Nearly 1m young people out of work

thats the thing from modern tech and a only profit driven society and globalisation we dont need the numbers of people we have

A single person, aged over 25, with no children is entitled to UC of 400.14 per month. About 45% of claimants are single with no children, but breakdown by age is harder to find. So they’re not unicorns by any means.

So why didn’t you try hiring a mature graduate? There are thousands of people graduating in their 20s, 30s and 40s who would love to have a career change but aren’t being given a chance. Most of us have been doing minimum wage jobs and wouldn’t expect a high starting salary.

This just demonstrates that we don’t need any more humans. Disincentivise having children. We don’t need them

That would be impossible as rents vary a lot between areas.

A UBI payment to cover everything. Same for everyone.

There is. That is literally what UC is. It is made up of different elements though, but all delivered by the same place. Before UC, it was all different departments.

Why not just have one payment to cover everything and cut the admin.

Ok, I see now.
But what people get on UC is down to their individual circumstances. So I am still unsure what point you are trying to make.
Even rent and standard UC is well under what someone on MW would be getting anyway.

Is why the bullshit rags peddling rage about someone on benefits getting £70k in money from the DWP is often crap.

Oh FFS. I am not trying to say people on UC are rolling in it.

I am saying some people get money towards their rent which has to be included in the total amount of benefits quoted.

If I earn £1500 but pay £1000 rent would you also say I only get £500? It’s the same thing! You look at the total amount.

They get a LHA of £750 but their rent is actually £900. So that £150 comes out of the £400... and has to cover everything.

I am not sure how you are not getting it. Stop making out people on UC are rolling in it because their rent is paid. In a lot of cases, it isn't.

But FOR THE PEOPLE WHO GET IT.

Say they get LHA of £750 and they get an additional £400.

They’re actually getting £1150. A previous poster said they were only getting £400 as the LHA amount is for rent. That argument makes no sense. I wouldn’t say I get my salary less housing costs.

I hate to say it but I think a lot of it is down to many young people being lazy workers

We stopped a graduate scheme at my work after a series of grads who caused more bother than they did benefit.

this included:

• the mum of a 23yo calling up to chastise me because I gave feedback on the grad’s first attempt at the newsletter. It was a great attempt for a first time but I said a few things like “make this bit snappier” and “Can this have more detail please”. Apparently I was criticising her.
• mental health days, which weren’t part of organisation policy, they’d just call up saying they were taking one
• getting huffy at being asked to set up a meeting room. They don’t get that they can’t just do all the exciting jobs, that everyone has to do menial work when they start and a more senior person shouldn’t have to do it
• constant banging on about boundaries, whilst giving no shits about how “asserting their boundaries” quite often meant impinging on the boundaries of others

the pendulum has swung too far the other way and workplaces are suffering.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make? The housing element is not spending money, and not everyone on UC gets it anyway... even some people who rent.

I think we’re talking about different things.

i was responding to a poster who said that the LHA amount shouldn’t be counted as the person never sees the money. My point is that it should be as it’s still money that’s being used for their benefit.

Whether it covers the full rent or not isn’t really relevant to the point I’m trying to make.

I think you are missing something here. The "rent" from UC does not cover the rent you are charged from your landlord. So that has to come from the £100pw you get. A chunk of their rent is coming out that £400.

But if they get it, it’s still money they are not having to pay personally.

It”s misleading to say someone gets, say, £400 when actually they’re getting an additional £750 paid towards their rent.

The LHA for a single person where I live is £620pm. I looked on Rightmove for one bed properties for that price. Not. A. Single. One

Not really, because not everyone gets it.
And has been said, the housing element in UC often does not cover the actual rent.

They can’t, but it’s ridiculous not to include the housing benefit in the total amount paid to them. It’s still money that they’re using.

Most LHA don't even cover rent.
Where I live, the LHA will still leave you short of £200 for rent.... taken from £400. That leaves you £200 to pay for all bills, food, toiletries, clothing etc.

I live as frugal as I can, and my bills are still over £200pm.

How do you propose they’d do that on £100 a week?

But if it wasn’t being paid by benefits the claimant would have to find rent from their own resources

You don't even have to own your house. I was classed as a contrived tenancy, so no housing element for me either.

They did not because they own their house. The slightly less than £400 had to cover utility bills, food, clothes and everything else. How can you count rent being paid by housing benefit? The claimant doesn’t see a penny of that.