So David Cameron (we are in it together) really wants to fuck up our children then!

[belleMarie]

How can anyone be taken in by this muppet? whilst him, Sam (and her £1000 pound frocks) and kiddies eat good, sleep good, shit good - we're basically screwed?

His hate for the poor/have-not is staggering and apart from a a couple of grunts here and there, this man is unstoppable.

Cameron to axe housing benefits for feckless under 25s as he declares war on welfare culture
Prime Minister gives exclusive interview to the MAIL ON SUNDAY
Reveals housing benefit will be scrapped for under 25s, who'll be forced to live with their parents
Dole money will be stopped for those who refuse to find work
Mr Cameron shares his views on Euro2012, Jimmy Carr, and what really happened when he left his daughter in the pub

Radical new welfare cuts targeting feckless couples who have children and expect to live on state handouts will be proposed by David Cameron tomorrow.
His bold reforms could also lead to 380,000 people under 25 being stripped of housing benefits and forced to join the growing number of young adults who still live with their parents.
In a keynote speech likely to inflame tensions with his deputy Nick Clegg, the Prime Minister will call for a debate on the welfare state, focusing on reforms to ?working-age benefits?.

Among the ideas being considered by Mr Cameron are:
Scrapping most of the £1.8 billion in housing benefits paid to 380,000 under-25s, worth an average £90 a week, forcing them to support themselves or live with their parents.
Stopping the £70-a-week dole money for the unemployed who refuse to try hard to find work or produce a CV.
Forcing a hardcore of workshy claimants to do community work after two years on the dole ? or lose all their benefits.
Well-placed sources say Ministers are also taking a fresh look at plans to limit child benefit to a couple?s first three children, although Mr Cameron is not expected to address this issue directly tomorrow.
Speaking exclusively to The Mail on Sunday, Mr Cameron said: ?We are sending out strange signals on working, housing and fa8milies.?

He argued that some young people lived with their parents, worked hard, planned ahead and got nothing from the State, while others left home, made little effort to seek work and got a home paid for by the benefits system.

?A couple will say, ?We are engaged, we are both living with our parents, we are trying to save before we get married and have children and be good parents. But how does it make us feel, Mr Cameron, when we see someone who goes ahead, has the child, gets the council home, gets the help that isn?t available to us???
?One is trapped in a welfare system that discourages them from working, the other is doing the right thing and getting no help.?
Asked if he would take action against large families who were paid large sums in benefits, he replied:
?This is a difficult area but it is right to pose questions about it. At the moment the system encourages people not to work and have children, but we should help people to work AND have children.?
His plan to axe housing benefit for the under-25s will have exemptions for special cases, such as domestic violence, but he said: ?We are spending nearly £2 billion on housing benefit for under-25s ? a fortune. We need a bigger debate about welfare and what we expect of people. The system currently sends the signal you are better off not working, or working less.?
He also favours new curbs on the Jobseeker?s Allowance, demanding the unemployed do more to find work. He said: ?We aren?t even asking them, ?Have you got a CV ready to go?? ? A small minority of hardcore workshy, an estimated 5,000 to 10,000, could be forced to take part in community work if they fail or refuse to find work or training after two years.
The Prime Minister wants to show he is committed to radical policies, but his speech could exacerbate strains with Coalition partner Mr Clegg, whose Lib Dems oppose drastic welfare cuts.
It follows the row over plans to revive O-levels and will fuel rumours the Coalition could end long before the 2015 Election. ?As leader of a political party as well as running a Coalition it?s right sometimes to make a more broad-ranging speech,? said Mr Cameron.
A Government official said: ?Decent folk are fed up with the increasing abuse of the welfare system. Responsible people who work damned hard, often on low incomes, to support themselves, are sick and tired of seeing others do nothing and live off the state.
?Labour threw ever greater sums of money at the problem and made it worse. If we want to encourage responsibility we have be bold enough to tackle these issues. We suspect some of those who refuse point-blank to seek work are working on the black market and claiming fraudulently.?
But a Labour source said: ?It is easy for rich Tories with big houses to have grown-up children at home while they find their feet. It?s different if you live in a tiny council flat and your daughter is a single mum.? Ministers said curbs on housing benefit for the under-25s, had helped slash the welfare bill in Germany and Holland

I agree this is an attempt to distract everyone from tax avoidance and get back to business as usual, blaming the poor and low-waged for everything rather than the feckless rich.

