To think that a blanket ban on benefits for under 25s

(326 Posts)
pointythings Wed 02-Oct-13 12:23:31

Is not only blatantly unfair but also unworkable?

Under a future Tory government, you can leave school at 18, work, lose your job at 23 and be forced straight onto workfare, because you are not eligible for benefits - never mind that you've worked and paid in!

And isn't it blatant age discrimination? Every time I think the Conservatices can't sink any lower, they do...

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep Wed 02-Oct-13 12:27:55

Was this mooted at their conference? I hadn't heard about it.

NotYoMomma Wed 02-Oct-13 12:28:08

have they announced this at the conference?!

I was engaged and moved out at 21 shock and had been working since I was 16!

no benefits at all or no jsa?

its unworkable, what about parents who work and are under 25? so not child tax credit, housing benefit, child benefit? If those parents lost their jobs no JSA so no food for themselves and their family?

Tweasels Wed 02-Oct-13 12:35:24

Stopping benefits in any age group doesn't' equal more people into work. It's another lame attempt to get the frothy seethers on side.

It will also send crime rates soaring which is great news when you're bringing in compulsory redundancies in the Police.

SpiritOfTheBuskersCat Wed 02-Oct-13 12:36:27

Are they on glue?

insancerre Wed 02-Oct-13 12:39:41

it's just yet another way of demonising and stigmatising another section of society
it's what they are experts in

Stravy Wed 02-Oct-13 12:43:50

Have they announced this? They are twats. They love a bit of divide and rule. If they aren't entitled to benefits then surely they shouldn't have to pay tax and NI either.

pointythings Wed 02-Oct-13 12:44:01

Yes, this was mooted at the conference today - it's hot off the presses, David Cameron finished his speech about 40 minutes ago. this article is not entirely clear about which benefits it applies to. this article here seems to apply it will be housing benefit, but does not rule out dole.

It's such a diabolically bad idea my head is spinning.

kotinka Wed 02-Oct-13 12:45:05

That's insane, it'll increase homelessness.

Makqueen2 Wed 02-Oct-13 12:45:56

Well, I'd have been screwed.

I claimed partial housing benefit from 18, as although I worked, it was only just enough to cover rent on a room.

It is a ridiculous notion.

Stravy Wed 02-Oct-13 12:48:27

Are the parents of under 25's going to be allowed to keep their 'spare rooms'? (if you are lucky enough to have parents, and live in the same town as them, and they feel inclined to let you stay)

pussinwellyboots Wed 02-Oct-13 12:49:20

Also the government is rarely keen to extend funding for young people in or leaving care beyond 18. Many young people not just those in care do not have the supportive family that we would like them to have. Sounds good when talking about well supported young people in nice homes but that is not the reality fit many

I'm 23. I'm sure my mum would just love to give up her box room to me and my 3 year old. We'd have to share a bed of course. And I'd have to give up studying as she'd have to kick her lodger out so we could move in and she'd then not be able to afford her mortgage so I'd have to find work and be stuck in a min wage job for ages rather than qualify in a few years time and be off benefits for good. Hmm I see no flaw in this plan hmm

makemineabacardi Wed 02-Oct-13 13:03:36

Not surprising really. The Tories don't give a toss about the young, they're not their core voters.

That's completely insane. We hear very often of teenagers forced out of the "family" home with nothing to fall back on but the state, and managing to claw their way out of poverty with the support of benefits to become fully paid-up members of society.

"Sorry, you'll have to stay in the home where your family hate you, because you'll get fuck all if you move out, based on your date of birth."

havingamadmoment Wed 02-Oct-13 13:09:43

Its insane, from 17 I had no parents to go to, if this actually goes through there will be a lot of homeless young people surely?!

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep Wed 02-Oct-13 13:10:14

You see, young people? This is what happens when you don't fucking vote!

See this graph here? That's why you're getting screwed. How many cuts to pensions have there been, eh? Eh?

manicinsomniac Wed 02-Oct-13 13:12:18

That's totally insane. I had 2 children by age 24 and am a single mum. If I'd lost my job (which comes with housing) then I'd have been luckier than most as my mum would have had the willingness and the space in the house she owns outright to take us in. But it would have meant moving 250 miles North to a place with very few job opportunities.

Crazy. It will cause far more problems than it solves (if it will even solve any!)

How many cuts to pensions have there been, eh? Eh?

Well quite. Because those pensioners get out and vote. Nobody wants to piss them off.

BrokenSunglasses Wed 02-Oct-13 13:48:04

I think 25 is too old, but I'd agree if it were 21 and there were other provisions in place, such as no tuition fees and child benefit continued until the 'child' had finished education.

I agree that something needs to be done to discourage people having children before they have had enough years in work to be able to support them though, and I say that as someone who was pregnant at 19.

littlemisssarcastic Wed 02-Oct-13 13:49:18

Yet many pensioners are still pissed off, so in many pensioners opinions, voting hasn't been as productive for them as they'd hoped.
AFAIC pensioners have been the least affected by the cuts so far, but I'm not convinced they would agree.

Darkesteyes Wed 02-Oct-13 13:51:46

I hope someone from the media thinks to ask this lady what her opinions are of the proposals.
Jenni Fagan......author of The Panopticon.

www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/books/jenni-fagan-on-life-in-care-and-her-new-novel-1-2896052

candycoatedwaterdrops Wed 02-Oct-13 13:56:39

Is it just JSA or disability benefits too?

piratecat Wed 02-Oct-13 14:01:18

so if my dd left for university but had to come back home and couldn't find a job. she would be allowed to stay in my home but not claim anything. and in doing that i would also not be allowed my council place because i would be under occupying. this is if i were claiming benefits too of course. and she can't get housing Ben independently. so not only would she be without any money she would be making the country look worse by having to sleep rough.
oh something like that.

fabulous

HarryStottle Wed 02-Oct-13 14:11:36

When I was 18 my mother died. My dad was already dad. I had just finished A levels which I had completely failed because I had been focussed on my mother in the last months of her terminal illness.
I was told by the benefits people I wasn't entitled and their attitude was foul. My mother had paid for a holiday that I was about to go on and they saw that as evidence that I wasn't in financial difficulty.
I was actually lucky - I had grown up siblings who could offer me a roof over my head and some financial help till I got a job. I have long wondered what would have happened had I not had support.
That experience has in part shaped who I am and my political beliefs today.
This govt is absolutely terrifying.

HarryStottle Wed 02-Oct-13 14:12:41

*my dad was already dead (as well as a dad - a dead dad)

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 14:42:26

That's crazy!!! I'm 25 but my partner (the main earner in our home) is 20. We currently don't claim anything but will this include working and child tax credits?! As we will (were) eligible for them once our baby is born in a few weeks time!

Madness, I moved out of home at 19 and have been working full time since I was 18! And that's not unusual.

Dawndonnaagain Wed 02-Oct-13 14:42:52
Coffeenowplease Wed 02-Oct-13 15:29:55

This is awful. I am 25 and have studied very hard. I had a year out - worked.
Then went to uni - worked and paid huge fees to do so. Got a grant too as my parent didn't have a lot of money.
Then i did a masters. I took out a bank loan to do so and again paid huge fees. Oh and again I worked.

Next I graduated with my masters and thank god managed to get a job straight away as under 25s didn't get full housing.

2 years later I am now unemployed. I am well qualified and experienced in a scientific field but unemployed. I am also STILL not entitled to full HB as the age is now 30. So my JSA and HB just about covers the rent and the payback of the loan I (stupidly thinking it would enhance my career) took out to do my masters leaving me with nothing. NOTHING. No food no bill money nothing.

Thankfully I put in so much over time when I heard my contract was not being renewed I have a tiny amount to live on for ooh a few weeks...

Now imagine if I hadnt got a job straight away at 23 and there was no benefits for under 25s ? I would have had to move from a big city where I had a home of my own, a good chance of getting a job in my field to er where ? My parent ? Well I hope they would have had me but not everyone can. Other children, illness,disability means this isnt always possible.

I worked so hard. This is an insult it really is. My birthday is next month so Im so glad this wont affect me now but i really feel for anyone this affects if they manage to do it.

Coffeenowplease Wed 02-Oct-13 15:30:50

Parents* Please excuse poor typing I am angry

NotYoMomma Wed 02-Oct-13 15:42:28

I worked part time all through Uni - and worked at Northern Rock in a minion role.

when the 2007 shit hit the fan I was just about to start my masters (I had to scrap that to do more hours and survive) and then worked full time.

my full time job then got put at risk 3 times!

I survived (just) but if I had lost my job I wouldnt have had even a sniff of help from anyone?

I was newly married with no children, I would have had NOTHING. should I have left my (at the time low earning) fiance and moved back in with my mum

CharlieAlphaKiloEcho Wed 02-Oct-13 15:55:34

But surely all those under 25 should be in university with loans or living off mummy and daddy?

Wait, hang on, that's just how the Tories were raised...

therumoursaretrue Wed 02-Oct-13 15:57:25

What a pack of utterly clueless ballbags.

Itstartshere Wed 02-Oct-13 15:59:20

It's so naïve. There are so many young people who have left care, or abusive homes or are graduates but can't get work. It's dismissing a whole generation just when they need support. It's hard enough entering adulthood and making your way in the world without this.

The Tories are so blinkered, so utterly clueless about how most people live. David Cameron doesn't even know how much a loaf of bread costs.

Elfhame Wed 02-Oct-13 15:59:48

I am actually getting frightened about the Tories getting in at the next election.

fluffyraggies Wed 02-Oct-13 16:06:32

so if my dd left for university but had to come back home and couldn't find a job. she would be allowed to stay in my home but not claim anything.

If you're in social housing she wouldn't even have the spare bedroom to come back to pirate if the government had their way!

I think it's a ridiculous idea. 25 makes you an adult, not a school leaver. A quirk of my DOB meant that I started university aged 17 and graduated aged 21. I got a full time, NMW paying, job so I could try to save some money to go back and do a masters. In the mean time, I moved in with my DP and got pregnant, we now have an 8mo DS. I am going back to work in about 3 weeks time, unless my boss is unable to change my hours to something that suits us so we can afford childcare. If I was to hand in my notice is Cameron honestly trying to say that I shouldn't be allowed to claim JSA because I'm "only" 23, because I should be learning if I'm in between jobs? Despite having paid NI contributions since I was 16 and working my way through school and uni? Despite having already completed my degree? And the mean time my son does what? Freezes because we can't heat our home?

<rage>

Coffeenowplease Wed 02-Oct-13 16:08:08

Isnt this age discrimination of some sort ?

Actually with support I think this is a great idea. IF it was delivered by a labour government.

I heard Cameron say 'earn or learn' rather than ban on benefits. So, if this was delivered by people having the choice of :
a) a government guaranteed job or apprenticeship that paid a living wage or is subsidized by the government to a living wage
or
b) Further education funded by the government, including living expenses
or c) raising children to the age of 5 and being supported to do so

I would think this was a bloody great idea.

Did I get the wrong end of the pointy Tory stick?

DiamondMask Wed 02-Oct-13 16:12:47

Even if a young person goes to university they leave at 21. And then what if they cant find a job? Not everyone can go back to parents. On the streets starving is what if there's no HB and no Job seekers (the article I read said no job seekers either)
WTAF

NotYoMomma Wed 02-Oct-13 16:15:54

where are these government garanteed jobs then? lol

oh wait... they will bung them straight into workfare.

and what if you have already learned and got your degree and are looking for work?

Will the government just fund another masters for you, or pop you on a job centre literacy course because you must obviously be an uneducated thicko?

25 is ridiculous age!

bigbrick Wed 02-Oct-13 16:16:35

Why make some pay further eduction fees and then pay others to sit at home?

BrokenSunglasses Wed 02-Oct-13 16:16:59

I think us parents are going to have to start getting our heads around the idea that our financial responsibility isn't going to end when our youngest turns 18.

Charlottehere Wed 02-Oct-13 16:22:12

Bad idea.

