To wonder why you get less job seekers allowance if you're under 25?

(59 Posts)
MyTeaHasGoneCold Thu 31-Jul-14 21:27:43

I really don't get it.

Things do not cost less if you are under 25. Food, clothes, transport costs, etc are not cheaper just because you are under 25. They cost the same for everyone so what's the reasoning behind paying them less?

The only thing I can think of is that under 25's are maybe more likely to be living at home than over 25's...except that doesn't always work because I know plenty of people younger than that who don't live at home and people older than that who do. Yet the over 25 would still get more JSA purely on the basis of their age.

AIBU?

SweepTheHalls Thu 31-Jul-14 21:29:06

But you have paid less into the system with NI. Just a guess.

FrankSaysNo Thu 31-Jul-14 21:30:48

Because you are living at home and subsidised?

>I gaze at the sofa dweller<

ObfusKate Thu 31-Jul-14 21:31:22

It's a bit like the housing benefit only paying for a room in shared accommodation if you're under 25. You're supposed to be happier to live in shit rooms and survive on noodles if you're under 25, I think.

I always wonder this about the minimum wage as well.

Also, if you are claiming as a couple, you don't each get the amount you would if you were single, it's less than the amount for 2 single people. I don't get that as it still costs the same for food etc! You don't suddenly eat less or need less clothes if you have a partner.

ObfusKate Thu 31-Jul-14 21:34:53

Maybe it's because the politicians in charge remember three years living in student digs and possibly a few years living with mates after graduation (possibly while claiming the generous dole you could get back then), and think they can convince the voters that that's what living on JSA is like.

MrRedAndBlue Thu 31-Jul-14 21:36:23

the HB rules have changed - it used to be 25, but the age limit was increased so that any single person under the age 35 will only get an amount equivalent to shared accommodation. The change was brought in with the Welfare Reform Act 2012 but went a bit under radar

CrohnicallyDepressed Thu 31-Jul-14 21:38:08

The one that always annoyed me was nat min wage. When I was a teen, 16/17 year olds didn't have a NMW. So at 16 I was doing the same job as 18-20 year olds, and getting paid far less. At 20 I had been in the same job for a number of years, was the longest serving member of staff at that branch- and also the lowest paid thanks to everyone else being 21 or older.

And don't get me started on car insurance- at 24 with no accidents and 6 years driving experience, I had a much higher excess than someone aged 25 who had just passed their test. How is that fair? It seems like age discrimination against the young is one of the few discriminations still allowed.

stargirl1701 Thu 31-Jul-14 21:40:16

Because you haven't made the same NI contributions as someone older?

CrohnicallyDepressed Thu 31-Jul-14 21:40:33

schroSaw now that does make sense to me- 2 people living together don't need to pay twice as much rent, lighting, heating, cooking as 2 people in separate accommodation. I think water, food and clothes are about the only expenses that will double.

Spartak Thu 31-Jul-14 21:40:57

I had to live in shared houses until I was 30 and I'd beenin full time employment for 9 years by that point.
Couldn't afford my own place. Why should someone on housing benefit be any different?

ICanSeeTheSun Thu 31-Jul-14 21:43:13

It's because education is usually supported until 25, with employers getting grants ect for apprentiships

ICanSeeTheSun Thu 31-Jul-14 21:43:39
ICanSeeTheSun Thu 31-Jul-14 21:47:47

NMW for an over 19 apprenticeship is £2.68 per hour.

whatever5 Thu 31-Jul-14 21:49:44

I think it's because many people under the age of 25 live with their parents and even if they don't many could move back if they wanted to.

scarlettsmummy2 Thu 31-Jul-14 21:58:23

Probably a variety of reasons and not wanting to make it too comfortable for someone also being subsidised by parents.

ObfusKate Thu 31-Jul-14 22:03:40

Wow, I missed that, MrRed.

PourquoiTuGachesTaVie Thu 31-Jul-14 22:04:34

Some of us haven't got any parents or family to go to.

I don't think it's fair per se.

BUT, I think we are in danger of being a culture far too stuck in the "I'm entitled to this" way of thinking. No we're not, none of us are entitled to benefits - we are simply fortunate that we live in a country that provides for us when we get into a situation that means we can't cover all our living costs. We pay into the system when we can, so we have the safety net for when we cant...but none of us "deserve" or "should get" anything.

MyTeaHasGoneCold Thu 31-Jul-14 22:36:59

Not everyone under 25 lives with their parents and out of those who don't I'm sure there are plenty who couldn't move back in with them for various reasons. Yet they would still receive less help than someone who is over 25 and living at home for instance.

MyTeaHasGoneCold Thu 31-Jul-14 22:37:19

But I do think that's the main reasoning behind it, yes.

StrawberryMouse Thu 31-Jul-14 22:40:47

Perhaps parents are assumed to help out? Which is a bit rubbish as lots of people don't have that kind of support. Similar with the bh under 35s rule.

JellyDiamond Thu 31-Jul-14 22:45:10

There's an assumption that you love with parents if you are under 25, but that's not true.

TheBloodManCometh Thu 31-Jul-14 22:45:32

Actually education is only subsidised to 23

SlipperyLizard Fri 01-Aug-14 06:26:21

Because under 25s don't vote as much as over 65s, so are easier to shaft? Not sure how we change that, because no political party caters for that group because they don't vote as much, which makes people wonder why bother vote, which makes a vicious circle.

I was lucky that I didn't need to go home after uni, but if I had there was no "home" to go to anymore as my parents were by then living in a tiny rented flat.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now