Young people must 'earn or learn' - while parents gibber and pay.(51 Posts)
David Cameron has just ended his party conference with a speech saying that he'll axe Benefits for the under 25s. They'll get no support from the state, and must "earn or learn".
But youth unemployment is high and rising. Many young people will continue to be unable to get a job. And if they can't claim any benefits, who will have to pay?
Yup. There's no other possibility: parents will be forced to support their kids for far longer, well into adulthood.
I don't know about you, but I don't think I could handle it. There have been times in the past few years when the only thing keeping me from going over the edge has been the knowledge that if things didn't get better - if I got any more desperate - at least I only had to hang on in there 'til he turned 18.
If I'd had to support him another seven years I don't think I could have done it.
David Cameron says if young people can't claim benefits, it will save £1.8 billion. But he's only counting the benefit savings, isn't he? I bet it will cost the NHS and other services many times more, as us parents pay up, take the strain, and gibber quietly in the corners of our sitting rooms.
So, David Cameron, I know your kids are still only small and you don't know any better yet, but listen to us and think again. Life is hard enough for parents of teenagers and young adults. Leave young people's benefits alone.
Or we'll send our kids round to your place.
How are many parents going to afford it? I cant afford to support 3 adults. I'm a Carer. This means I get enough to support me and dd at the bare minimum. If the others come home and need feeding I am fucked.
I'll be paying for mine anyway. However that's because we can. How the feck can parents who currently lose Chb and CTC when the teens leave school pay for them out of £70 odd quid a week? Bastards.
I think a lot of teenagers need a kick up the arse personally. A lot of my friends have kids who have no work ethic whatsoever
Yeah, I do feel for the parents and more and more glad I don't have any myself!
More young people will get pregnant and the state will have to support them.
When I had mine Flick, you could buy a house for 3 times the average salary, jobs were fairly plentiful, degrees didnt cost an eye watering amount and I hadnt planned to become a Carer.
They've all gone to university so are doing their fucking best. Hopefully they will get jobs but unless your head is up your arse you will have noticed a massive bank fail, bailout, economic depression and up to 50% youth unemployment across Europe. My Carers Allowance isnt going to feed and clothe 3 adult children if they cant find work in this current economic climate.
We used to have this thing called 'society' to help us and young people in hard times. I recall paying into it too.
Nice to see the BBC pictures accompanying this story were all of hooded youths with fags. Agenda much? None of my kids are like that or any of the young people I know.
This is clearly a brilliant policy given that the government has made learning incredibly expensive (and, no, the loans don't actually cover all the living expenses). So what exactly is someone supposed to do when they can't get a job and can't afford to go to university without getting a part-time job? No flaws there at all. Clearly policy ideas from people who haven't got a clue about the realities of life for most people.
And what are you supposed to do once you've done a degree? Take out a huge 'career development' loan (with serious interest) and do a masters? What then if you stil, can't get a job (and there isn't exactly a surplus around)?
Maybe the plan might appear fair enough, if there were too many jobs and people were actually 'choosing the dole' in any great numbers. But that's far from the case. And what with the brilliant idea of reducing the available jobs by transferring them to workfare slaves, it seems even less likely that there will be a huge problem of people who don't want to work.
They're a bunch of fucking idiots. And that's me being nice about it.
Flick: do you imagine you'll be paying for your children when they're 40? 50? It's an equally arbitrary age, and they're still your children (who you chose to bring in to the world).
Maybe we should move in with baby boomer inlaws. After all, they bought dh into the world. Him and his offspring are their responsibility, even if they are 70
They shouldnt have had him if they couldnt pay for him their entire lives...
Flick, it's called society.
The irony is that the government actively pushes parents (especially poor parents) to hand their children over to other people when they're little. State-funded childcare/pre-school care costs the UK about £10billion - much more than young people's benefits (www.cwrc.ac.uk/documents/CostsofchildcareJuly2013.pdf)..
Young people need independence from their parents as much as parents need the light at the end of the tunnel. This plan is bad for everyone.
Thats not what people are saying Flick. Many people simply wont be able to afford to feed and clothe another adult on meagre wages or their own benefits. And if they've had to downsize their living acomodations (and many will), where will they put them? I love my adult kids being home but they have to bring food or money out of their student loans with them or I run out of food. I cant magic food out of thin air. Nor can many other people living on the edge.