BangOn Wed 02-Oct-13 17:00:36

who in God's name are they actually trying to appeal to? only a psychopath would think any of their ideas are acceptable, & by that I mean someone with zero empathy. I hope to god there aren't enough of those registered to vote to actually swing an election.

MNHQ is busy peddling senseles (i suspect regurgiated) crap about how Cameron has a problem attracting female voters. With policies like that I should hope he'd have trouble attracting anyone with a pulse.

DiamondMask Wed 02-Oct-13 17:23:47

And those whose parents are on benefits themselves? Because maybe they are Carers? How are they going to absorb the cost of another adult or 2 or 3?

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 17:26:51

I would agree with this policy. It just isn't right that you can go straight to benefits without working.

NotYoMomma Wed 02-Oct-13 17:27:45

even the language - gone back to calling it the dole when referencing young people.

its job seekers allowance they are referring to. you have to be looking for a Job or on a course anyway to qualify.

what about those 24 yrear olds in social housing who lose their jobs? Will the government support them in not paying their rent?

how is it even possible to consider just banning hb for people in housing? at any age?!

Stravy Wed 02-Oct-13 17:34:24

I would agree with this policy. It just isn't right that you can go straight to benefits without working.

People are taxed from 16 in the UK, not 25. It's bad enough that people are taxed under voting age imo. It reminds me of the suffragettes 'taxation without representation is tyranny'

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Wed 02-Oct-13 17:39:49

Surely they won't get back in? Even the blinkered idiots who voted them most likely now regret it big time.

Opalite Wed 02-Oct-13 17:42:18

I grew up on benefits, my mum stopped getting child benefit when I left education and I went on benefits (jsa). If I wasn't allowed to claim benefits then we wouldn't have been able to afford to live ffs!loads of people are in that situation, if this happened then THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE!!!

littlemisssarcastic Wed 02-Oct-13 17:42:50

HuglessDouglas I didn't think you could claim JSA in your circs anyway, unless you've paid enough contributions to be able to claim of course, and that would only give you 6 months on JSA.

meddie Wed 02-Oct-13 17:43:16

Terrible idea...
What if a family are already on NMW and receiving help and struggling as it is.
If their kids have to come home after Uni due to lack of financial support , where are they supposed to get the money to feed extra mouths from (before they went to Uni they would have had help with CB and WTC, this will have stopped), so their income will be less.

So even if their children do the right thing (in tory eyes) and go on to further educate themselves, they will have no help and their parents will be financially punished too. not all under 25's are feckless workshy lay a bouts yet Camoron is effectively lumping them all in together.
I hope this is the tipping point that finally makes young people and their parents get up and get out and vote....

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 17:43:16

you're right stravy, so perhaps it should not be an age limit, but rather you have to put in for x amount of years, before you can get out?

DiamondMask Wed 02-Oct-13 17:45:20

'I would agree with this policy. It just isn't right that you can go straight to benefits without working.'

So you finish school or university....and you dont get a job the next day. What are you meant to live on while you are looking?

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 17:50:19

You get a job. Where I live, there are jobs. No excuses. (south east ).

MummyofIsla Wed 02-Oct-13 17:51:09

The notion of this terrifies me. I came out of uni with a 1 year old and if I hadnt had housing benefiy and ctc I would have been skrewed because these days jobs are seriously difficult to come by.

Its easy to say people shouldn't hace children when they can't fully afford to but the truth is, when you dont believe in abortions, these things happen. It doesnt mean we should be left out in the cokd, unable even to pay rent!

Opalite Wed 02-Oct-13 17:51:59

Yep, its that easy to just go and get a job! FFS really arethereanyleftatall???!!!

MummyofIsla Wed 02-Oct-13 17:52:03

Sorry about typos ~ phone

meddie Wed 02-Oct-13 17:53:38

Nice idea arethereanyleftatall. but not everyone lives in the South East, how would those wishing to move down there be able to live while they looked for these bountiful well paying jobs that provided enough income to house and feed themselves.

I agree Stravy.

It would be different if the policy was "You can't leave school and claim jobseekers straight away, you have to either find employment or a FE course to do", but it's not. A lot of us HAVE worked and paid tax and our NI contributions, how is it fair to say that we aren't entitled to claim the same money that would be available to someone aged 26 or 56 if I was to be unemployed and seeking other employment? £56.80 a week is hardly fancy living.

Opalite Wed 02-Oct-13 17:54:40

And unless you honestly think everyone can just start a job the day they leave education then what money do you think they should live on before they start working? hmm

MummyofIsla Wed 02-Oct-13 17:54:49

Arethereanyleftatall are you for real? When you are young, have zero experience and there are far more experienced people taking jobs beneath them rather than being made redundant it can be nigh on impossible to find a job that can be worked around chuldcare.

gordyslovesheep Wed 02-Oct-13 17:56:04

they don't have a CLUE Cameron said it was possible to 'leave school and go onto benefits' NO IT ISN'T 16/17 year old have very little access to any benefits unless they are parents or homeless and even then it's like getting blood out of a stone

They seem to think housing benefit is an out of work benefit when (I think) 80% + of claimants work

They are utterly ignorant of the system they are trying to damage beyond repair change

MummyofIsla Wed 02-Oct-13 17:57:08

And heaven forbid a person should be able to pay bills and feed their family, even if they are under 25

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 17:57:35

Where I live, I could without question get a job tomorrow if need be. Without doubt. wouldn't necessarily be a great job , but certainly a job.

Littlemiss Hopefully 6 months would be the most I'd need to find some sort of employment. Personally, I've been in full time employment for 3 years, I worked 30 hours a week since I was 17.5 (going to uni) and 15 hours a week from when I was about 16/3months til going to university. Even working my weekends at school I still had an NI deduction on my pay slip if we got a bonus.

Opalite Wed 02-Oct-13 18:00:11

Arethereanyleftatall, that's fantastic for you, you are extremely lucky but surely you realise it isn't like that anywhere else in the fucking country in other places...?

expatinscotland Wed 02-Oct-13 18:02:39

Typical Tory bollocks.

DiamondMask Wed 02-Oct-13 18:02:57

maybe we should all move to your town arethereanyleftatall because it's not like that here. And if you are a young person with disabilities there's almost no hope at all regardless of qualifications with 12 people chasing each job.

MummyofIsla Wed 02-Oct-13 18:03:14

Arethereanyleftatall thats great for you. I would love to see this fantasy land you live in! As for the rest of us its back to a reality of handing out a million application forms and getting zero responses.

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 18:03:18

I honestly don't know opalite.

NotYoMomma Wed 02-Oct-13 18:03:38

yes but what about... you know... all the other places in the country? hmm

where there are no jobs. how can people move to south east for these magical jobs with no income for train/ accomodation etc?

you are in dreamland

MummyofIsla Wed 02-Oct-13 18:04:47

Diamondmaks I spoke ti a recruitment agency last week and they were saying that for every job vacancy which requires no qualifications there is on average 500 applications.

littlemisssarcastic Wed 02-Oct-13 18:06:24

IIRC, it is only your NI contributions for the last 2 tax years which count when it comes to deciding whether you are eligible for contribution based JSA HuglessDouglas.

Many people have worked for many years without a break, only to find they are not eligible for JSA. sad

expatinscotland Wed 02-Oct-13 18:06:25

Will they raise that age group's minimum wage then? I find it ridiculous and discriminatory that the min wage isn't the min wage. It undercuts older workers, too.

pointythings Wed 02-Oct-13 18:08:20

This policy has so many holes in it that it's practically a Swiss cheese:

- Learning costs money. Course costs, travel, learning materials. And of course not everyone is able to live with their parents.
- Working costs money - especially if you grow up in an area where there is not a lot of work and you actually want to move to an area where there are jobs - sorry, no housing benefit for you, no help at all for you.

This policy is basically saying to under 25s 'Sorry, unless you're well off we don't care about you.' And that includes young people who have worked, paid in and done the right thing.

RevoltingPeasant Wed 02-Oct-13 18:08:46

This makes my blood boil. I do not want to post too much detail but I work in higher education and this kind of thing really, really affects vulnerable young people who may have grown up in care or not have parents to support them, and just need a tiny, little bit of a break to help them better themselves or get through education.

Bear in mind people of this age now will be working till they are in their late 60s at least. They will make years of contributions. What happens to them at this age is so crucial. It can make the difference between taking a short course, getting a degree, not having the shitstorm that is unexpected homelessness happen to them.

Jesus wept angry angry

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 18:10:16

You can start your own business in any part of the country.

Elfhame Wed 02-Oct-13 18:11:02

Yes, lets demonise deprived young people. hmm

DiamondMask Wed 02-Oct-13 18:11:12

500 application for each job.Bloody hell

pozzled Wed 02-Oct-13 18:11:46

arethereanyleftatall you may be able to get a new job tomorrow if you wanted. But do you seriously think a disadvantaged 16 year old with no qualifications can do the same?

expatinscotland Wed 02-Oct-13 18:12:26

'You can start your own business in any part of the country.'

hmm

expatinscotland Wed 02-Oct-13 18:12:53

And you said you could get a job. Where? What town is this? I'd like to know.

littlemisssarcastic Wed 02-Oct-13 18:13:21

Which part of the SE is abundant in vacancies then?

I'm in the SE and jobs are not easy to find at all imo.

MummyofIsla Wed 02-Oct-13 18:13:44

Hang on a sec. Last time I checked starting your own business required...wait for it...money! Don't know about you but nit something I have in bucketloads, or at all for that matter. Then you need a market which will actually take off and finally a client base. With no experience exactly HOW do you suggest we achiece this?

Utter bollocks!

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 18:14:10

arethereany do you really live in the south west?! Because you sound like you are living in the clouds!

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 18:14:13

I think so pozzled. Waitressing, fast food outlets, cleaners etc don't require qualifications.

pointythings Wed 02-Oct-13 18:14:26

You can start your own business in any part of the country.

With what? Oh, with money from all the banks who are just falling over themselves to lend capital to untried young people. Silly me, what was I thinking? hmm

derbybird Wed 02-Oct-13 18:14:50

yeah, and you have to get the money in the first place to start that business. And somehow you've got to support yourself until such time as that business takes off (IF it takes off, it could just fail) and frankly not everyone has a viable idea for a business, or the acumen and experience to be able to run a business.

Oh and I live in the South East. been trying to get work the last four years without any luck. I'm overqualified and underexperienced dammit.

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 18:14:51

*south east

MummyofIsla Wed 02-Oct-13 18:15:06

I kniw diamondmask I was horrified!

Opalite Wed 02-Oct-13 18:15:57

arethereanyleftatall, under 25s aren't eligable for working tax credits to be self employed, firsty where the hell would they get the money to start a busiiness? I didn't have the skills or oppurtunites to start my own business as a teenager and neither did anyone else really...
Ah, of course... you earn enough to live off as soon as you start a business... and businesses cost nothing to start.

Just....grr...

VerySmallSqueak Wed 02-Oct-13 18:16:04

If people can fight for their country they can be treated with a little decency.

If we cannot give young people any opportunity,we shouldn't expect anything back from them other than the ability to survive in spite of what society throws at them.And we may not like what we get.

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 18:17:07

There are many own businesses which don't require start up capital; cleaners, window cleaners, gardeners etc etc

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 18:17:20

I think so pozzled. Waitressing, fast food outlets, cleaners etc don't require qualifications.

Maybe not, but many of these jobs do now look for experience in that area.

So if I were to apply for a cleaning job, although I'm overqualified for the job I probably wouldn't get it as I have no cleaning experience (other than my own home!!)

That is true arethere, but starting a business requires an idea for a business that would be profitable, money to invest in the business and it's a massive risk to take that it will even generate enough income to live off.

littlemiss Hmm I will have to take a look into that, hoping that I won't have to try and change jobs though! Thanks smile

Opalite Wed 02-Oct-13 18:18:18

There are thousands of jobs in each area for all the school leavers dontcha know confused

Stravy Wed 02-Oct-13 18:18:26

'You can start your own business in any part of the country.'