And the media are irresponsible not to point out this is a benefit paid to people in work but on wages too low to meet the extortionate costs of private rental, thanks to the crappy housing market, as well as the unemployed. (Am a journo myself but not in news.)

Something does need to be done to break our benefits cycle. Alot of people genuinely need help, but there is also people who could do more for themselves and dont consider the future.

My brother and his wife for one have no real concept of thinking ahead, they got married and decided to have a baby - yet they had no home or stable employment. They were housed in a 2 bedroom property after living at his parents until the baby was born - they now have another planned baby in a very small home and want the council to move them.

I dont begrudge them or my niece & nephew, however, is this not wrong? How can this country sustain this type of thing?

I dont know the answer but something has to give.

I fell pregnant at 17, my partner worked and we got no housing benefit. A few years later our relationship broke down and my child and i ended up on the floor at my mums. If david cameron had brought this in 5 years ago i would still be on the floor at my mums as i could not have afforded a house without housing benefit. Unemployed or working.

My parents dont have two spare rooms in their house (one for me and one for my child). I just think the government are out of touch and need to go out into the real world and see how people live.

I do however agree with cutting benefits for big families. Not the families that are already here as thats not fair on the children but the ones who are to come. Those families who have never worked and have 10 kids need to be put in their place. I am from a big family and my dad has always worked and supported us.

Of course it's wrong Cock.

There are far too many people that complain about cuts like this because 'I have a child to look after'. But people shouldn't be having children when they can't support them because they don't already have homes and jobs.

The welfare state is supposed to be a safety net for people who are ill/disabled or get made redundant or who have extreme family backgrounds. It is not supposed to be there to allow people to have children just because they want to.

It has nothing to do with diverting attention from tax avoidance. There are enough people in parliament that both things can be dealt with, it doesn't have to be one or the other that is highlighted.

The only people I know who have council houses, are the ones who lived with their parents after they married and had children.
After 2 years or so, the fact that their situation was overcrowded enabled them to have enough points to bid successful for a council house.

The thing is this: Social housing was invented for exactly these people- married,a child, sharing too little space with too many people, and not earning enough to get a mortgage.

So, really, if couples can stand living with their families, and families can stand having them,what is the problem with a young family finally getting a home they can afford. (It's not FREE housing, is it? They still have to pay rent!)

I personally would lose my mind if I had to live with my parents, but that's just me.

Lets face it, if couple waited until they can get a "home",(by which I assume you mean a mortgage) before having kids, the populations would die out.

And I think it has EVERYTHING to do with DIVERTING ATTENTION FROM THE TAX AVOIDANCE OF TORY DONORS.

If david cameron wants this to go ahead then its only fair he no longer gets to enjoy a home funded by the tax payer while making 6k a month from renting out his mansion in the meantime.

Good point, justsofedup.

Has anyone mentioned yet the Tories who are avoiding tax?

I also saw that BBC article, why is it so damn hard to understand that the majority of people receiving HB are working??

Perhaps these articles should come with guidence notes explaining what benefit is what and how it works and ammounts and the such like because then people would understand the difference between supliment means tested and unemployment ones and social housing

or would that just make it very boring and not sensationist

Ohhh ok torys are avoiding tax as are labour as are lib dens and as are a huge huge ammount of very rich people

is that better

It is wrong that we have a country where people that work full time need to claim top-ups on their wages in order to pay their rent. Hopefully this will be the first of many measures taken by the coalition in order to remedy this. People should be self-reliant and independent, not reliant on the government for everything. For far too long the housing sector in this country has been propped up by government policy, whether it be mass immigration or housing benefit or anything else. Now if landlords want to rent out their property they must do so at prices that people can afford to pay from their wages. Otherwise their properties will lie empty and they will have to pay the mortgage out of their savings.

