Under 25s could lose housing benefit - Cameron

[sphericalfox]

Working people in their 20s do not pay for the unemployed to have places of their own. Their taxes are paid into a government pot, as well you know.

Unemployed people being homed do not necessarily have appropriate places to go if they have their right to housing removed. Again, as someone of your intelligence would be able to surmise.

It is not clear at all that a lot of meony is being spent where it is not needed.

There is targeted spending on young people who cannot stay at home and have many other problems to boot. Are you saying you'd like more meony spent in this area?

[flowwolf]

What else would they need? They have shelter, they have water, they have food and they have soap. Anything else is a luxury. As far as i'm concerned, if you're claiming benefits then you have no right to expect even the feintest hint of luxury. It's not your money. If you want nice things, earn them.

If they have soap they will need coaching on how to use it thus even more expense.

[flowwolf]

You have all convinced me. We should go back to the good old days when the poor knew the place and were kept there by hook or by crook.

Yes look at the scruffy bastards have they never heard of an iron ?

[Jon the Hat]

Working people in their 20s do not pay for the unemployed to have places of their own. Their taxes are paid into a government pot, as well you know.

Unemployed people being homed do not necessarily have appropriate places to go if they have their right to housing removed. Again, as someone of your intelligence would be able to surmise.

It is not clear at all that a lot of meony is being spent where it is not needed.

There is targeted spending on young people who cannot stay at home and have many other problems to boot. Are you saying you'd like more meony spent in this area?

Good to see you are still willing and able to duck the question by being facetious.

There are lots of things which need more money spending on them, but funding things for unemployed 20 something's which employed 20 something's cannot afford is insanity.

[Daggers]

Good to see you are still willing and able to duck the question by being facetious.

There are lots of things which need more money spending on them, but funding things for unemployed 20 something's which employed 20 something's cannot afford is insanity.

So, you'd like to gloss over the factual errors in your post then?

[Jon the Hat]

So, you'd like to gloss over the factual errors in your post then?

What factual errors? On your point, everyone pays for everthing via one big pot, therefore working people in their 20s are paying for unemployed people in their 20s to have housing benefit.

[Daggers]

What factual errors?

1. Working people in their 20s do not pay for the unemployed to have places of their own. Their taxes are paid into a government pot, as well you know.

2. Unemployed people being homed do not necessarily have appropriate places to go if they have their right to housing removed. Again, as someone of your intelligence would be able to surmise.

3. It is not clear at all that a lot of meony is being spent where it is not needed.

4. There is targeted spending on young people who cannot stay at home and have many other problems to boot.

I hope that clears that up.

[Daggers]

Maybe some young people are happy to stay at home with their parents. Also perhaps their parents don't mind them being at home. I assume that many that are not living with parents are not always doing it through choice..

Not everyone is the same so it cannot be said 'All do this or all do that. Pigeon holes are for pigeons.

Correct, Ken.

10,000 were identified by Shelter as having been homed due to being made homeless by parents, a disproportionate being LBGT and unaccepted by families as a result. They went on to state that their findings demonstrate that a substantial number of the 380,000 young people claiming housing benefit do so due to being made homeless.

What we need is more council housing.

Housing benefit will hit £23.2bn this year as a direct result of the sale & non-replacement of the social housing stock and the lack of regulation of private landlords.

This year will also see 4,950,000 housing benefit claimants. Do those spouting glib stuff about homing the unemployed have a clue about the situation? Have they bothered to read a thing?

Firstly, even to the thickest person on the forum, 4.95million stands at odds with the total number of unemployed don't you think? That's mainly because housing benefit IS NOT a benefit primarily claimed by the long-term unemployed seeking a life of leisure off the backs of tax payers.

93% of new housing benefit claimants last year came from households where there is at least one wage earner ^source. NINETY THREE PERCENT. There have been an extra 300,000 claimants since January 2010, of which 279,000 were employed. A benefit for the lazy? No, this is a benefit which supports those effected by poor salaries, unregulated rents, poor housing stock and an ever worsening economy.