Yes. All those pesky unemployed homeless under 25s should just start up businesses.

As what? What business has zero start up costs.

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 18:19:19

There are many own businesses which don't require start up capital; cleaners, window cleaners, gardeners etc etc

And the income after just one month of these businesses offer enough to live off?

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 18:20:46

I've been thinking about starting my own business for a while, I didn't realise it was so easy hmm

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 18:22:06

I'm speaking from my own experience. I leftwork to be a sahm 3 months ago. because my wages after tax didn't cover 2 x childcare. Felt bad cod I wasn't contributing financially. So I got a night job in the pub down the road. With the money I have bought a bouncy castle which I am now hiring out via a fb page and local marketing. I have 10 bookings so far.

MummyofIsla Wed 02-Oct-13 18:22:12

You know what maybe i'll just nip and ask my neighbours if I can mow their lawns and clean the windows, thats sure to pay my rent and all the bills.

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 18:25:46

And is that covering all your rent/mortgage, bills and living expenses arethere?

Stravy Wed 02-Oct-13 18:27:48

"There are many own businesses which don't require start up capital; cleaners, window cleaners, gardeners etc etc"

No. They require start up capital.

You have to print flyers, buy equipment, travel, register with companies house, insure yourself. Unless you think that people employing totally inexperienced and unequipped people who they have never heard of, working in the black economy should be an official solution to unemployment.

ExcuseTypos Wed 02-Oct-13 18:28:28

Sorry haven't read the full thread but the news reported that there would be no automatic right to benefits etc. So I presume people who have no other means of support would get some. Well I bloody hope so anyway.

gordyslovesheep Wed 02-Oct-13 18:29:50

oh come and work with my NEET young people for a day - see the reality

oh and window cleaners, cleaners, gardeners need EQUIPMENT and a car or van

Stravy Wed 02-Oct-13 18:31:51

So you started up a business with existing capital, because you were in employment, and now your 10 bookings cover all your basic living expenses and will continue to do so through the winter, and you have somewhere to store a bouncy castle because you aren't living on the streets.

I'm struggling to find how this is relevant to, say, someone who has been made redundant age 23, after paying tax and NI for 7 years and doesn't have enough money to live, let alone buy bouncy castles.

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 02-Oct-13 18:33:29

He's an utter tosser.

I lost my job last year,shortly before I turned 24. At that point I had been in continuous employment since I was 16. That was whilst attending 6th form and university. I know lots like me the same age.

pointythings Wed 02-Oct-13 18:33:31

arethereany the clue is in your phrase I left work to be a sahm 3 months ago. Unless you are a single parent, that means you have a partner bringing in an income.

And in a lot of places, bar work is not easy to come by either - 100s of applicants for each job, and any self-respecting pub is going to prefer more mature people with experience. You sound very 'I'm all right Jack'.

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 18:44:38

I just think it's doable. That's all. With effort.

Stravy Wed 02-Oct-13 18:44:54

Do you have to pay half fare to take a bouncy castle on the bus, like you do with dogs?

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 18:45:33

Good idea mummyofisla. Try it.

kilmuir Wed 02-Oct-13 18:47:14

People will have paid into their pensions over many years, a few years of working from 18 to 25 does not put that much in benefit pot.

expatinscotland Wed 02-Oct-13 18:47:35

'Waitressing, fast food outlets, cleaners etc don't require qualifications.'

Sure, that's why so many with degrees and college certifications are working in these roles. And cleaners, but of course, people are happy to let strangers into their homes with no checks, references, etc.

And you still haven't told us of this town you live in where jobs are plentiful. Where is this? Some of us are looking to move.

MummyofIsla Wed 02-Oct-13 18:49:51

arethere it really frightens me that people with your mindset just might vote this tosser back into power. I assume your partner brings in a wage that's enough to cover your living expenses. How about try being under 25, living on the breadline because I assume you aren't from the way you are talking and lets see how long you last before claiming benefits.

LittleMissWise Wed 02-Oct-13 18:50:03

DS1(18) is at home at the moment because he is applying for the Forces. He has a p/t job and does as many hours as he can. It would not be enough to live on if we weren't supporting him. He will go to Uni next year if he doesn't get in the Forces.

I have just looked on the Job Centre website to see what he could do within 20 miles of our house. There are 3 jobs. One is in a betting shop, on an apprentice shop assistant and the other a Saturday job in Boots.

This is a ridiculous idea of David Cameron. The first thing he should do is get rid of Workfare. Why he can not work out that one of the reasons that there is no fecking jobs is because he is merrily sending people to companies for free! I mean, why on earth would Tesco pay someone if they don't have to?

By the time I was 25 I was married and pregnant with my second child. What would have happened to us if DH had walked out?

I have just been discussing this with my two teens, DS1 said " he reminds me of someone who would have had a workhouse!" DS2(16) said "don't joke he's probably planning them!"

I have never been so scared of a group of politicians as I am of him and his cronies!

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 18:50:33

So, say I'm 23. I lose my job. My rent is £600 a month, and bills and living expenses on top of that.

I have no spare cash lying around.

There are no jobs in my area, not that I can start instantly anyway.

arethereany can you give me some ideas of what I can do to make enough money quickly to afford all my expenses?

expatinscotland Wed 02-Oct-13 18:51:57

'Felt bad cod I wasn't contributing financially. So I got a night job in the pub down the road. With the money I have bought a bouncy castle which I am now hiring out via a fb page and local marketing. I have 10 bookings so far.'

I'm sure that would pay rent in a shared house, your share of council tax, food, utilities and transport if you were on your own without that partner there for you to perch on your high horse and throw out 'I think it's doable.' Sure is, if you have someone else supporting you bringing in the main income and to look after your kids whilst you earn a little pi money.

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 18:52:21

Collection only.

Stravy Wed 02-Oct-13 18:55:05

It's doable, with capital and support and a not already over-saturated marketplace.

I get around 20 flyers a week from people offering to cut my grass, clean my windows and paint my nails. How many of them can adequately feed and house themselves on the scant bit of work they must get.

I've never hired a bouncy castle but I would suggest that you are lying if you are saying you can pay all your bills/rent/food from the profits and that you managed to live on fresh air while you were saving up for the damn thing.

LittleMissWise Wed 02-Oct-13 18:55:19

A night job in a pub wouldn't pay the bills and buy your food etc!

LittleMissWise Wed 02-Oct-13 18:56:33

DS2 (16) has a P/T job, he earns £4.28 an hour. How far do you think that will get him?

quoteunquote Wed 02-Oct-13 18:59:04

Just when you thought they couldn't get any twonker, they manage to find yet another way to demonstrate just how stupid they are.

Someone needs to sit them down and have a chat, feeling are running high, there will be riots soon, there is only so far you can hurt people, before they snap.

DiamondMask Wed 02-Oct-13 19:00:30

So arethereanyleftatall, your pub job did not have to cover rent, food, bills and childcare while you started your bouncy castle business. And your partner will no doubt pay those things during the slack winter months.

Easy peasy this business starting isnt it...

Tiredemma Wed 02-Oct-13 19:04:05

I cannot even put into a coherent sentence just how much I fucking hate the Tories.

meddie Wed 02-Oct-13 19:04:47

My employer recently advertised for a hca, no qualifications required, training given. We had over 800 applications, many from graduates. Just desperate to work at anything. Its really difficult around here to get even nmw jobs

Tiredemma Wed 02-Oct-13 19:07:30

Meddie we have had psychology Masters graduates apply for Band 2 Hca posts. Its madness

LittleMissWise Wed 02-Oct-13 19:20:55

DS1 just said they'll pay for your FE until you are 19 if you are doing something like Alevels or a BTECS, but what happens if you have to go back at 21? Who is paying then?

What about prescriptions, dental charges, eye tests? If you have no income or benefits are you just meant to rot?

Rhianna1980 Wed 02-Oct-13 19:50:24

A cap for under 25 year olds is a bit harsh. Maybe 22 would be more reasonable. I lived in a country where there is no JSA available at all. People live with their parents and move out when they are financially ready. It is a huge instinctive to find a job and be independent. There is no JSA safety net like here . Uni is very competitive and therefore you end with excellent uni and college results. People tend to have kids when they are financially ready because there is no expectations from the government to subsidise your lifestyle. There is no housing benefits either yet people manage.

Seeing it from both sides, there should be a limit on how much benefits a country should give. I know many people on here will feel offended but reading many posts here gives an idea about the entitlement culture we sadly live in.

I read an article on our economy recently . In short it said that we in the uk are living beyond our means. We spend money that we don't own (uk borrows from china) then we spend the money that we have borrowed from china on chinese products making the debt worse ...so we have false feeling that we are a rich nation when actual fact we are a consumer society . We don't manufacture much anymore and we spend more than we are capable of and put it on finance / credit cards . Maybe we should focus more on making British products to get the economy going and stop buying things with money we don't have just because we love owning gizmos. I think the way forward is to save money rather than spend everything and then wait for benefits to sort it out. I would rather see the money that would been saved on under 25 year old benefit cuts spent on improving education and NHS.

SeaSickSal Wed 02-Oct-13 19:53:26

This is a load of bollocks. If under 25s are expected to pay tax when they're working then they should be entitled to benefits when they're not.

It's ridiculous, just because the under 25s don't vote for them they're giving them a kicking.

What they fail to realise is that at some point their voters are going to die off. And I would love to see how the Conservatives fare when that happens.

diaimchlo Wed 02-Oct-13 19:54:34

arethereanyleftatall Please burst your bubble and enter the real world.

One expense of running your own business is the insurance cover you need to cover all eventualities and of course the constant threat of non payment from your clients, especially during a recession. Really not the right time to try and go it alone especially for youngsters who have little or no life experience.

Opalite Wed 02-Oct-13 19:55:15

Rhianna it is pretty simple, people NEED money to live, even if ttheyre under 22... there aren't enough jobs to go around. How should young and jobless people support themselves? I don't think any posts on here sound entitled, we are all entitled to not be on the streets starving, do you not agree?

LittleMissWise Wed 02-Oct-13 20:03:10

Maybe we should go after the massive companies who avoid paying taxes then Rhianna! Or what about not cutting taxes for the rich, or not wasting money giving married couples a tax break? Stop messing with the education system, that would have saved quite a bit, left DLA alone because it has a fraud rate of less than 1%, so all the money wasted on PIP wasn't necessary!

I am sure there's more ways we could have saved money!

thewhitequeen Wed 02-Oct-13 20:05:09

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MurderOfBanshees Wed 02-Oct-13 20:09:04

When I was 22 I moved across the country, away from my parents, to somewhere where I could get a decent job/afford rent. Surely most sane people would agree that was a sensible and adult thing to do?

I was living as an adult, bills, rent, contracts etc.

Then I got made redundant.

And the Tories think that suddenly I should have done what??

We were in the beginning of the recession, my parents couldn't have paid my bills/rent for me. I'd been working full time as long as I'd been legally able (and part time before that). I'd paid taxes and worked damn fucking hard. Just because I wasn't 25 didn't mean I was worth less.

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 20:17:21

If this policy does come in, and I do think it, or similar should, it should be in conjunction with those under 25a who are working, paying far less tax than current, and those under 18 should be paying none at all.

LittleMissWise Wed 02-Oct-13 20:19:23

I hope this drags the young people out too, TheWhiteQueen.

Coffeenowplease Wed 02-Oct-13 20:20:45

Rhianna

I did move out when I was financially ready. I also lost my job when I was 24. How is that my fault ? Or how is being entitled that I expect the same treatment as any other adult in this situation ?

Funny how they still want to tax anyone under 25 though. Have their cake and eating it or what ?

