Under 25s could lose housing benefit - Cameron

[Bellend Sebastian]

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.

I'm sure it's right, I after all called my son Horatio Bellend Holy War El Alamein Sebastian.

I think that story's amazing. I wonder if there's a grain of truth in it? The lady seems very happy to chat about her circumstances to a racist newspaper. Just as happy as I would be!

[RobHawk]

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

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

Alot of people in the Jimmy Car thread said that if they had the chance to legally pay less tax they would. If you had kids and were able to apply to cover rent for a nice house i'm sure everyone else would rather than struggle in a much smaller property. Im not saying what this lady did was right but the main issues here are that she is first allowed to receive that much, that there weren't any council properties available and that at present private landlords are unregulated and can charge what they like.

Oh and im sure Daily Mail readers loved the fact that she had a kid called Jihad! There taxes are being used to house future terrorists!!! :rolleyes:

[Corky]

The biggest disappointment for me is the criticising of Jeremy Kyle's show.

YouTube has a vast array of clips showing people making the rest of the world feel better about themselves.

A bit of prior research wouldn't hurt, guys.

[Cal]

Pisses me off that I've always worked and still cant afford to rent somewhere of my own. I think there should be some sort of scheme to help those under the age of 25 who are in full-time employment.

[Daggers]

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.

Change your question, let's move away from the bollocks about housing because as I've proved that is just a pile of Cummerbund/Daily Mail shite.

If you ask whether it's right that benefit goes beyond essentials then the answer is clearly 'no'. Smoking, drinking and going on holiday to Spain, flat screen TVs and McDonalds are not what the benefit system should be accommodating. Is it geared to keeping the long-term unemployed out of work? Yes it is. Does it need reform? Clearly.

Should reform target under-25's claiming housing benefit despite the majority being in work? No, the idea is laughably pathetic.

[Guest MattP]

claiming housing benefit despite the majority being in work?

and there is where the whole system, every part of it, is so fcuked beyond repair it's incredible.

[Daggers]

and there is where the whole system, every part of it, is so fcuked beyond repair it's incredible.

Explain.

[glenny_fox]

Change your question, let's move away from the bollocks about housing because as I've proved that is just a pile of Cummerbund/Daily Mail shite.

If you ask whether it's right that benefit goes beyond essentials then the answer is clearly 'no'. Smoking, drinking and going on holiday to Spain, flat screen TVs and McDonalds are not what the benefit system should be accommodating. Is it geared to keeping the long-term unemployed out of work? Yes it is. Does it need reform? Clearly.

Should reform target under-25's claiming housing benefit despite the majority being in work? No, the idea is laughably pathetic.

Completely agree that they should be used for essentials and nothing more, like someone said, maybe bring in a voucher system?

Or go back to what Cameron was suggesting originally that all benefits should be capped at £25,000. I think that would solve just about all problems with abusing the system.

[Guest MattP]

Explain.

The fact that people employed by companies are paid they such a poor wage their housing needs to be subsidised by other tax payers.

[Jon the Hat]

Explain.

Reliance on the state even though you have a job? Gordon Brown's dream.

Comes back to what you said earlier about rents. If councils capped rent levels, they market rent would come in line.

[Guest MattP]

Reliance on the state even though you have a job? Gordon Brown's dream.

I was going to say almost exactly the same thing about Labour in my previous post.

[Jon the Hat]

The fact that people employed by companies are paid they such a poor wage their housing needs to be subsidised by other tax payers.

Hmm.. You don't think maybe this works the other way around? If you get state handouts it pushes wages down.

The final irony of course being that if you raised the tax threshold you would not need the handout.

[Guest MattP]

Hmm.. You don't think maybe this works the other way around? If you get state handouts it pushes wages down.

The final irony of course being that if you raised the tax threshold you would not need the handout.

Very possible of course, when I say it shows how ridiculous it is I mean it's a completely broken system in every way shape or form.

Like we have already alluded to, it's pretty much what happens when you have had twelve odd years of a government that was absolutely obsessed with getting as many people in society depandent on them as possible.

[Daggers]

Reliance on the state even though you have a job? Gordon Brown's dream.

I wonder which governments have been in charge during the peaks of the graph?

1983-1987: Thatcher 10.3-11.8% unemployment

1993: Major 10.4% unemployment

2009: Brown 7.9% unemployment

2010+:Cameron 8.3% unemployment

[Guest MattP]

I wonder which governments have been in charge during the peaks of the graph?

1983-1987: Thatcher 10.3-11.8% unemployment

1993: Major 10.4% unemployment

2009: Brown 7.9% unemployment

2010+:Cameron 8.3% unemployment

Well of course, the Tories don't create non essential jobs in the Public Sector in order to get people to vote for them.

[Daggers]

Well of course, the Tories don't create non essential jobs in the Public Sector in order to get people to vote for them.

How many millions of votes do you estimate that Labour have brought?

[Guest MattP]

How many millions of votes do you estimate that Labour have brought?