For once it would be really nice if those spouting Tory nonsense would bother to research a single fact.

[Jon the Hat]

We are not talking about all housing benefit, we are talking about housing benefit for the under 25s. This is a philisophical debate about whether the state should be funding things for those on benefits things which society as a whole no longer consider a given. Like being able to leave your parents home and have a place of your own regardless of whether you can afford it. You can drag in every stat you like, but you still have not addressed the question.

Agree that failure to manage costs with regard to private rents is also a major factor.

[Rincewind]

If I find a job I will be allowed to discount the first £5 of my earnings before they access my HB How do they come up with that figure?

I am having things acessessed tomorrow to see what tax credits I can get and what HB whilst doing part time work. Even if I am in about the sme situation at least I will not have to sign on every fortnight.

Just received a text reminding me of my appointment. In a way I wish they would pester the under 25's instead of me who in a year can claim pension credits. Shows how difficult it is when they believe I am an easier target.

[Daggers]

We are not talking about all housing benefit, we are talking about housing benefit for the under 25s. This is a philisophical debate about whether the state should be funding things for those on benefits things which society as a whole no longer consider a given. Like being able to leave your parents home and have a place of your own regardless of whether you can afford it. You can drag in every stat you like, but you still have not addressed the question.

Agree that failure to manage costs with regard to private rents is also a major factor.

Aha, so you are allowed to place flawed arguments into contention and veer off into philosophical debate (made-up stuff) but I'm not allowed to present cold, hard facts which piss all over anything any Tory has raised here or in the media?

Did you miss the bit about Shelter's findings regarding those under 25 currently claiming housing benefits? Did you miss the salient stat about homelessness?

Just because it pisses on the myth that the country is paying for millions of unemployed under-25s to live it up, at the expense of those middle-class do-gooders (staying with Mummy and Daddy because the nasty unemployed have made mortgages unaffordable), doesn't mean you can suddenly claim this is a philosophical debate.

But anyway, if you really want to go back to your original post...

Can anyone explain why if I go to university my parents are expected to help support me, but if I don't and am unemployed or low paid I can apply for a range of benefits including housing benefit because I am an adult who has left home? Never understood that.

I guess my question is, if your family can support you by providing a roof over your head, then why should someone else's have to?

1. I went to University and paid/am paying for myself...just like everyone else who doesn't have affluent parents. You seem to assume that because you either currently do or plan to support your children at University that the rest of the country does the same - again, flawed thinking.

2. Students experiencing hardship apply to a number of grants funded by...ahh yes, the taxpayer. The Bank of Mum&Dad closed for many people many years ago.

3. I've no idea what the second part of your primary sentence means with relation to the unemployed or low-wage, it would appear that you don't believe they should receive any benefit which is clearly the product of a mind addled by drink, drugs or age.

4. So, your final question, who? Under -25s? Under-21s? Under-18s? Are you trying to argue that if you have a living relation with a house that you should live with them no matter what, no matter your age, no matter the circumstances? Do you really think such a weak question deserves an answer?

[Jon the Hat]

Ah I can't be bothered. We should just continue to pay for everything and bankrupt the country. Why not?

[Jon the Hat]

On another note, regional benefit rates! Brilliant idea, should clearly reflect the cost of living.

[Smudge]

I assume this i s a fairly new benefit since I don't remember it being available before 1987. I think that items like this were introduced when times were economically good but when, like now, very difficult to take away when we find ourselves in the worst economy since the 1930's.

Like any budget, if income is exceeded by expenditure, something has to be cut back, made more efficient or the alternative is to borrow more money to continue the benefits. On the basis that the decision makers could change every few years, it would seem that a balanced budget should be the target.

Whether this is an appropriate benefit to cut I'm not sure since I don't have to survive over there. The country is a different place to when I was resident, employment was readily available, petrol was cheaper, you could buy a terraced house for $6000 and VAT was 10%. I truly don't understand how you lot survive.

Unless a young couple get help, I cannot imagine how they get into the property market other than by inheritance.