Dawndonnaagain Wed 02-Oct-13 20:27:15

arethereany I left home at sixteen, knowing I would be safe because jsa was there. It meant I didn't have to be beaten up on a daily basis anymore, humiliated anymore, screamed and shouted at anymore. I wasn't the only one in that position, not the first, nor the last. I was lucky, I grew up in a time where you could leave a job on Friday and start a new one on Monday. That really is no longer the situation, so what is going to happen to the thousands of kids who know they can leave a dangerous environment and at least have something to eat for half of the week? Do they continue to be abused because the state does nothing, or do they have to get a non existent job first? Because let's face it, who is going to employ a skinny, smelly ragamuffin? As I said, I did get a job fairly quickly, but interestingly, I'd put a stone on in weight as well as having had baths/showers/hairwashes and some clean charity shop clothes.

lottieandmia Wed 02-Oct-13 20:31:50

'I am actually getting frightened about the Tories getting in at the next election.'

I was frightened about them getting in at the last election. Arseholes.

thewhitequeen Wed 02-Oct-13 20:36:39

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 20:36:40

I'm sorry to hear that dawndonna and I, obviously, want those in your situation, to have help.
I just really really don't want to continue paying for those who are able to and don't work, have never worked, and have no intention of working. This policy is trying to address that.

thewhitequeen Wed 02-Oct-13 20:37:38

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

thewhitequeen Wed 02-Oct-13 20:39:41

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

utreas Wed 02-Oct-13 20:43:27

This is insane, there is so much wrong with it I don't where to start.

lottieandmia Wed 02-Oct-13 20:48:29

'I lived in a country where there is no JSA available at all. People live with their parents and move out when they are financially ready.'

Some people's parents make them leave home at 16. Those people have no choice.

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 20:48:43

I would say that if a young person doesn't get a job, it's a fairly good indication that they have no intention of ever getting one.

Really? I would say that if a young person isn't looking for a job then maybe they never will, but in case you hadn't noticed there are about ten applicants for every vacancy at the moment, rising to hundreds of applicants per vacancy in some fields (esp unskilled) and some regions.

lottieandmia Wed 02-Oct-13 20:50:26

Exactly, they did not even get a majority. I can't stand them and their shitty backward proposals.

Dawndonnaagain Wed 02-Oct-13 20:50:31

No it isn't arethey it's trying to exclude another demographic. The language of this government is not one of help, it is one of degradation. The new policies are terrifying for some, kids and the disabled in particular. Take a look at this it is a myth that there are many, many people who have never worked. There are always some in every society, but would you not rather support the decent majority and accept that a small minority will fiddle the system, no matter which system. Or do you really want the poor, the disabled, the young to suffer due to a minority. I do include the disabled because they are apparently going to be included in the new scheme, so from next April, they too will have to attend courses, or attend at the job centre on a daily basis. Personally, I give it two weeks before dh is dead, at that rate. But hey ho, because 0.4% (the governments own figure) fiddle things, he's got to put up with it.

Opalite Wed 02-Oct-13 20:53:07

Arethereanyleftatall what a load of shit! I don't think you have any idea about the job situation, its very very hard for a lot of people. There are young people who are depressed because they still haven't got a job... handing out endless CVs and applying to jobs without ever getting a reply

thewhitequeen Wed 02-Oct-13 20:54:12

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Portofino Wed 02-Oct-13 20:55:47

The only times in my life I have claimed benefits I was under 25. I was not living at home with parents on either occasion, and in the second case I was married and living in a house with a mortgage!

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 20:57:46

There's an anecdote about 3 students in KFC chatting about the lack of jobs about, with a sign above their heads saying 'help wanted apply within.' I believe that is true, there is an arrogance and entitlement with many brits.

Dawndonnaagain Wed 02-Oct-13 20:59:50

But it is just an anecdote, that is all. You can believe what you like, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is accurate, peer reviewed research and it states that you are clearly wrong.

Opalite Wed 02-Oct-13 21:00:13

Arethereanyleftatall, you honestly have no idea, as mentioned in this thread hundreds of people can apply for one job. I was recently told that 3000 people had applied for a job in my nearest city! shock

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 21:01:19

I'm 25 so have friends and acquaintances under the age of 25, and over 25. Within that group of people, the ones that don't work and have little or no intention to work are those over 25.
Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, I'm just making a point that this blanket ban won't make a huge difference in taxpayers paying for those that don't work etc.

And arethey I may be wrong, but if your not working many hours then you aren't paying taxes yourself and therefore aren't really "paying for those that don't work etc"

thewhitequeen Wed 02-Oct-13 21:01:50

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Portofino Wed 02-Oct-13 21:02:29

Ex Dh and I both worked in the Port of Dover. Due to Eu rules changing in 1992 we were both made redundant at the same time. We weren't feckless scroungers. We had a mortgage, responsibilities. We were both under 25 at that point. Arethereany, what would your suggestion have been?

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 21:04:43

portofino I have already asked arethey for suggestions for a similar situation.

She didn't respond to me so I'm assuming its because she had no clever ideas!

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 21:06:29

arethere I meant

Portofino Wed 02-Oct-13 21:08:15

Ha, if anyone had suggested we should go live with my MIL evil witch I would rather have died.

Portofino Wed 02-Oct-13 21:09:18

Well the divorce would have happened sooner than it did certainly.

expatinscotland Wed 02-Oct-13 21:11:57

'There's an anecdote . . .I believe that is true'

This speaks volumes about a person.

Portofino Wed 02-Oct-13 21:12:36

I really do believe, that unless in HE, people over 18 should be considered as independent adults. Not the responsibility of their parents.

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 21:12:50

Sorry I'm a slow typer on my phone so am miles behind...
Dawndonna I can't open your link, I'll read it when I'm home in computer.
I said upthread that I don't think 25 is fair, rather x amount of years paying taxes in qualifies you for benefit. No amount of taxes paid, qualifies you for nothing.
L25638 don't worry I have been a net contribute for a very long time, though you're right I'm not now. We are as a family still net contributors.

MurderOfBanshees Wed 02-Oct-13 21:13:32

Porto Agreed.

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 21:16:50

Sorry l2825 re no ideas. Ironically I'm working at mo and neither getting my jobs done, n or responding properly. are you talking ideas for you? What are you good at? Then, that.

Vev Wed 02-Oct-13 21:17:08

KFC don't advertise that way at all, that is a lie.

I feel the Tories are digging a right big hole for themselves.

Most youngsters would like to work, if there was any industry for them to work in, shit deal they're having at the moment. I do think the youngsters are waking up to the importance of voting now.

thewhitequeen Wed 02-Oct-13 21:18:56

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

pointythings Wed 02-Oct-13 21:19:31

If the Tories were serious about getting young people into work, they would

- Work to reduce economic inequality so that young people had something realistic to aspire to. This would include reducing the north/south divide.
- Improve state education instead of selling it off to the private sector and leaving young people to be taught by unqualified teachers
- Do something real about the cost of childcare
- Really make it worthwhile to work, which would mean slackening the taper on Universal Credit enormously so that it took into account the cost of going to work, i.e. childcare, transport
- Completely reform HMRC so that they pursue tax evasion by everyone instead of chasing down pensioners for a few £100s but making sweetheart deals with corporations
- Completely reform the care system so that the young people who end up in it are in the care of highly trained, well paid, qualified professionals. This system works wonders in Scandinavian countries, where outcomes for care leavers are immeasurably better than they are here.

There's so much more, but this would be a good start. Unfortunately all of the above would mean that there would be no money to hand tax breaks to the already wealthy.

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 21:21:36

Arethere My question was if I was under 25 and lost my job, had no savings etc. had rent of £600 a month and bills and living expenses. While I was searching, applying, interviewing for jobs, how would you suggest I paid my rent, bills and expenses?

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 21:22:56

Ah good point white queen. Apart from those ib dawndonnas situation then.

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 21:27:42

L25685 - I have also said upthread that I don't think under 25a should pay as much tax. So, stay at home, where possible, mostly will be possible, and save.

ConstantCraving Wed 02-Oct-13 21:27:54

I used to work with young people who had experienced early childhood trauma. They had the sort of abused childhoods that would make you weep and send donations to the NSPCC. By the time they got to me they had learnt about self preservation - but at the expense of being able to develop any of the sort of social skills, self care etc that you learn in a supportive and loving family. Some were care leavers, all were vulnerable but not entitled to any extra support or help. They were invisible. Most did want jobs or training - sadly, most just could not cope with the work / training at that point in their lives... but could have got there in time and with support (...most of which has now been cut). This sort of blanket policy will again penalise the most vulnerable in society. I work F/T and pay my taxes and am proud to know that my money goes into our welfare system, because I know how valuable it is.

MurderOfBanshees Wed 02-Oct-13 21:29:25

"So, stay at home, where possible, mostly will be possible, and save."

So say they had an opportunity to move out and to another town with better/different career opportunities they should just stay put, just in case? Until they are 25?

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 21:31:51

But even if an under 25 year old wasent paying much tax, that wouldn't necessarily help them if they were to lose thier job?! And not everyone has the option of either staying at home, or moving back home. You really haven't thought your argument for this ban through, much like Cameron himself!

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 02-Oct-13 21:31:54

Linking to contributions and time restricting would be fairer, that way no benefits are paid if they havent worked. Too many see having a child as a way of not having to work hence lots have children in their teens or early twenties with no way of supporting a child. If we could break that cycle future children and their children would benefit.

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 21:35:51

Agree happy mummy

Opalite Wed 02-Oct-13 21:36:59

HappyMummyOfOne, I disagree. Having sex and getting pregnant happens, simple as that. Benefits are there if you need them. I don't think you or anybody else have any proof that many teenagers/young people get pregnant TO get benefits. They won't be living this fantastic life with free money, you don't get much money on benefits at all. They will usually be struggling.

No benefits to be paid if you haven't worked?! I honestly cannot see how you could want this. People need money to live... you can't just go out and get a job just like that

Lj8893 Wed 02-Oct-13 21:38:43

I wish life was as easy as some people on this thread seem to think it is.

Get a job, easy as that! hmm

thewhitequeen Wed 02-Oct-13 21:40:34

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Darkesteyes Wed 02-Oct-13 21:41:22

The callousness is bad enough but there is inverted racism from a poster on this thread too.

arethereanyleftatall Wed 02-Oct-13 21:43:20

What do you think would incentivise the work shy then?

BoffinMum Wed 02-Oct-13 21:44:57

If they get no benefits I think they should not have to pay National Insurance.

MurderOfBanshees Wed 02-Oct-13 21:45:15

What about all those who finished uni whilst the recession was in full swing? Was it their fault they weren't working full time and studying full time? Was it their fault the economy went down the pan and companies were shutting up left, right and centre?

Shouldn't they have been able to claim JSA while they job hunted?

YoniBottsBumgina Wed 02-Oct-13 21:45:45

I escaped an abusive relationship at 21 with a one year old child. It was hard enough to find a landlord which would accept housing benefit. To not be able to claim this at all will cripple people.

I would imagine that in fact my situation is far from uncommon. If you're young and with an abusive twat it seems their twat manual instructs them to knock you up before you're 20, or as soon as possible after that. How the fuck are women supposed to escape? I couldn't have supported myself for five years. I couldn't have gone to live with my mum - no room and she was on housing benefit herself. Added to that my sister was unable to find a job after A levels for 4 years, so that was another burden on my mum. There is no way, unless the benefits system had identified both of us as dependants (and my DS) that we could have managed it.

And what about people with horrible abusive parents? Where they moved out at 16 for their own sanity, they shouldn't be forced to move back either. (Also more likely to end up in an abusive relationship if you have abusive parents!)

Aaaaaaaaaaargh. Am 25 now anyway and also managed to escape the terrifying country but Jesus. I am frightened for Britain's poor, and young, and elderly. Maybe I'll move back when I'm rich and try and rescue as many as I can.

pointythings Wed 02-Oct-13 21:46:36

If you're going to deny benefits based on contributions, it should be for all ages.

Note that I am not advocating this in any way at all - the measure of a society is in how it treats its weakest members, after all.

