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

JosephineCD

I have alot of time for people who think working is an option.

They're the ones who err ....work.

They are also the ones claiming HB because their wages are to low, well not any more they will have to give up where they live, so why work at all?

Cameron doesn't HATE our children.....he just doesn't really care about them.

His will be ok and that's just fine and dandy and he gets to be PM in the meantime.

After all,his Father made his money devising tax avoidance schemes which paid for Dave to get where he is now.

jellytots you don't need to explain yourself to such fools. I was married at 19 same as you, also got beaten. Lucky for me I had no children with him. I feel for you.

You're being well and truely suckered into joining a benefit witch hunt to detract from the real reasons why so many under 25s aren't in work.

Yep. The joint fact hardly anyone is properly vocationally trained these days and those that are academically trained consider them inferior.

And god forbid you might be able to do both.

And actually just get the fuck on with things. Plenty have.

Thinking about it, I moved out when I was 23, moved to Brighton from Berkshire. My job (which I'd been in for 6 months) allowed me to work from home, so everything was fine. Exactly 11 months after starting the job I was made redundant - they'd timed it so that my last day of work was exactly 364 days after I started. So I didn't qualify for a redundancy payment. Nice of them.

I was in a 1 year rental contract, so couldn't move out. Even if I could get out of the contract I couldn't afford to move all my furniture/possessions back to Berks. If HB hadn't been allowed for under 25s I'd have been screwed!

Even when I did find a new job I had no choice but to accept a job which was only just over the minimum wage. So I couldn't have afforded to rent/eat/travel to work without HB. And it's not like I was living expensively, I was in a houseshare on the outskirts of Brighton.

This govt wouldn't have cared.

I think lots of people do genuinly need hb or any benefits for what ever reason but that won't change the fact that there are a lot who claim benefits as a life style choice I'm certain that it's not just those under 25 so it would be grossley unfair to simply target one age group or any group that had no choice than to fall into a classification group that they happen to be in, I may just be being idealist or niave but surely it would be sensable to target the group who choose to be bums.

Does any body seriously have any objection to people who have legit reasons for not being able to work? We have to accept that this is going to happen we also have to accept that lots of people who have worked may find themselves unemployed at times, does anybody seriously have a problem with people who have paid in having to take out? That's what the system is surposed to be for.

And if your working but don't earn enough then you should be able to claim benefit no matter what age you are.

I totally understand that there is a type who never work don't even want to have no reason why they can't other than there viewpoint that working is for mugs, have no ambition or drive feel working is beneth them would find any bullshit excuse to turn down a job if it were offered to them can't even get to there signing on appointment on time because they don't pay you enough to bother and there idea of jobseeking is to write compleate crap on there declaration sheet because the only real jobseeking they did consisted of asking another bum if they knew anybody who had a job going.
The same type who would turn down a job because they had to get there on a bus or may have to walk for ten mins or it might fecking rain oneday and when forced to actually get a job can't hold it down for longer than a day because they intentionally behave in an unacceptable way to ensure they get let go things like punching out at coworkers then blame it on anger issues because they couldn't help it despite them being neurotypical adults (Christ sorry ranting now)

point being is these people are certainly not in one age group and they certainly arnt the majority of claiments of any benefit so targeting one age group won't change the actual feckless twatty bums that most people quite understandibly have issues with

The reasoning behind targeting under 25's is probably to prevent the benefit culture mindset forming in the first place.

When people have been on benefits for a number of years it becomes a habit, fear of change etc. There are many studies that show certain families have never worked for generations, it's their culture now.

I don't think anyone can dispute that this is a problem for society as a whole, so therefore the issue does need to be thrown open for discussion.

Possible solutions will never be liked by all, but there needs to be change. Not just because of the financial implications to the country's economy, but also the worrying effect benefit dependency has on peoples personal lives.

At the end of the day, whether one agrees with this or not (I do not agree), a 25 year old is an adult and has been for 7 years! This is plenty enough time for them to get a job, move out and then be made redundant or similar. This is a long time for parents who may have little or no money themselves to put their kids up for if they simply cannot afford to support them.

I suppose 25 must seem so much younger if you live in a middle class bubble where everyone goes to uni and has their gap yah either before of after uni...

David Cameron is a total .

what about people with mental health problems. People running away from alcoholic or abusive problems. People who try hard to work and go through periods of unemployment. There are gaps. Its not all people abusing the system. There are genuine people with genuine needs. Its short sighted and cruel.

I actually for the most part agree with this.

I am not working at the moment due to disability but am desperately trying to find work even though I'm in constant pain, I want to make my own way not rely on everyone else. I am staying with my DGM who I grew up with, I rented before I got pregnant (not housing benefit) but had to stop work due to disability when I was pregnant.

I know plenty of under 25's (and over actually) who couldn't give a toss about where their money comes from and will forever be on benefits, it's a bit hopeless considering even with children it's possible to get childcare with tax credits.