[RobHawk]

On another note, regional benefit rates! Brilliant idea, should clearly reflect the cost of living.

Waste of time! We already have LHA figures which cap the amount of benefit you are entitled to receive depending on your circumstances and depending on the level of rent in your area.

I feel this is just a publicity stunt to show they are trying to do something different (which they are not) and will vastly reduce these figures to save yet more money at the same time. The end result is likely to put more low income households in financial difficulty.

[MooseBreath]

1. I went to University and paid/am paying for myself...just like everyone else who doesn't have affluent parents. You seem to assume that because you either currently do or plan to support your children at University that the rest of the country does the same - again, flawed thinking.

2. Students experiencing hardship apply to a number of grants funded by...ahh yes, the taxpayer. The Bank of Mum&Dad closed for many people many years ago.

I don't know when you went to university (1940?), but certainly for the last decade at least the vast majority of students have funded their studies with loans. Loans which are means tested against the income of their parents, to the point where parents who earn higher salaries are clearly expected to offer assistance to their child.

[RobHawk]

On HB for U25's in general, wouldn't it be better to invest more money into jobs and employment schemes so that these young people CAN get jobs.. We have thousands of young unemployed people (including many graduates) who would love to get a job but are struggling to get anything.

This would reduce their dependency on benefits, Its likely they would have more money in their pockets to go out on spend, 20% VAT on most items will go straight back to the chancellor's coffers. So for a little bit of outlay we can reduce our countrys expenditure and increase its income!

Unfortunately, it seems the torys cant grasp this concept that growth and jobs will save the government more money in the long run! This massive debt they are so desperate to repay isn't really going down because of increases such of that of the benefit system which has grown because of the lack of jobs available

[RobHawk]

I don't know when you went to university (1940?), but certainly for the last decade at least the vast majority of students have funded their studies with loans. Loans which are means tested against the income of their parents, to the point where parents who earn higher salaries are clearly expected to offer assistance to their child.

True but only households who earn under £60,000 a year won't receive some extra means tested funding and even then there are loans available which are not means tested. - It's not the parents that repay these loans its the students. There are also many students out there who don't receive any means tested support or support from their parents - these students work to get through university!

[flowwolf]

Just to chuck a bit of fuel on this benefit barbecue of a topic, What if there was an elected government who said there will no longer be any benefits of any kind ? and I do believe that if a party said that prior to elections they would get in, What do you all think the consequence would be for such a decision to our society ?

[RobHawk]

Just to chuck a bit of fuel on this benefit barbecue of a topic, What if there was an elected government who said there will no longer be any benefits of any kind ? and I do believe that if a party said that prior to elections they would get in, What do you all think the consequence would be for such a decision to our society ?

For a start i don't think you could include the term society in that sentence!

[flowwolf]

For a start i don't think you could include the term society in that sentence!

:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

[Daggers]

Ah I can't be bothered. We should just continue to pay for everything and bankrupt the country. Why not?

I can hear the sound of toys smashing on the floor from here! So, you admit your argument is baseless? Thanks.

[Daggers]

I assume this i s a fairly new benefit since I don't remember it being available before 1987. I think that items like this were introduced when times were economically good...

I was on housing benefit during the Thatcher years; I don't remember economically good times back in 1984. I'd argue that a credit-based economy which exploded in Major's face was never a good one. But at least we all learnt our lesson...oh...

I don't know when you went to university (1940?), but certainly for the last decade at least the vast majority of students have funded their studies with loans. Loans which are means tested against the income of their parents, to the point where parents who earn higher salaries are clearly expected to offer assistance to their child.

But, and this might surprise you, a large number of parents can't or won't - leaving the students to fund themselves. This ignores the growing mature student sector who don't benefit from your rich parenting either. Did you choose to ignore this or are you seriously unaware of it?

[Webbo]

I was on housing benefit during the Thatcher years;

She was always over generous to scroungers.

[skinnydipper]

I can hear the sound of toys smashing on the floor from here! So, you admit your argument is baseless? Thanks.