Harryhairypig Wed 02-Oct-13 21:47:41

So you go to university, leave at 21 or 22 and don't go back to live with parents because maybe you are one of the lucky ones who get a job in another city, so you find somewhere to live, maybe sign a tenancy agreement binding you for a year etc etc. Then you get made redundant or sacked (remember there is no employment protection for 2 years now you can be booted out for no reason at all) and how will the rent be paid until the end of the year, food bought, bus fares paid. I can't see how anyone cannot see this could be a real problem for the type of young people who have every intention of working but just hit a blip for a while until they hopefully find someone else.

This will make me responsible theoretically for my kids till they are 25 in terms of providing a roof over their head if they hit hard times, I will do this, but many won't/can't.

This, coming from people who were handed wealth on a plate by an accident of birth and have no idea at all what it means to have no money at all, or even have to work in a daily grind job to pay the bills, as tbh alot of them could stop work and live off the trust funds, really makes me angry. These rich people in charge no more deserve their inherited money than someone who intends to live on benefits when they could work (if they could find one of these plentiful jobs) but for some reasons they think it gives them some sort of moral high ground over everyone else.

When this affects the Daily Mail classes children, then they will be astounded "but I pay taxes why can't my kids get help?!"

thewhitequeen Wed 02-Oct-13 21:50:52

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

losingtrust Wed 02-Oct-13 21:52:02

What about the kids who move out of home due to abuse, parents deciding they don't want kids anymore when they get to 16?

TotemPole Wed 02-Oct-13 21:54:36

Under 25s looking for work would need something to pay for travel to interviews and suitable clothing.

Maybe a free travel pass and clothing voucher is an option.

noddingoff Wed 02-Oct-13 21:57:27

Congrats on starting your own business arethere. Guess you must have had a fair lump of capital to pay the insurance on the bouncy castle (given their unfortunate propensity for having people fall off them and suffer spinal injury)
I'm in my early 30s - if I lost my job now, at least I have a cushion of rainy day money that I have saved up so I could pay the mortgage for a few months. Took me a couple of months to get my first job - didn't claim JSA as nicely supported by my mummy and daddy. Would've been bit of a bummer with no nicely-off generous mummy and daddy and no access to JSA, given that I came out of uni in debt with no chance to have saved a money cushion.

LittleMissWise Wed 02-Oct-13 21:59:47

I wonder what will happen to families like ours? We live in MOD married quarters, once your child is 18 they don't have to house them. So, what am I supposed to do if we move and they say DS1 can't live with us(highly unlikely I know, but just incase)? Am I meant to throw him out on to the streets with no money and no job?

expatinscotland Wed 02-Oct-13 22:00:12

Excellent post, whitequeen.

pointythings Wed 02-Oct-13 22:01:54
afromom Wed 02-Oct-13 22:04:56

Having just read about this announcement I am a little confused about the comments on this thread. From what I understand it is not saying that under 25's will get no money, it is saying that they will have to sign up to workfare and be either in training, education or 'employment' e.g. Workfare placement to get the money. (JSA and housing benefit)

Whilst I don't agree with many if the Tory policies, workfare included, I think maybe this announcement has been misunderstood.

Here is the link. After reading the thread about people having to move back with parents, not being able to pay rent etc, maybe I have misunderstood?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-young-people-under-25-would-not-be-able-to-claim-employment-or-housing-benefits-under-tory-government-8853560.html

pointythings Wed 02-Oct-13 22:23:44

afromom if you have read the thread and still do not understand why this is wrong, there is a problem.

- Education costs money. Courses cost money, travel costs money, exams cost money, resources cost money. If someone does not have this available, they cannot take up an education.
- The same applies to training. Unless this is delivered with subsidised travel, the young person ends up out of pocket and with nothing to live on. Unless you are lucky enough to have obtained a highly paid job at a young age, saving is very difficult given the current cost of living. The other thing is that 'training' often includes apprenticeships, which legally pay below NMW.
- Workfare - there is nothing 'fair' about workfare. All work should be paid at NMW.

Lastly, how is it ever acceptable that someone who is under 25, who has worked and paid in, should be refused support just because of their age? That is discrimination, plain and simple.

The Tories are playing the 'young people are scrounging scum' card. And a lot of people are buying it, sadly.

kukeslala Wed 02-Oct-13 22:30:38

For those who agree with a blanket ban, what do you think about the below?
What do you think should or would happen to the below?

16 year old
Fled family home from sexual, emotional and physical abuse from both biological parents.
Now living in supported housing and attending full time college.
Currently claiming HB and IS.

18 year old
Left family home, through choice, as felt if she didn't she would become more unwell and cycle would continue. Mum has sever and prolonged MH and Dad last few years sever depression, has younger siblings who she has brought up. Social services have been involved with family for years.
Lived in supported housing and attending full time college. Went to Uni which was her dream, said this would have never happened if had not left home.
Claimed HB and IS.

16 year old
Mum died and Dad died shortly after, brought up by sibling who was a few years older, shortly before she left physical abuse from sibling.
Claimed HB and IS, whilst living in supported housing and attending full time college.

20 year old
Mum died and Dad not interested. Long history of offences, using alcohol and cannabis daily.
Moved into supported housing.
Claimed HB and JSA.
Went on training through JSA and gained full time employment.
Offending stopped when moved into supported housing, said she had never been told anything positive, when she did responded positivly.

Above are just a few examples. The list could continue.

What do you think the life may have been for these young people?
What about costs to other services, police,prison,probation,social services,MH services etc...

DiamondMask Wed 02-Oct-13 22:32:12

Why just pick on the under 25's? I know an old lady who never worked, scrounged off benefits as a single parent for decades and didnt work when her kids left home then at 60 went straight onto pension tax credit and housing benefit.
Well? Or is it just young people who get starved and no mitigating circumstances allowed eh?

Stravy Wed 02-Oct-13 22:34:03

Even without the practical and emotional aspects, there are almost 1000000 people aged 16-24 who are currently unemployed. Putting a million people on workfare removes a million jobs from the real economy. A million jobs that could be filled by taxpayers but instead will be funded by taxpayers while poundland gets free labour.

kukeslala Wed 02-Oct-13 22:36:44

One final point.

What would you say to a 16 year old who came to you distraught, asking where they were meant to go if the benefits were stopped...

They said I should just go back home, do people not think if that was an option I would, do people not think that I dont want to live how I am and if I had other choices I wouldn't be.

Mum and Dad both dead, absolutely NO other family...

afromom Wed 02-Oct-13 22:38:48

I didn't say that I agreed with policy, or that it is fair, i don't (as I don't agree with many Tory policies), just that people seem to be saying that under 25's will get no money at all regardless, which is not true.

In the previous post with 4 examples of different circumstances, from the way I read the article it would suggest that 3 out of 4 of those people would still get JSA and HB as they are in education or training. .

quoteunquote Wed 02-Oct-13 22:44:31

Why just pick on the under 25's? I know an old lady........

Because the conservatives rely on the senior vote who are reliable voters, and they will never jeopardise that.

kukeslala Wed 02-Oct-13 22:52:43

afromom
There are people who have said categorically that they dont think people under 25 should get any thing as they have not put anything in.
They are the posters I would personally be interested to hear what they would propose in the above circumstances, for what they say they agree with.
Also what they think the other costs would be to other services.

soul2000 Wed 02-Oct-13 22:56:55

There are a few points i want to make.

1. The views on this site do not represent ,80-90% of the population .

2. The "TORIES" are not evil, probably wrong with many policies. I dont think they wake up thinking lets ruin someones life because its fun.

Now to some sensible points.
I agree 25 is a bit old, especially if some one has been paying NI and tax
for 9 years and is in a potential difficult situation. There needs to be slack
in the system so that if there are some tragic situations like what have
been described the required benefits will still be paid.

However i do believe the benefits system should take account of how much one person/family has paid in, has to how much they should be allowed to take out. The system should be based on contributions. l

I do agree with many that Cameron/Osborne have probably never met a poor person though. That is why they say the things they do.
They are Marie Antonniette.

The problem is the alternative CLEGG/ MILLIBAND, is enough to advise all young graduates to pack their bags just like the 1970s.

soul2000 Wed 02-Oct-13 23:03:36

Kukeslala. Like labour rely on the public sector and would never jeopardise that.

JessePinkmansBitch Wed 02-Oct-13 23:07:59

soul, I have to disagree with you there...the Tories ARE evil.

afromom Wed 02-Oct-13 23:09:05

Ah ok kukesala I was referring to the initial post linked to the announcement from govt, I definitely do not think there should be nothing available for under 25s, regardless of whether they have paid in or not. But I do think people should do something for their benefit.

LittleMissWise Wed 02-Oct-13 23:09:32

Of course the benefits system should not take account of how much someone has paid in. That is so unfair.

The rich man who has been paying tax in a higher tax bracket would get more benefits than the bloke who works at the local tip, or the single mum who is a carer to her disabled child, or the 16yo who is orphaned and has no home, or the person who is too ill to work? Give over! hmm

The rich would win again, wouldn't they?

BoffinMum Wed 02-Oct-13 23:11:06

I wonder if there should be two levels - those who have never paid a contribution, and those who have paid 26 weeks in or something. This isn't that dissimilar to what happened before, and also similar to the old arrangements for pensions.

Dawndonnaagain Wed 02-Oct-13 23:24:05

Soul, last year I dh lost his respite care due to cuts. This year we lost the OT budget, due to cuts,which means no stair lifts or extra grab rails. We also had to appeal dh's dal because somehow he could miraculously walk again. We,ve lost his nurse too. If we were on benefits they would require dh to appear at the job centre daily fron next April. That is evil.

Darkesteyes Wed 02-Oct-13 23:35:15

Six months workfare as fry cook for 18 to 24 yr old.

twitpic.com/dfsagj

Darkesteyes Wed 02-Oct-13 23:41:16

Six months worfare as catering assistant for 18 to 24 yr old.
twitpic.com/dfs5oo

YoniBottsBumgina Thu 03-Oct-13 07:29:50

Afromom but that would have been impossible for me with a 1 year old, 4 years to go until he started school. When I did start working, he was at nursery and I was lucky to have a sympathetic employer who was happy to put me on the earlier finishing shifts which minimised my childcare costs. For a 20 hour working week, averaging around £120 per week, I was paying out £60 in childcare and that's when I was lucky with the times, when a different person started to do the rota who thought it was unfair that I got the early shifts because she preferred leaving early to getting up late, I was paying out more like £84. Luckily I got tax credits and housing benefit, because who the fuck can live on £46-60 per week? I was spending about that on food!

Yes maybe I shouldn't have got pregnant in the first place, but I fully believed my ex when he said he would always be there for me and support us.

24 month contracts for things (everything, it seems) are brutal too - when DP moved in with me we bought the superfast Virgin internet, choosing to go without other luxuries to afford it, but when our situation changed drastically a year in they didn't want to know, refused to even lower it to a lower tariff. I literally could not afford it, and ended up not paying it at all, getting into debt. Helpful! But when you're desperate and young, debt seems preferable to starving now. I predict that if this comes in then under-25s will end up taking out a lot of credit which will cripple them in later life.

insancerre Thu 03-Oct-13 07:41:54

why 25 though?
have they just plucked this figure from the air?
it mkes no sense
do you suddenly become responsible on your 25th birthday?
are they going to raise the age you can join the army and become cannon fodder to 25 too?
I thought age discrimination was illegal under the Equality Act 2010?
and the tories are evil, whoever said upthread that they are not, well, you are wrong

YoniBottsBumgina Thu 03-Oct-13 07:46:34

I agree Soul2000. I don't think they do it for fun or to purposefully ruin lives.

I think they have absolutely no idea what it is like to go to bed hungry because you can afford to feed your child but not yourself. I think they have no understanding of the utterly fucked up and chaotic lives some people lead and retain some victorian notion of the poor being poor through some fault of their own.

I think they see the world through their nice, calm, clean, middle class lens and assume that everybody has the same resources as them. I expect it's inconceivable to them that somebody's parents couldn't afford to support them to the age of 25 if they needed to. They have no idea what it's like to grow up on an estate where nobody has worked for the last 3 generations or to be a young girl who is pressured into pregnancy by a man who is older than her and promises the world but fails to deliver.