I've done a bloody good job and so have they getting good grades, getting into good universities etc. There was no 'cant be arsed' in this family.
And what about the young people with NO parents?
Don't judge, Flick: you do not know me at all, and it just makes you look narrow-minded.
David Cameron obviously thinks he's found a 'soft target', because society doesn't much like teenagers. But cutting benefits for 18-25 year-olds will not just hit them; it will hit parents very hard indeed, and I'd say it will also have enormous 'hidden' costs for society generally, especially health services.
Parents with younger children may not be thinking through the implications for their own families yet, but people shouldn't sleepwalk into this...
"But...you don't just stop being able to afford to feed and clothe someone overnight"
Oh yes you do, Flick. My income dropped by £500 per month when my son turned 18. I lost child tax credits, CB, the 25%reduction on my council tax and his fathers child maintainance. He's not able to find work and his JSA goes on bus fairs and a meagre amount he pays me each week, (which I am saving for his driving lessons). He has had no new clothes and shoes for over a year.
I am keeping him - he is my son and I love him - but I'm self employed and am working all hours to be able to provide for DS and DD.
What an idiotic argument!
Ok so parents don't stop being parents at 18 and shouldn't expect the state to support their children at an arbitrary age and therefore this idea is just grand?
In which case do away with the whole welfare system, problem solved, eureka!
Because, in case you hadn't noticed, we are all someone's child. So by that argument when a 50yo man loses his executive job through redundancy of course his 70yo parent should support him! Or the 35yo who loses their job because the firm goes bust (thanks to this awesome economy) his parent working as a minimum wage carer whilst supporting and caring for his other disabled parent will have no problem at all finding that extra cash. Parents pre-decease you? Tough the lazy sods should have earned and saved enough to leave you to support you your entire life - just on the off chance (and to pay the tax on that eye watering sum) ... oh no wait. ...
This idea would be no issue at all, in fact it might even be a good one, if we could actually provide young adults with sufficient opportunities for employment that the only possible reason for unemployment was they were being a feckless waster. Sadly we can't. Sadly this country has been shafted for so long by so many that it cannot support its own population working or otherwise. Add to that the fact that the majority of people in work do not earn a living wage whereby they can run a mortgage, bills etc because of low wage and high cost of living.
If you are going to make an argument at least have it make some kind of sense!
Earning or learning is fine if there is free education and abumdant work. A further problem is that 'work' doesn't actually do a very good job of finding the jobless. There are huge numbers of employable driven people available for work that are out of work, and plenty of dull useless people in work. 'work' rarely getsrid of people in it who are unproductive to make space for more driven youngsters, and makes scant effort to find them even if there are jobs available.
'employers' are notoriously bad at finding employees.
What's going to happen to the family's that say for example a 18+ yr old moved out into own accommodation therefore leaving the parents to downsized their houses because they couldn't afford the bedroom tax then said 18+ year old needs to move back home after a year or two struggling to stay in education & or find work? Over crowding, stress, poverty, depression? The list goes on! Then where do they turn if they're lucky enough to recognise their depression.... NHS? Hmm seems that's not going to save them any money in the long run?
One of my daughters was working 3 jobs! She has worked part time since the age of 14 and is still in full time education, iv only just managed to get her to leave one of the jobs and just work two part time jobs.... This kind of plan by our government is only going to stress young adults like my daughters out and make them work stupid amounts of hours just to "get by"
Think it's time to start saving again as only have a year until first daughter is 18 and 3 years till second daughter is 18.
Before anyone asks if I'm expecting someone else to foot the bill for my children the answer is NO. but the knowledge that there is help if needed would be like an invisible net which could stop stress and the many other health issues that can arise from this.
Cameron should be made to live a month in the lives of us working class in the situation he is forcing us!
What about children in care? 24 year olds in children's homes / foster care? Or would they be abandoned?
what about under 25's who have kids of their own?
What about under 25's who are form dysfunctional families?
This has not been thought through. Cameron lives in a privileged vacuum detached form the world most of us live in. All we can do is make sure they don't get elected in 2015. VOTE THEM OUT
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.