I never normally agree with DC but I agree with this one, except in circumstances where there would be nowhere for the person to go.

At 24 I had been working part time for 7 years, and then full time for 3, been financially independent for 3 years. Been living out of home for six years. Was a graduate. Was living 68 miles away from my parents.

If I was made redundant then I'd have to move home?

Well why not up it to 35? It's the same madness.

I agree with this also, we live in a society where people think its acceptable to have children without a means of supporting them, they get given housing, child benifit and tax credits. People are not encouraged to go out and work for the things they want because there is an easier option. I am in my early twenties myself and think something needs to be done about it, I dread to think what it will be like when I have children of my own!

JosephineCD

There are nowhere near enough job vacancies for all the unemployed to become employed. The vast majority of the unemployed want to work, but can't.

I've said it before - I was lucky to have my DS under Labour.

Had DS at 17. Started uni when he was 9 months. Worked in bars/restaurants/NHS to support us. Lived at my parents house (3br, 3 adults, 2 teenagers, 1 baby, 1 dog!!) til DS was 2, then moved out - working, at uni, but supported by HB. Finished uni, worked PT for a year, then trained as a teacher. This year OH moved in with us. First time I've received no benefits other than CB.

I wouldn't have achieved ANYTHING if the Tories had been in when LO was smaller. I think their policies are horrific and will drive people into poverty who otherwise could have made something of themselves and given something back.

The financial state of the country, and most of Europe, is in a mess and we all need to do what we can to help out. Going on to benefits - in effect getting other hardworking people to pay for your life and your kids - must be the very last, "I've completely run out of options", way to go. If there are parents available who can help, that must be a much preferable option than making complete strangers, i.e. the tax payers, pay. Obviously they'll make provisions for those who have not got the parental option, they won't end up on the street.

Are you sure about that Annath? Homeless figures were up by 12% in the last year alone, and many charities think the rate is much much higher.

m.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/08/homelessness-rise?cat=society&type=article

roughtyping I am at uni with a baby atm and I don't think anything has changed from your time, their policies haven't effected us at all yet!

I realised recently that feckless parents of undisciplined children who live off the state don't have a long term problem because the minute their children reach 16 or so they can move on and leave home with the state taking on the cost of keeping them. - this was after seeing someone interviewed on tv wringing her hands and saying that she just can't get her arsey 15 year old to get up and go to school.

Normal parents work hard to make sure their children are employable and able to, hopefully, fend for themselves as adults. If the state provides all who gives a monkeys whether your child goes to school or not, it's not your problem.

So having the little 'treasures' into their 20s will focus minds .

I've lived on two council estates. I think this is a terrible idea.

By all means reform the benefits system to incentivise work. But don't create a generation of street kids that have no means to support themselves but crime. It will reduce the welfare budget, but increase the prison one. The cost in terms of human suffering will be immense.

Staying with parents is not an option for people from dysfuncional families. Sorry, but anyone who thinks it is, whether working class or middle class, is living in a bubble.

Cruel and shortsighted.

These threads come up sooooo often that it is obviously something people feel strongly about and it's sensible of Tories to react to popular issues.

25 wow is 7 years extra pr, do you get council tax reduction back to a single.person rate? Csa etc?

I think up to 21 would be fairer, and then only benefit to live in shared accommodation until 25. This would then equate the situation of those who leave school at 16/18 with those who continue in education. If someone goes to university, they have to get loans to pay for term time living expenses and then most people return to the family home in the holidays. In the years after uni, those that can find a job can usually only afford to live in shared accommodation. I don't see why those who leave education early should be put in a better position than those who don't.

I was in FT education until 23. I then worked and lived in shared accommodation until I was 27/28, because that was all I could afford. So I don't think these reforms which apply up to 25 are all that terrible tbh.

That's one of the things I find infuriating about this ASilly - it is effectively rolling back the welfare state and forcing new expenses and responsibilities onto families.

Young adults being treated as children until the age of 25 is not good for society.

Being able to move to where there are jobs and opportunities and becoming independent of your parents (even if you do have recourse to benefits to help you along) is more likely to lead to independent, resourceful young people.

This just encourages laziness, fearfulness and conservatism in the young while creating extra financial burdens for the middle aged.

Countries where young people are stuck in the family home until their mid-twenties are not a model to follow.

YABU

Why shouldn't people have to show that they are trying hard to find a job. I mean if they can't even be bothered to right a CV why on earth should we be paying benefits for them?

Its also a good idea that if people have been unemployed for 2 years or more they should do some voluntary work. I can't understand why people wouldn't want to do this. It will be good experience for them and may give them some much needed confidence.

As for the under 25s - it might encourage young people to think a bit more before they have kids etc. It might also encourage people to work a bit harder at school and take finding a job seriously if they know they are not just going to walk into benefits on tap.

I don't particularly like Cameron but I do think we need to get rid of this "I'm entitled" culture.