Local MPs could help but not all of them do. I remember one of ours came to visit the children's centre on an election drive and was moved to tears by the tale of a woman who was racially abused while walking with her mixed-race grandson. If he had been more involved and got to know other people they could have told stories which would turn your hair white, but they were suspicious of him and didn't want to approach him with their sob stories. Why should they? When have politicians ever done anything for them?

YoniBottsBumgina Thu 03-Oct-13 07:47:39

I find them abhorrent because they don't even try to see a different perspective, but they are not evil.

JakeBullet Thu 03-Oct-13 07:51:25

I have just had the opportunity of hearing "Shiny Dave" make his speech about this.

It is still possible apparently to leave school at 16, sign in the dole, get a flat and have housing benefit.

Clearly he has never had to try doing this...getting a flat on housing benefit. It isn't easy getting ANY kind of property on housing benefit except the worst kind of place. In my area the most the 16 year old would get is a shared house and owing by the regularity with which the landlord advertises the turnover is high. This makes me suspect the condition of the properties he owns.

I do agree that we need to offer more but this will take funding and I didn't hear Shiny Dave mention anything about supportive infrastructure.

QueFonda Thu 03-Oct-13 07:56:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

marriedinwhiteisback Thu 03-Oct-13 08:00:44

I do think the way benefits are given needs to be reviewed. I do think it's wrong that young girls are purposefully thrown out of family homes in some circumstances so they get local authority housing, etc. I know that happens; I have worked with some of the families - alongside them - not with them in the support sense.

I do think these views/policies are based on the worst sorts of abuse of the system and that there needs to be a full review but it has to be on a case by case basis.

Also, I think there needs to be a re-emphasising of family and more support for families rather than the way hey anything goes, no need to even try to make sound decisions but here's some money anyway.

I don't want to see young people suffer abuse in poor homes or suffer when they really have no-one but neither do I want to fund a system which supports a minority to manipulate it.

It's really difficult for me to relate to because I have always had somewhere to go and my children (older teenagers now) know that they will always have a home and will always be cared for whatever happens to them and whatever they do.

Will read the thread in full later - no time now - because I have learned about things I didn't know existed from Mnet.

LittleMissWise Thu 03-Oct-13 08:25:02

The funny thing is Jake, it isn't actually possible to sign on the dole at 16 anymore. They have to stay in education or training until 17! So once again the silly fucker hasn't got a clue what he is on about!

rallytog1 Thu 03-Oct-13 08:33:43

This plan needs two things to make it work:

1. Free tuition for all kinds of further and higher education, as well as vocational training, along with student loans and grants for all students that can actually cover the cost of living. Y'know, like the Cabinet all had.

2. Guaranteed jobs for 16-25 year olds that pay at least minimum wage. Y'know, like the future jobs fund that Labour brought in, which the Tories ditched as soon as they came into power.

Simples.

TrueStory Thu 03-Oct-13 08:47:37

I do think some mumsnetters are being naieve. I know there are some difficult stories re. vulnerable young people (and i speak from experience, not an ivory tower), but unfortunately the law of unintended consequences has meant alot of people have used this and exploited the system all their lives - "on the social" from cradle to grave and bringing up a whole new generation who expect nothing else. Of all people, healthy young people should be the most economically active or in training, education.

My parents had both died by the time my younger was just 21. She has been really lucky to get a full time, permanent job after uni. If she had not, under these plans she would not have been eligible for any help.
I would have had to step in and help her. This would have had a huge impact on our family. My husband and I have a young family and child care costs are horrendous. It does bare thinking about, actually. It would have put a huge strain on all the family.

TrueStory it's true that starting work early instills good habits. But in this country we say that benefits are awarded on the basis of need and removing benefits from all under-25s regardless of need flies in the face of that basic tenet.

We could change the entire premise of our welfare system...

... or we could acknowledge that there aren't the jobs to get so it's inhuman to impose sanctions on those who haven't got one.

Stravy Thu 03-Oct-13 09:25:17

I find them abhorrent because they don't even try to see a different perspective, but they are not evil.

I saw a monopoly experiment once. Two people play but one starts off with twice as much money, they roll two dice as opposed to one and they collect double the amount every time they pass go. The game is obviously rigged, both players know it but the player with privilege starts to act like an arse. They make digs at the losing player, eat more of the snacks and pull the communal bowl of nuts to their side of the table. They begin to believe that they deserve to win and they deserve all the things that are making them win. They lose all empathy for the loser, believing that they are losing because they just aren't good enough. Scary thing is that pretty much everyone acts the same way when they are assigned the role of winner.

sashh Thu 03-Oct-13 09:40:00

So I got a night job in the pub down the road. With the money I have bought a bouncy castle which I am now hiring out via a fb page and local marketing. I have 10 bookings so far.

So how did you pay your public liability insurance? Who is looking after your children while you work (in the real world evening childcare costs as much as day time)?

Oh and if you have not paid out for insurance, one broken bone could bankrupt you, and if your company isn't Ltd (if it cost nothing I doubt it is) that's your house gone. But then it will be easy for you to get another job, a house and .............. oh hang on bankrupts don't get mortgages do they? And social housing? Well you can go on the list.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 03-Oct-13 10:05:14

truestory
Please read the Joseph Rowntree link. It demonstrates, among many of their other papers, that this is rarely the case. Less than 1%.

pointythings Thu 03-Oct-13 10:10:33

truestory has bought into the bile spread by the government and the gutter press. They do their work so well. sad

This is about the good of the many. You can choose. Would you rather

- That a very small handful of people get things they are not entitled to so that the majority who are in genuine need have a safety net, or

- That no-one at all must get anything they should not get, no matter that substantial numbers of people in real need will suffer as a consequence

I know which I would choose.

To be honest I think they'd be bloody brave to actually set this in motion such a short time after the tuition fees fuss.
Are they trying to lose younger voters or what?

HopLittleFroggiesHopSkipJump Thu 03-Oct-13 10:48:15

brokensunglasses how on earth will it discourage people having children young?
Unless you're meaning it will force young women to have abortions or be unable to feed their child until they hit the 'acceptable' age of 25.

Your DC may have been planned at 19, but many young parents don't result from planned pregnancies

thegreylady Thu 03-Oct-13 10:52:49

Itis an appalling and divisive policy born out of government idleness not the idleness of young people. A blanket ban is so much easier to administer than considering each case on merit regardless of age. The young single parent, the unemployed graduate, the poor elderly person are equally entitlrd to support and state help.

NotYoMomma Thu 03-Oct-13 10:59:51

I've just had a huge fight with my dad about this.

he is a mail bullshit swallowing Tory voter who was on about all theunder25s who doss about and are lazy and illeterate and happy to live on estates like mine (council/ about 60/40 council/bought)

when I actually asked him how many people he actually knew who had never worked or signed on at 18 he couldnt even name one!

truth is a lot if not all who can were working in low paid jobs but working hard

bus drivers, window cleaners, a lot of public sector people too. my dh's family come from a rough estate but all still work. carers, care homes with varying shifts, zero hours contracts etc

its tough out there! it upsets me so much that an entire generation of people are lumped together as being not hardworking when it is totally Murdoch BS

tiktakteddy Thu 03-Oct-13 11:13:25

I think this is unfair especially to those under 25 who have children because ultimately they will be the ones who suffer. I think if there were more support with the local councils and groups in regards to childcare and things there would be more people working to start with. I am just about to go back to work when I already have three children (yes I admit my choice) but I don't have a clue where to start with childcare. What is the point of working only to meet the price of childcare alone without other bills. Luckily I have a partner to work with but not everyone is as lucky! They need to address the problems of WHY people aren't working before they decide to completely cut things out. The whole thing they boast about is supporting the working people which I can't see or find any of that support anywhere! confused

duchesse Thu 03-Oct-13 11:32:28

I live in the SW and my teenage DC seem to find it relatively easy to pick up seasonal, casual hourly work working in catering. It gives them a bit of an income and a lot of exposure to people (we live in the countryside and two of them are naturally very shy so I think it's invaluable). They are all in education and these jobs are very much part-time. They themselves realise that they do not make enough to live on. The point is that they still have a roof over their heads, food to eat and warmth because we pay for most of it. They are extremely fortunate that we are still just about able to support them as they study.

Many many families can not. In other families the children have to go out to work to contribute to family expenses. Some families I know have been damn near broken by their teenagers' inability to find a job (for whatever reason). Many families cannot afford to support a selection of non-working near-adults. And in the SW (arethere frankly you are talking horseshit about the job sitch in the SW) there are very very few jobs that pay a living wage to unqualified teenagers, enough to pay rent, food and other expenses, even in a shared flat, even living on ramen noodles. Many of my friend's teens are paid £4 something an hour. That is pin money, not a wage.

Ten bookings of a bouncy castle is £1000 income, maximum (before expenses, tax and NI . That should keep a family for oo, a fortnight? Ten days maybe.

This is beyond the pale.

If this government gets voted back in, we are seriously considering selling up and leaving the country.
We are incredibly lucky to be in a position where this would be difficult,but possible,for us.

My work recently advertised a 12 hr position,we had 200 initial applicants, 20 made it to interview and only 1 will get the job.
The applicants ranged in age from 16-52 and experience from absolutley nothing (no previous work,no qualifications) to degrees and glowing references.

Where are the jobs for all these people?
Which company's are going to employ and pay for staff they dont need?

Especially when they can now get them for free on workfare?!

meddie Thu 03-Oct-13 11:48:29

I actually dont think this will even deter the 'lifetime claimants' anyway. They will just find new and inventive ways to get round it. Benefit fraud was a way of life where i grew up. Infact you were considered a mug if you werent abusing the system as much as you could.
This will just hurt those who are genuinely in need.

expatinscotland Thu 03-Oct-13 12:00:23

There needs to be a ban on zero hours contracts and an complete end to this graduated min wage bollocks on top of so many other things for this policy to be anything other than complete age discrimination. FWIW, I think the graduated min wage is definitely age discriminatory, backwards, stupid and should be challenged in European court.

GatoradeMeBitch Thu 03-Oct-13 12:34:18

I can see what they're trying to do - stop the cycle of lifetime benefit claimants, but the Tories either don't know, or more likely don't care that not everyone has the safety net of a stable family home. This could make the vulnerable far more vulnerable. Wasn't the welfare state set up to protect our most vulnerable?

I seriously hope the Tories don't get in next time - sadly I'm from a family of Tory voters and they will see this as A Very Good Thing, even though there are personal examples in our family of people who would have been in terrible trouble without the benefits safety net there.

NomenOmen Thu 03-Oct-13 12:54:25

It's a ludicrous policy, and one which, were it to be implemented, would cost the nation more than it might save.

However, party conferences are all about reassuring members/supporters that they will win the next election. And to do that they need to appeal to their core vote. In the Conservatives' case, this is the 55s and over. So it's hardly surprising that they should attack the young.

Fact is, the Conservatives don't need young people to survive politically.

If young people actually voted, then the political parties would have to respond to their concerns. If you are between the ages of 21 (assuming you would have just been old enough to vote in the last election) and 35 and have never voted, then this is the consequence of your apathy.

But their parents vote....

It would be massively disruptive, persoanally, if either of my student children graduated, couldnt find a job, and landed back on my doorstep!

This is another in a long line of examples of the Tories spouting something that will appease the "Something should be done" faithful, without actually thinking through what behaviour would change as a result. It's meteing out a punishment to all, without caring about the knock-on impact.

It's a stupid idea thought up by a party who clearly blames everything on jobseekers, whether they are genuinely looking for work or not.

It will only shoot the parents in the foot & the pm must remember these parents can vote!

Why should parents be accountable for their children financially when they are no longer children. A child becomes an adult at 18.

It won't help the workshy either as they will know they can run to mummy & daddy for help instead of getting of their arse into work or atleast applying for benefits in their own right. He is making it EASIER for those types.

