How much do you people understand 25 get in benefits if they dont work?

[JacknDiane]

If they stay at home.?

Does anyone know?

He presumably eats though, does he not? Does he not use water, electricity, etc? He could pay something towards that.

Many of these young people claiming benefits come from families where the resident parent also claims benefits (chronic fatigue, fybro etc). If they know how to play the system they can also get carer’s allowance for the resident parent - helping with physical tasks. If they are smart, the resident parent can in turn get carer’s allowance for the young person( helping them with their anxiety etc) or for another non working adult in the household. If you add in a bit of casual cash in hand work babysitting, dog sitting etc and free access to the leisure centre, boiler repairs, insulation to house etc and you live in the North you have a secure, disposable income which is way above that of most entry level workers. Certainly way more - and way more secure- than working on a zero hours contract at eg Asda

I wonder if we need to introduce some sort of Career Support Centre in each town where young people claiming UC have to turn up every day as if they were going to work, so that they get into the routine of getting up and getting out of the house at a certain time, but once they are there, they can get help with job applications/CV writing, attend skills sessions (social skills, interview skills, IT skills, other work skills etc), access mental health support if they need it, maybe go to an in-house gym, access learning opportunities or help finding voluntary work etc. If they are on a confirmed course or voluntary placement, or attending an interview, then they are excused, but otherwise they have to spend the day there as if it were a job. And if they don't turn up, they lose a pro rata from their benefits?

I realise that this kind of facility would cost a fortune to run, so maybe it's not practical, but it would be a genuine investment in the next generation and it could end up saving the state more in the long term if these young people could get their lives back on track - in welfare, healthcare costs etc.

It's probably completely unworkable in practice but just an idea!!

2 yrs ago, 20yo DS was getting about £60/week I think. I know he started paying £35/week towards his keep.

Doubtful

Absolutely insane proposal.

Last year I faced the prospect of losing my job- not performance related and I really panicked. I looked into what I was entitled to. I have worked since age 12, I was entitled to £61 a week. Not enough to even get a weekly travel pass to go to job interviews.

Yet if you’ve never worked you get hundreds a month.

Wish we’d stop this talk about how we can cut and sanction benefits even further, as someone said - it’s around £60 per week for a person under 25. When I was 17 I became homeless after my grandparents died (no other family and one parent already dead at that time) if it wasn’t for the Jobcentre (I’m talking 25 years ago) I don’t know where I’d be now, they were supportive and helpful, advised on what I was entitled to, let me have a period of time off job searching and there was no talk of sanctions.. they didn’t exist. Some people live independently under the age of 25. Not everyone has parents

His mother's rent won't be fully paid unless one of them is recieving PIP.

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack isn't that what the job centre does?
You have to turn up to meetings, they arrange training sessions for CV writing/interviews etc, give advice on job fairs....🤔

@spendyspend but it's not "£100s a month". It's £338 which just over £80 a week.
Not a massive difference to your £61.

I don't know, does it? I thought people only had to report to the job centre once a week or something? ETA I know someone who works at a job centre with young people, and she made it sound more like they have to turn up for about 10mins each week. But perhaps I have misunderstood and they actually do much more? Or does it depend on the job centre?

I am talking about somewhere that young people would have to go for, say, 35 hours a week so that they are doing something constructive with their time instead of sitting at home gaming or whatever. And getting genuine, practical help with whatever issues are holding them back. It would have to be good quality help though, not just box ticking.

It might be a terrible idea, I haven't given it a lot of thought tbh. Or maybe the support is already in place so it isn't needed.

It just seems to me that we shouldn't be just neglecting a generation of young people and leaving them to rot. We should be giving them structure and support to help them make something of their lives. If this isn't the right way of doing it, then fair enough. But then, what should we be doing instead?

If you can afford to support yourself, then fine. Sit at home all day. Not for taxpayers to fund though.

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack basically we (society? local councils?) need to create jobs.
For example my hometown has an outdoor lido pool. It only opens for about 4 months a year and then on a very limited timetable and having to close completely over the lunch hours).
The reason (that the council gives) is "not enough staff".
Well then..... employ more bloody staff.
"But that costs more money" says the council....well yes - duh.
But if the pool was open all year around and an actual full day available then they would have much more people using the pool so they will have more money.
I am using this as an example because I have just been to my hometown for a week and the local Facebook group is full of complaints about how little time the pool is open and how people desperately want to go but can't.
Surely "how to write a CV and interview skills" should be done at school as part of PHSE.

@Boomer55 I meant in the sense I can see why young people opt for the gig economy and ‘side hustles’ better than a soul destroying call centre job. Even better if you can find a way to live cheaply, such as house sharing

£338 is a lot of you've got rich parents who don't mind paying for all your basic needs. But many parents, in reality, are going to want their adult children to pay for food at the very least, and probably make a contribution towards bills, even pay some token rent etc. (The latter especially if they might otherwise have taken in a paying lodger!) In that case the £338 could disappear very quickly.

The risk is you're throwing free money at people with a comfortable lifestyle (not just at benefit-dependent families!) whilst those from the least secure homes still can't cover their costs.

Perhaps it should be means-tested based on household income? But that's a lot of admin.

It’s a brilliant idea but by the very nature of it (i.e. getting the lazy cohort off their arses and into a regime, controlled and dictated by a greater force, e.g. like a job), it simply won’t fly!

To use your example, councils have no money. Cutbacks over the last 15 years or so has seen to that. It's not a case of 'employ more staff'.