Would be impossible for me to give you one at the minute as I can't get to google but I've have a look tonight, I remember reading in the Telegraph a couple of year back they had increased the NHS by about 150,000 people in 5 years (despite clearly not having the fiscal capacity to do so) so i dread to think what the figure would be across the whole Public Sector/Civil Service.

[Daggers]

Would be impossible for me to give you one at the minute as I can't get to google but I've have a look tonight, I remember reading in the Telegraph a couple of year back they had increased the NHS by about 150,000 people in 5 years (despite clearly not having the fiscal capacity to do so) so i dread to think what the figure would be across the whole Public Sector/Civil Service.

And all these jobs are surplus to requirements, right?

[Guest MattP]

And all these jobs are surplus to requirements, right?

Of course not, I've got no doubt a lot of the form fillers could be removed though, If I ever see a Guardian lying about I usually pick it up to have a laugh at the Jobs page to see what some of the local councils have came up with it to spend their money on.

They mentioned on QT last week that the Police are spending more than they ever did, how that can be the cas when I hardly ever seen a patrolling copper nowadays I have no idea. I have no reason to believe after ten years of this lot it's any different in any other department.

[Daggers]

I'll skip waiting for your answer Matt because it ought to be obvious I'm simply leading you on.

The total net public sector employment increase in the last ten years has been 307,000, the Tories have shaved 240,000 off what was there. But of course, being a Tory, you'd much rather see all of these people claiming benefits instead of feeding their wages back into an economy and bolstering house prices.

I'd love to know where all these jobs which don't need doing are? In schools all managed loses have been through three routes: a) increased class sizes, b) sacking teaching assistants and c) not using trained staff as cover by giving kids busy work and using non-qualified behaviour monitors. The NHS has cut back staff through an employment embargo - resulting in Trusts having to spend far more on agency staff and consultants in order to meet targets. It's half-arsed Tory dogma causing this madness.

So, obviously the lead on from your misconstrued idea that one party buy votes through creating jobs (despite this not being supported by evidence) is that the Tories must be creating opportunities so people will vote for them? The Tories must be creating opportunities for the under-25s?

Ahh...same shape of graph innit! All the peaks for unemployment in the under-25s comes under Tory governments:

At a time when people are uttering such shite about throwing under-25s on the street or not paying for a roof over their head, this Tory-led administration is presiding over record levels of youth unemployment.

It's wrong to create public sector jobs? Fvck. Right. Off. Anyone claiming this has clearly never lived on the breadline, never suffered a period of unemployment, never been pushed out by society.

I hate party politics, but more than hating party politics I loathe petty-minded, imbecilic, Tory dogma which is the product of selfishness and stupidity.

In this thread, every advocate of Cameron's brain fart has failed to stump up a single piece of supporting fact/statistic - why? Because they can't: it's all about them, their tax, their house, their life. Considering some of them purport to be intelligent I'd have thought they'd have the decency to put their hands up and admit it. This isn't about the economy, superfluous public sector posts or housing - it's about their selfishness.

[Leicfox]

I'll skip waiting for your answer Matt because it ought to be obvious I'm simply leading you on.

The total net public sector employment increase in the last ten years has been 307,000, the Tories have shaved 240,000 off what was there. But of course, being a Tory, you'd much rather see all of these people claiming benefits instead of feeding their wages back into an economy and bolstering house prices.

I'd love to know where all these jobs which don't need doing are? In schools all managed loses have been through three routes: a) increased class sizes, b) sacking teaching assistants and c) not using trained staff as cover by giving kids busy work and using non-qualified behaviour monitors. The NHS has cut back staff through an employment embargo - resulting in Trusts having to spend far more on agency staff and consultants in order to meet targets. It's half-arsed Tory dogma causing this madness.

So, obviously the lead on from your misconstrued idea that one party buy votes through creating jobs (despite this not being supported by evidence) is that the Tories must be creating opportunities so people will vote for them? The Tories must be creating opportunities for the under-25s?

Ahh...same shape of graph innit! All the peaks for unemployment in the under-25s comes under Tory governments:

At a time when people are uttering such shite about throwing under-25s on the street or not paying for a roof over their head, this Tory-led administration is presiding over record levels of youth unemployment.

It's wrong to create public sector jobs? Fvck. Right. Off. Anyone claiming this has clearly never lived on the breadline, never suffered a period of unemployment, never been pushed out by society.

I hate party politics, but more than hating party politics I loathe petty-minded, imbecilic, Tory dogma which is the product of selfishness and stupidity.

In this thread, every advocate of Cameron's brain fart has failed to stump up a single piece of supporting fact/statistic - why? Because they can't: it's all about them, their tax, their house, their life. Considering some of them purport to be intelligent I'd have thought they'd have the decency to put their hands up and admit it. This isn't about the economy, superfluous public sector posts or housing - it's about their selfishness.

Great post. +1

[Guest]

I agree the welfare system needs reforming. Handing out benefits to all is, quite frankly, ridiculous, and it is only right that only those who are in need should receive. Many members of the public are angry at seeing undeserving folk receiving a handout, and with good reason.