And those that genuinely want to work but cannot due to lack of jobs or skills will feel ridiculed at the prospect of asking their parents for financial help.

David Cameron needs to spit his silver spoon out and realise the majority on benefits are stuck on them due to the job crisis.

Marisson546 Thu 03-Oct-13 13:20:42

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

duchesse Thu 03-Oct-13 13:33:29

expat, I agree- a 16 yo doing the same job as a 21 yo should be paid the same wage. However, I guess what it does achieve is to build in a positive incentive for teenagers to stay in education rather than drop out, so it may have some advantages. Young people entering lower 6th this year are the first generation to have to stay in education or training until they're 18- I would like to know the ramifications (beyond removing these YP from the unemployment stats).

MurderOfBanshees Thu 03-Oct-13 14:08:37

What I'd love to see is the people who think this is a good idea actually provide some facts and figures to back up their claims about there being a massive problem with under 25's on benefits.

Specifically what would be good would be

- How many people claim JSA?
- Of that number, how many are under 25?
- And out of those, how many have never worked?

Alternatively these stats would also be good
- How many people claim HB?
- Of those how many are under 25?
- Of those how many have children?

Elfhame Thu 03-Oct-13 14:23:34

"David Cameron needs to spit his silver spoon out and realise the majority on benefits are stuck on them due to the job crisis."

I reckon David Cameron needs to shit his silver spoon out...

Vickibee Thu 03-Oct-13 14:31:36

Up the Duff

We are far too tolerant in this country, maybe we should take to the streets in peaceful protest like we did when the poll tax was introduced in the 80's. Only if enough people protest will this Government backtrack. My Ds is only 6 but I dread what the future hold for him. We live in a former mining area in S Yorks whre good jobs, any jobs are hard to come by

grin Elfhame yeh shitting it out would be better. He may wake up then, just a shame he probably has more than one to shit out!

youretoastmildred Thu 03-Oct-13 14:53:56

Infantalising the under-25s sends a very harmful message - not the "everyone must take responsibility" one they think they are sending

ArtemisiaofCaria Thu 03-Oct-13 15:35:30

what about estranged/orphaned students in full time education?

Elfhame Thu 03-Oct-13 16:53:56

And make it a bloody big spoon too!

Portofino Thu 03-Oct-13 20:13:02

Murder, there were some figures on BBC website this morning. I will go find, but I think it was about 1 million neets. 380k claim JSA. 480k claim HB.

Portofino Thu 03-Oct-13 20:14:52

As I said earlier, I was MARRIED and had a mortgage at 25. It is quite ridiculous that I should be supported by my parents if I lost my job.

Misspixietrix Thu 03-Oct-13 20:26:31

The area in which I live has the highest rates of Teenage Pregnacies and consequent Single Parent rates. Can see this plan going swimmingly...

MurderOfBanshees Thu 03-Oct-13 20:26:47

porto Oh I'd just like to see the supporters of shit like this actually make an effort to look up some facts for a change rather then tell us about the person their cousin's friend's uncle's hamster knows.grin

LittleMissWise Thu 03-Oct-13 20:33:33

Porto I was married with a mortgage and expecting my second child by the time I was 25. Because my siblings and I had moved out, our parents had downsized, I would have loved to see their faces if they had had to support my brother, who was 23 with a mortgage and a baby then, and I had had to move back in! Or they had had to contribute to keeping two extra families and mortgages going!

Portofino Thu 03-Oct-13 20:57:14

1.09 million people under the age of 25 are not in education, training or employment
410,000 are claming Jobseeker's Allowance, at a cost of about £1.2bn a year
£380,000 under-25s receive housing benefit, costing £1.8bn
SOURCES: DWP, IFS, Crisis

Portofino Thu 03-Oct-13 20:59:41

So what are the other half doing? In a relationship with a wage earner? That must count for a few.

Portofino Thu 03-Oct-13 21:02:13

So basically just over a third are even claiming HB. Bank of mum and dad, partner, independently wealthy? How many are SAHMs for example?

ukatlast Thu 03-Oct-13 21:05:09

Scameron clearly not after the youth vote....

soul2000 Thu 03-Oct-13 21:08:21

Maybe Ed Milliband can offer the vote to 14 yr olds and give them the chance to ban school uniform. Ukatlast

Portofino Thu 03-Oct-13 21:12:38

My brain is tired and I cannot do the sums. Country has 60 million people and about 300k of them are under 25 and claim housing benefit. And some of them will be working too of course. 400k claim JSA so allowing for some of the HB ones working, about 100 - 200k are probably living with their parents anyway.

Cameron hates the young, the poor, the disabled, the jobseekers, the working class, sahm.... And the list goes on...
Is there any particular lot he likes, rich toffs of course.

This party are the opposite of robin hood.

ukatlast Thu 03-Oct-13 21:35:19

soul2000 'Maybe Ed Milliband can offer the vote to 14 yr olds and give them the chance to ban school uniform.'

Sounds good to me soul2000 - well maybe 16 year olds.

Wallison Thu 03-Oct-13 21:41:24

Skipping to the end so apologies for not reading the whole thread blush but I wonder if the thinking behind this policy is that Cameron and Osborne have been and continue to be financially supported by their parents to a massive degree, and so think that everyone else is as well. Are either of them self-sufficient in that they work for all the money they spend?

BoffinMum Thu 03-Oct-13 21:52:07

I read that Sam Cam has a job at Smythsons that pays £300k and goes around saying 'one of us has to earn some proper money'. Dave has a trust fund in seven figures.

Threalamandaclarke Thu 03-Oct-13 21:54:22

Sheriff of Nottingham? Pumpkinsweetie

The Tory defending this on Question Time has said that jobless under-25s are all living with their parents, so the taxpayer shouldn't have to fund through benefits what is essentially a lifestyle choice to live alone.

What. The. Fuck.

BoffinMum Thu 03-Oct-13 23:01:13

Eh? It's simply not true. Many had been working before being laid off, for example.

boschy Thu 03-Oct-13 23:26:51

pile of pants. theoretically, having a big (mrtgaged) house, we can and will continue to give our DC a roof over their heads as long as a) they need it and b) we can provide it

we're property rich(ish) and cash poor (less than zero). so yes, in our rural area they can have a bed - and perhaps even a job - but how do they get to and from that j0b? buses limited; cars expensive, insurance ludicrous.

so they move to town - but withut a a job or any financial support?

MurderOfBanshees Thu 03-Oct-13 23:36:12

Wow, so now they are just outright lying about it??

What happens in countries outside the UK? What do their school-leavers/ unemployed graduates do?

I'm old enough to vote now, and for a long time, thought I wouldn't do it because there was no party I fully agreed with. After this, I'll be voting - and I think anyone my age who doesn't would be an idiot. I don't care who, as long as it's not Tory, and when they realise that they are suddenly losing a proportion of the vote thanks to this age bracket, maybe - unless he's still busy shitting out that silver spoon grin - Cameron will realise that just because he's a rich toff, doesn't mean people will take it lying down.

This expectation that people will live with their families is ridiculous. The bedroom tax means a lot of families will have to downsize; mine included - they're currently on the council list, for a property big enough for them and my brother and sister. Both my parents and OH's parents live in an area with no jobs at all - not even waitressing and bar work, as someone further up the thread naively suggested. Couple that with the fact that now I'm 19, my parents don't get child benefit - a huge loss for a family that exists on benefits, as my dad has been found unfit for work and told he'll never be fit for work - how the hell are they going to house and support me, my OH and a baby?

On the other side; with housing benefit and other benefits, my OH and I can live where we do now - in a large town, close to big cities, with work opportunities going (I currently work part-time for my uni and am waiting on a reply from a call centre, at the same time as studying 30 hours a week, and my OH has just moved here so he's looking for a job) -, plenty of choices with regards to childcare, and vaguely affordable with benefits, so that we can work to get off benefits.

Option A resigns me to a life on benefits because we'll never get off the first rung. Option B may involve me having to rely on benefits for a short time, but the long-term prospects are much better. Why can David Cameron not see that choosing option A, which he is doing, is possibly the most ridiculous notion ever?

Sorry for the essay blush

* Oh, and having a baby wasn't planned or intended. My pregnancy was an accident, but I couldn't face having an abortion. Not all teenage mothers are the same smile

BookFairy Fri 04-Oct-13 08:03:34

I work with Care Leavers. It would be a disaster. Shall we just house young people in the gutter and be done?

meddie Fri 04-Oct-13 08:13:27

Moomin I had both my kids return home after uni while job hunting. You are right it was a huge financial burden. I no longer received CB or CTC so financially was worse off than before they left home.
I am a lone parent working in the Nhs but on my single wage had to support 2 extra adults.
My food bill tripled my utilities doubled and I lost my council tax single occupant discount.
They needed help with travel and clothing for interviews. It took 12 months before both got full time jobs both in other parts of the country. Both needed a months rent, months deposit.suitable clothes for work and financial support until their first pay packet.
The jsa they received just about allowed me to stay solvent but the money i had been saving for new windows and central heating was wiped out.
At least I was able to help and they are paying me back but it will take time. Not every family will have that

VoiceofRaisin Fri 04-Oct-13 08:43:13

As a country, we are overspending and need to cut back....

BUT this policy is awful and discriminatory. Youngsters are human beings too: they need to eat and have a roof over their heads. They have had no chance to accrue savings to fall back on in hard times (I have less sympathy for older people who have made no savings plans for when/if they lose their jobs).

The current system for funding university already throws some youngsters into poverty. Did you know that you cannot borrow enough to even pay for your halls if your parents earn over a certain amount? There may be all sorts of reasons why parents of some are unable/unwilling to pay cash to their adult DC so those students are immediately below the subsistence level. All youngsters should be looked at independently of their parents UNLESS we also change the law to REQUIRE parents to support their DC up until the age of 25.

There are better places to save money than penalising the young purely because of their age (eg the council house lottery win whereby if you were once needy enough to have subsidised housing, you continue to get it for the rest of your life even once you are earning good money - yes, I include pensioners in oversized housing).

YoniBottsBumgina Fri 04-Oct-13 08:46:14

Care should be increased to 25, clearly. It's just a lifestyle choice that they want to live alone! confused shock

BoffinMum Fri 04-Oct-13 10:04:27

In the US in some areas they have work support packages - I think these are being trialled. Essentially they spend the same on the support as people earn, so it's effectively cost neutral, but the idea is that it's better for people and the economy in the long term to be able to work and hold down a job. I think that's the missing link here - it's all about saving money, but in actual fact it's not saving money, it's pushing up overall expenditure and/or pushing it onto other people/services in the medium term whilst aggravating human misery. That is utterly pointless.

A more realistic approach would be to provide a sensitive service to education leavers of all ages built around their individual prospects, panning out from there, with interview outfits, accommodation deposits and additional training courses all factored into the mix as necessary. (Detail needs working on). But essentially I think there is a consensus that interview costs, commuting costs and a roof over the head are basic needs for people starting out in work, or indeed retraining after a break, and it is counter productive to deny them such things.

And let's get away from this obsession with the age of 25 - it's completely arbitrary and you could immediately reduce the impression of fecklessness by lowering it to 18, for example or increase it by raising the notional age to 30 - it's just playing with figures for the sake of being controversial.

In fact if you looked at people between 60-90, to arbitrarily pick one age group and gender, you would find extraordinary numbers of older women with practically no work history at all, being given subsidised housing, pensions and other benefits in return for nothing at all in terms of contributions over a lifetime. This is where the vast majority of welfare spending disappears, in many multiples of what we spend on the under 25s, but obviously we don't penalise little old ladies because that is seen as mean, unfashionable and loses votes, whereas vilifying the young to save a fraction of this is considered acceptable for some reason.

