer but that wasn't what he was about.

[glenny_fox]

A sky dish is NOT a luxury.

What else are the poor mites meant to do whilst they wait for the babies to drop out of the production line?

A sky dish is a luxury, they can get Jeremy Kyle on freeview!

[Captain...]

I don't think it's for a profit but there are certainly people out there seemingly misappropriating their benefits spending it on themselves and on unnecessary 'luxuries' rather than on the welfare and well being of their children.

Benefits, yes, child benefits is such a small amount it cannot be abused without seriously neglecting the child:

There are two separate amounts, with a higher amount for your eldest (or only) child. You get £20.30 a week for your eldest child and £13.40 a week for each of your other children.

You would spend that alone on feeding your children.

I would definitely advocate benefits in the form of vouchers instead of money, so it can't be abused, but this idea people can profit from having children is just plain wrong.

[Zingari]

Benefits, yes, child benefits is such a small amount it cannot be abused without seriously neglecting the child:

[/size][/font][/color]

You would spend that alone on feeding your children.

I would definitely advocate benefits in the form of vouchers instead of money, so it can't be abused, but this idea people can profit from having children is just plain wrong.

Although I do agree with you in the greater part , I think at the lower levels in society it is sometimes easier to rely on benefits and welfare rather than take the alternative option of a dead end job with pittance wages .

It' s not a real choice of all the options , but it can be the less worse of bad options.

But this to me at least highlights the continuous problem in our society whereby it seems that it is preferable to keep the lower paid down in this situation by making sure that there is always a good supply of out of work unskilled labour who are made to feel guilty for choosing easier options.

[skinnydipper]

A sky dish is a luxury, they can get Jeremy Kyle on freeview!

Point taken

[RobHawk]

Benefits, yes, child benefits is such a small amount it cannot be abused without seriously neglecting the child:

[/size][/font][/color]

You would spend that alone on feeding your children.

I would definitely advocate benefits in the form of vouchers instead of money, so it can't be abused, but this idea people can profit from having children is just plain wrong.

That doesn't take Child Tax Credits in account though! which for low income households are usually another approx £50 per week per child.

Its still not a massive amount to bring kids up on btu a lot more than just the child benefit rates.

[glenny_fox]

I know a few people that really abuse the system, and everytime I ask them about it their response is always the same, 'why work when I can get more doing this!'

Which as you can guess, it really pisses me off, as it would any tax payer.

Overall I think the British benefit system is f****d up, never in million years should a family be better off lounging around at home, than having to earn a living.

[Captain...]

That doesn't take Child Tax Credits in account though! which for low income households are usually another approx £50 per week per child.

Its still not a massive amount to bring kids up on btu a lot more than just the child benefit rates.

Fair point, but I thought tax credits were only available to those that have paid tax. I may be wrong though.

It is still not a huge amount and certainly not profitable.

[Captain...]

I know a few people that really abuse the system, and everytime I ask them about it their response is always the same, 'why work when I can get more doing this!'

Which as you can guess, it really pisses me off, as it would any tax payer.

Overall I think the British benefit system is f****d up, never in million years should a family be better off lounging around at home, than having to earn a living.

It's not just the benefit system that is fvcked up though, it is the cost of living in the UK which has gone up and up in the last few years, and the geographical disparity in cost of living. Those in the North live cheaper than those in London and the South and get paid less, but receive the same amount of benefits, which is nonsense, and it leaves the system open to further abuse.

Abuse is a big problem, which is why a benefit system where people are provided with the minimum of what they need rather than the money to buy it with would be a better option.

[glenny_fox]

I could only dream of a house that costs that much, have loads of kids and its easy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250993/Single-mum-finds-mansion-net-gets-YOU-pay-7-000-month-rent.html

[glenny_fox]

It's not just the benefit system that is fvcked up though, it is the cost of living in the UK which has gone up and up in the last few years, and the geographical disparity in cost of living. Those in the North live cheaper than those in London and the South and get paid less, but receive the same amount of benefits, which is nonsense, and it leaves the system open to further abuse.

Abuse is a big problem, which is why a benefit system where people are provided with the minimum of what they need rather than the money to buy it with would be a better option.

That would be the perfect outcome, but wouldn't it be too hard to implement?

[Captain...]

I could only dream of a house that costs that much, have loads of kids and its easy.

http://www.dailymail...month-rent.html

One of the kids is called Jihad, brilliant, that is clearly wrong, but she found the house through a private landlord because the government couldn't provide anything themselves, and we couldn't have little Jihad living on the streets.

[RobHawk]

Fair point, but I thought tax credits were only available to those that have paid tax. I may be wrong though.

It is still not a huge amount and certainly not profitable.

Child Tax Credit is available to low income households with kids. There are certain criteria regarding how many hours you work for working tax credit but child tax credit has no tax paying requirement. I suppose the issue is for someone with say 3 kids who doesn't work they can get £150per week CTC, approx £50 per week Child benefit, full housing benefit, full council tax benefit, either income support or JSA (depending on the age of the children) which is around £60.

So with no rent or council tax to pay they receive £260 per week for day to day costs - If the kida are at school they get free school meals as well!! Thats alot of money for sitting on your arse all day!!

My issue is that there are alot less of these people than what the media portrays! I agree that the issue of people abusing the benefit system needs to be sorted but i don't see how stopping HB just for U25's solves this problem. As I previosuly stated Benefits are a lifeline for many people who hate the idea of claiming and would love to work but can't get a job. A blanket approach will never work because it punishes those who need the help as well as those that just take the piss!!

Maybe we need to think outside of the box to somehow ensure that people on benefits aren't allowed to pay for extra TV channels or can't buy fags or alcohol etc. We need something to deter people from living on benefits - make it so its not attractive. To be honest this is a waste of time until more jobs are created anyway. When we have people desperate for work not being able to gain employment worrying about the ones that don't want to work is the least of our worries.