Given the savings the Government needs to make, I have come up with a novel solution to the problem of assessing a benefit applicant's needs.

Rather than employing staff to make these assessments, it could all be done by way of television. Applicant has one minute to put across their argument. It is then down to the public to vote, either by phone or by text, as to whether that person should receive said benefit.

Not only would this raise revenue for the Government coffers, but it would also help to claw back some of the wasted benefits paid out to those who love a good text vote.

Brilliant, or what.

[Rincewind]

I have now gone onto a work scheme because I and the jobcentre have failed to find a job. The scheme is vasically organizations paid by the government to find and keep unemployed in work. This is unpaid so I believe it will be telling me how to fill out application forms and CV's that will be rejected by employers along with 100 other applicants because of age lack of experience lack of skill etc.. I may be sent for work experience or some other unpaid activity but it looks good for the government. Next July I can claim pension credits so would an employer want to train me for five years? If the goalposts had not been moved I may be claiming Pension credits now and taken off the jobless list.

There are so many jobs now where skills are combined and one person doing a job that two used to.

I am over 25 and single I only get JSA £71 plus my rent and CT paid I do not have anything else paid for so if theres something that I can claim for that I am unaware of I would like to know. I spend up to£80 more than my income each month and I have cut down to the mimum Not all under 25's would be entitled to HB. If living at home they would only receive the JSA and like me would be referred to training programs. Maybe sooner. If they do not attend they lose benefits. I am sure a young person would like to have more than £71 income PW.

[cambridgefox]

I'll skip waiting for your answer Matt because it ought to be obvious I'm simply leading you on.

The total net public sector employment increase in the last ten years has been 307,000, the Tories have shaved 240,000 off what was there. But of course, being a Tory, you'd much rather see all of these people claiming benefits instead of feeding their wages back into an economy and bolstering house prices.

I'd love to know where all these jobs which don't need doing are? In schools all managed loses have been through three routes: a) increased class sizes, b) sacking teaching assistants and c) not using trained staff as cover by giving kids busy work and using non-qualified behaviour monitors. The NHS has cut back staff through an employment embargo - resulting in Trusts having to spend far more on agency staff and consultants in order to meet targets. It's half-arsed Tory dogma causing this madness.

So, obviously the lead on from your misconstrued idea that one party buy votes through creating jobs (despite this not being supported by evidence) is that the Tories must be creating opportunities so people will vote for them? The Tories must be creating opportunities for the under-25s?

Ahh...same shape of graph innit! All the peaks for unemployment in the under-25s comes under Tory governments:

At a time when people are uttering such shite about throwing under-25s on the street or not paying for a roof over their head, this Tory-led administration is presiding over record levels of youth unemployment.

It's wrong to create public sector jobs? Fvck. Right. Off. Anyone claiming this has clearly never lived on the breadline, never suffered a period of unemployment, never been pushed out by society.

I hate party politics, but more than hating party politics I loathe petty-minded, imbecilic, Tory dogma which is the product of selfishness and stupidity.

In this thread, every advocate of Cameron's brain fart has failed to stump up a single piece of supporting fact/statistic - why? Because they can't: it's all about them, their tax, their house, their life. Considering some of them purport to be intelligent I'd have thought they'd have the decency to put their hands up and admit it. This isn't about the economy, superfluous public sector posts or housing - it's about their selfishness.

Having mentioned it earlier in the thread I am a floating voter as see good and bad in both parties.Having been unemployed,stressed so much that I was no longer rational or good to be around,and although I thought it wouldn't happen to me I gave my job up before I done some damage that was definitely coming.Having been ,not exactly on the breadline but once the groceries and mortgage had been paid I had nothing ,I never want to go back to that place.i have a fantastic stress free job that pays me more than most I expect(not boasting)and I could earn 20k more but I forfeit that to be happy more than anything,but having had those bad times it's all about me and my friends now so I will continue to have nice holidays(of which I paid for my friend and family to go with us a they were having a tough time of it) enjoy buying stuff I probably do not need and still vote conservative or labour depending on what will be good for me and me only,but what I don't do is criticise every policy the Tories have as that would be blinkered of me and I did vote labour last time.so although I voted labour,I'm putting my hands up for being selfish.

[glenny_fox]

I agree the welfare system needs reforming. Handing out benefits to all is, quite frankly, ridiculous, and it is only right that only those who are in need should receive. Many members of the public are angry at seeing undeserving folk receiving a handout, and with good reason.

Given the savings the Government needs to make, I have come up with a novel solution to the problem of assessing a benefit applicant's needs.

Rather than employing staff to make these assessments, it could all be done by way of television. Applicant has one minute to put across their argument. It is then down to the public to vote, either by phone or by text, as to whether that person should receive said benefit.

Not only would this raise revenue for the Government coffers, but it would also help to claw back some of the wasted benefits paid out to those who love a good text vote.

Brilliant, or what.

This would be brilliant, put the idea forward to Dave and Nick!!!