Josephine, if the tories wanted to sort out the high costs of rental, they'd bring in rent controls. not punish the tenants who are not responsible at all for the ludicrious cost of housing.

Sadly we live in a country where a full time job 35 hours may only get you £211. (have not deducted tax or ni childcare or reasonable travel to work) And less if your under 21 I think quite a few people just don't understand that.

Even a social housing rent would be impossible to cover without a top up from hb

Have been following this thread, and just want to say I really feel for you guys :( (Aussie here.)

I have no idea what we'd do if we lived there. DP and I both clam benefits as well as mental health disability, though I am going to school and he is a qualified chef.

Josephine, if the tories wanted to sort out the high costs of rental, they'd bring in rent controls. not punish the tenants who are not responsible at all for the ludicrious cost of housing.
What is the point of rent controls? Why not just let the market set it's own price? Housing prices have been pushed ridiculously high because of government policies such as immigration and housing benefit. Now you want another policy to artifically lower them? It wouldn't work. You can't make people sell something for a price that is lower than people are willing to pay.

Most of the problems this country has comes from people expecting the government to take responsibility for every area of their life. It is time that we started expecting people to manage their own lives.

Josephine - if people didn't expect to manage their own lives, they wouldn't even bother trying. Do you know how many people work for minimum wage in this country doing jobs that aren't paid enough to cover their needs? These people don't deserve a kick in the teeth, do they?

Josephine you are contradicting your own argument. On one hand the landlords should lower the rent to solve the problem (by the way have you considerd some wont be able to because they wont be able to cover their costs, or shall we also add them to the scrapheap when their properties get repossed?) then on the other you say it cannot be controlled. Which one is it to be?

Landlords are going to be out of pocket either way, so why not just let it happen instead of heaping more government on top of what we already have? It's lunacy to have government policies propping up house prices and other policies keeping them low. Why not just let things stabilize, cut out all the bureaucracy and give people the message that their lives are theirs alone, and they cannot expect the government to provide for them.

Agree with Josephine.

HB have been part of the reason that rents are so high. LLs know their high rents will be covered by HBs. LL will face the choice of lowering their rents or having empty properties. If they can't afford to lower their rents then unfortunatly they will have to sell.

This would actually be a GOOD thing. If lots of rental properties came on the market, house prices would fall. Isn't that what most people want?

Josephine. Another fact for you.

This comes from a source who is a senior Housing Benefit assessor:
Rents are actualt NOT becoming affordable since the last round of Housing Benefit cuts (during which I personally lost £15 a week in benefit).
All that is happening is that the pool of housing which is affordable on the new, lower, housing allowance has become smaller, therefore increasing the competition for these houses, and keeping the rents the same.

We need rent control. Even the US has some form of rent control. We also need real wages, based on the real standard of living.

Ok so if landlords lose their livelihood guess what happens to them? You guessed it. Another bunch of people draining society, eh?

Of course in an ideal world all houses prices would be magically lowered, but this is reality and saying "to hell with people who make a living out of being a landlord" is not helpful. Some of those sub-human land lords are trying to provide for families too. The disregard you show for other human beings is staggering.

That was to josephine btw

rent control is not going to happen in a recession - this would put downwards pressure on house prices and put many into negative equity.

this would create a far worse sitution than the one we are in already.

neither is a major increase in minimum wage as this would lead to fewer jobs not more.

better to focus benefits on the people who cannot help themselves and put pressure on those who can to do just that.

if labour cared more about people than staying in power, they would not have created this situation. what happened next was always going to be bad.

Cockbollocks- U covered it for me . Not sure how we sort it out but its wrong that people on benefits get paid more in some cases than someone who slogs their arse off all week at work.