But if I was going to be really forthright, I would suggest that the Houses of Commons and Lords could stop accepting the fucking up the arse they are getting from the top 1% of asset owners in the UK, and just come up with a policy mechanism for redistributing the ill gotten post 2006 gains of this group. Currently the general idea promulgated by these Gecko type wealth hoovers is that if you go along with it at your lowly level, you might get some of the crumbs off their table at some point, a ride on their yacht or some useful networking or a door opening to you where it might have been shut previously. To appeal to people's consciences they bang on about how much wealth they have created and how many jobs and livelihoods depend on that wealth. I am sorry, in almost all cases they could disappear overnight and the world would not end, because the rest of us have the intelligence to rebuild what was there (as indeed has been done with the banks and so on). They are not indispensible and frankly we don't need people who hoover up all the money but don't play the society game. People who live places like here:

One Hyde Park

So they can masturbate over their trinkets without being bothered by the riff raft. That is not what Britain fought two wars for, that is not our way of life, and we do not need this sort of revolting consumption bollocks on our doorstep. Let's dissolve these lifestyles before we start robbing our own young.

DiamondMask Fri 04-Oct-13 11:08:57

<applauds Boffin>

youretoastmildred Fri 04-Oct-13 12:33:58

Boffin, you are quite right, and have chosen a spectacularly ugly property to illustrate not only greed but aesthetic crimes that cry out for vengeance.

HolaGuapo Fri 04-Oct-13 13:19:31

I'm accidentally fell pregnant in May and found out 3 days before I sat my A-level exams. I had a place at a very prestigious university for a very competitive course for this September. I'm now 23 weeks pregnant because I just knew I couldn't have an abortion and I am so, so glad I made the choice to keep my baby. Needless to say, I am not going to university this year. I'm going next year instead.
I was very lucky that I had been working part-time in retail throughout my A-levels and was able to get full time work the minute I found out I was pregnant. My partner is older than me and has been working full-time for 4 years.
However if we lost our jobs tomorrow are we really supposed to starve? How would we pay our rent and how would I clothe my baby and make sure he doesn't freeze in winter? I'm well-educated, I work full-time, so does my partner. Why should the fact we're under 25 automatically render us not able to claim help, especially considering we both pay tax and NI?

dialpforpizza Fri 04-Oct-13 14:13:58

Fantastic post Boffin. One of the best I've ever read on Mumsnet smile

pointythings Fri 04-Oct-13 14:19:21

cake and flowers for BoffinMum.

Lj8893 Fri 04-Oct-13 14:22:25

boffin to be next PM!!!

dialpforpizza Fri 04-Oct-13 14:28:09

<standing ovation>

grin

NotYoMomma Fri 04-Oct-13 14:31:23

I think Boffin is actually Medhi Hasan in disguise ;p

so eloquent lol

dialpforpizza Fri 04-Oct-13 14:37:15

They need a bit more swearing in the house of lords. That's where they're going wrong grin

Darkesteyes Fri 04-Oct-13 17:22:10

cake and thanks for Boffin from me too.

youretoastmildred Fri 04-Oct-13 17:30:57

Boffin, you wouldn't like to get together with MrsDeVere and start a party would you? (I mean a political party, not gin and canapes, though that would be nice too)

MrsDeVere Fri 04-Oct-13 17:32:20

I don't know what is going to happen to DS1.
He has just managed to get a job but its only 10 hours with ad hoc overtime. He has gone for others and they are offering the same terms.

Employment rights seem to have been whipped away at the same time as the welfare state being dismantled.

He has rent to pay, bills etc. He doesn't need as much as a family and he has to expect to go without luxuries but he needs to eat!

There is only so much help we can give him.

It just seems so unfair. They make it hard to get a decent job with security yet take away the safety net too.

Cameron can only look down far enough to imagine the lower middle classes. He simply cannot conceive of anyone living below that standard. To him, the lower middle classes are the plebs. The rest of us just don't exist.

Does he think that everyone has the means to support adult children? WHO can do that?
This will split families and we are going to see teenagers sleeping rough again.

In the 80s you literally had to step over the kids in the streets in soho and other parts of London.

Its going to be bad enough for stable families but what happens to those families already struggling?

It will be the last straw.

Darkesteyes Fri 04-Oct-13 17:34:20

Mrs Devere sad

youretoastmildred Fri 04-Oct-13 17:42:55

oh sorry wouldn't have made that flippant post if I had seen yours first, MrsDeVere.

BoffinMum Fri 04-Oct-13 19:29:21

Thank you everyone. grin

Mildred, I picked it because it is currently the most expensive property on Rightmove, but I must agree it looks like the Next Directory on acid.

BoffinMum Fri 04-Oct-13 19:31:03

MrsDeVere, if he has a mother like you he will be just fine. Believe me. Even my DD sorted herself out in the end.

MrsDeVere Fri 04-Oct-13 19:31:47

Oh its fine! smile

I can't help but worry about it but we have to cross that bridge when and if we come to it.

Fingers cross he gets more hours.

BoffinMum Fri 04-Oct-13 19:33:51

If they have a good work ethic and make a big thing of learning about the business they find themselves in, the odds of them getting sorted out to their satisfaction improve greatly.

MrsDeVere Fri 04-Oct-13 20:14:25

Boffin that is so sweet. Thank you.
I am glad your DD got herself sorted.
DS seems so much happier nowdays. I just want him to be ok.

pointythings Fri 04-Oct-13 20:37:02

I think there is a serious element to mildred's post in that the current party political and electoral system isn't working. We need a proper multi party democracy, and there would be a place for common sense left of centre policies like BoffinMum's.

BoffinMum Fri 04-Oct-13 21:07:31

Exactly.
Would the MN party go down well in the next election, do you think?

Threalamandaclarke Fri 04-Oct-13 22:10:57

Boffin marvellous post.

Mumfortoddler Fri 04-Oct-13 22:40:42

I manage a homeless youth charity and all I can say is angry this is blatantly the most ridiculous policy, people can marry, own a house, have a job by the age of eighteen, have kids, but then if they even have one tiny break employment we're expecting them to move home?' Get a grip Cameron, this is ridiculous.

My charity spends ages trying to convince mums and dads to take their kids back when their sixteen, let alone eighteen or older. Half the time it not even possible- take today- we had a girl in whose been beaten by her parents since the age of 11, thank god for benefits we can move her out and she can continue her education.

Mumfortoddler Fri 04-Oct-13 22:40:58

P.S. this is one of many hundreds of examples... !!

Darkesteyes Fri 04-Oct-13 22:58:28

mum i think what you do is fantastic thanks

Here is a poster i would love to see up in bus shelters everywhere.

twitpic.com/dfwvgl

youretoastmildred Sat 05-Oct-13 11:13:20

apart from anything else it is blatantly discriminatory. In employment law you can no longer discriminate by age, although that law came in in about 2006 I think, later than some other anti-discrimination legislation, some employers have failed to internalise it. anyway in law you can't say "I want a seasoned mature person for this job" so why can you apply benefits in this way?

I honestly wish someone other than the shower of career-smarmers we have now would stand. I know everyone has real lives to be getting on with but I am so tired of hearing blatant shite from people who have never had to cope with real jobs and real life.

mistyshouse Sat 05-Oct-13 11:29:12

yeah its crazy

people can get married at 16, leave home, leave school, drive at 17, buy a house at 18, vote at 18 etc etc they are classed as ADULTS and its perfectly acceptable for under 25's to have children and many do, so why the hell are the government infantilising them?

and what about young people in situations where they are in abusive homes?? are they just meant to stay there?

nuts :/

It's age discrimination.

Fucking ridiculous!!
I'm 22, married 2 kids, own our house

Are they honestly saying if we needed help/ benefits we wouldn't be eligible or are less deserving due to our age???

Cunts.

Btw I vote.

youretoastmildred Sat 05-Oct-13 14:34:05

mistyshouse, right, and pay TAX at 18

These people are incredible. They take everything away and then complain you haven't got anything.

It's like

"give me that bottle of wine I am having a party"
later, you knock on the door
"hello are you having a party? Can I come in?"
"have you got a bottle of wine?"
"no, I gave it to - "
"fuck off then you can't come in"

MrsDeVere Sat 05-Oct-13 14:52:55

I had DC1 when I was 25.
At that time (1992) it was the average age for a woman to have her first child.

So how come 25 year olds are seen as children now? confused

VoiceofRaisin Sat 05-Oct-13 17:41:03

Actually you pay tax from 1 day old if you have taxable income greater than the personal allowance.

mumfortoddler I couldn't agree more. Not everyone has ideal parents. Not all ideal parents can afford to support adult children. Why on earth should under 25's be treated differently from other adults?

mistyshouse Sat 05-Oct-13 21:18:18

i have never voted - to my shame. blush

i was 29 when this shower of twats came in

but i sure as hell WILL be voting next time, and i will be making sure DH votes as well as i don't think he ever has either

and i am sure i am not the only person in a similar age group (say 25 - 35) who has never voted until now, but i am pretty sure that many 10000s of us will be using our vote come 2015 after all the shit of the last few years

I agree misty we must all vote or this is set to get worse!
What age range will he target next, babies??

I voted, but not many people i know didconfused

mistyshouse Sat 05-Oct-13 21:30:53

i think younger people are now so much more politically aware than in the last few years, so i do think the 18 - 40's will be out to vote in their droves - because we are the age group who are being royally screwed over. in my case, mumsnet has a lot to answer for, if i wasn;t on here i wouldn't know about half the stuff going on in the political world. and quite honestly would probably be believing the tabloid propaganda about scroungers etc. mumsnet has definitely broadened my mind. some of the shit i hear my friends of similar age spout is unbelievable (DM type stuff)

but i do think the tide will turn, its got to

the country can't get any worse, surely?? sad

marriedinwhiteisbackz Sat 05-Oct-13 23:36:36

The country was handed economic security in 1997. Blair and Brown overspent, were feckless and destoyed that security. It hjas been painful for five years because the coalition has been mopping up the almighty mess they made. And some people want them back. Please look at the facts.

LondonMan Sun 06-Oct-13 01:10:07

This reminds me of a similarly apoplectic anti-benefits-changes thread, where after hundreds of posts of outrage over some proposed change, someone pointed out that what people were outraged about hadn't actually been proposed, and posted a link proving it. And was completely ignored, as the thread raged on.

I believe there is no proposal to end all benefit for under-25s. The proposal is to end benefits if they refusing to do workfare or training. I believe no-one willing to co-operate will lose any money.

(I have paid hardly any attention to the news this week, barely skimmed the Independent article linked to previously, so may have posted bollocks in the previous paragraph. If you think I have, provide a link that proves it. This thread could use more facts and less emotion.)

I find it astonishing that people dont vote!

I'm opposed to workfare - fucking ridiculous.

And married I suggest you look at the facts. Have you forgotten the global banking crisis? And the amount of money being and was being pumped into the banking sector to prop it up. Labour had to sort out the NHS (remember the stories of people dying in corridors under the Tories) and the railways (remember british rail) and the poor outlook for money. So the Tories did have not have a wonderful legacy - if they did, ask yourself why was there such a landslide in 1997? Because voters just fancied a change? hmm

*many not money

Dawndonnaagain Sun 06-Oct-13 09:15:00

The facts appear to demonstrate that the Tories are borrowing more in five years than the last government did in seventeen years.

pointythings Sun 06-Oct-13 16:26:13

Ah yes, the enormous power of Labour to bring the UK to ruin by causing the global banking crisis. It's amazing they haven't taken over the entire world, given the amount of power they clearly have.

Labour did not do enough to rein in the behaviour of the banks, and that is a fact. However, David Cameron is on the record in Hansard in the early 2000s calling for more deregulation of the financial sector.

Labour did not do everything right. The Iraq war is probably the most glaring example, ID cards were also very bad indeed. However, literacy rates in primary schools went up under Labour, waiting lists went down under Labour and child poverty dropped too. The 'it's all Labour's fault' defence is wearing pretty damned thin after 3.5 years.

Labour can't disclaim responsibility for the crash and blame the coalition for the non-recovery in the same breath, though.

pointythings Sun 06-Oct-13 16:36:26

They can't, because they would have had to cut as well, but they did not set themselves a target of eliminating the deficit in one parliament. The Coalition did, and they have never stopped making excuses for failing.

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