Cameron wants to remove housing benefit from the under 25s

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855

Summary: would cut welfare bill by 2bn. Would remove some resentment towards those on benefits.

People should live with parents, get job and save up for house/marriage/children rather than having child, getting free house and being stuck in benefits trap.

m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855

I was when i read this. I sometimes think that the system is geared towards those who don't want to work rather that those who can't. But, to arbitrarilly remove it from someone just because of age is surely going to end up with an increase in homelessness. Sorting out the youth unemployment figures would surely have a greater impact on benefit claims than just stopping HB for that age group.

And what about all the "looked after" young people who have no parental support available to them and he is conveniently forgetting the fact that there are no jobs anyway

The Tories really genuinely scare me sometimes. If you are not loaded they don't give a shit about you.

Would age discrimination legislation not come into play?

I'd guess not and Cameron will probably remove that soon as well after all, minimum wage is different for different ages.

As somebody with a seriously rocky family relationship, I worry about this as it assumes that ideal that we all have loving supportive families who can and will help out in the low points of life.
The policy is short termist and the consequences will be dire for a vulnerable section of community... So perfect Tory policy really.

Twat. As if we needed any more proof. I was homeless as a teen because I was informed that I had to accuse my father of abuse in order to qualify for housing benefit- or benefit of any sort. As with wonky, my family was not loving and supportive but that would have made things ten times worse.

There must surely be other ways of cutting the bill without making kids sleep on the streets where they will be even more vulnerable to really nasty shit. Ugh.

"Would remove some resentment towards those on benefits."

How?

This government are not about to stop stoking that resentment.

This whole announcement is just a dog whistle to people who think nobody on benefits deserves them.

How can you justify a policy of removing an entitlement to a means-tested benefit from adults on the basis of age?

It's ridiculous and clearly unfair.

The Tories are fucking the young in every way they can.

And then pretending they give a shit with dishonest guff about not loading them with debt .

Utter wankers.

Sorry, I just realised there is already a thread on this:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1502166-So-David-Cameron-we-are-in-it-together-really-wants-to-fuck-up-our-children-then?msgid=32543645#thread

DH and I recieved HB for the first year we were married.

I was at university, he was job hunting and then waiting for his job to start. Government job, paper work took forever.

Given no university within 30 miles of my home and chances of a job for DHs qualifications within 100 miles of his. I'm not sure living at home was a very good option

Huge assumption there that people have supportive families. Given that some needing benefits will come from dysfuntional families, you are risking sending young people further into social and financial deprivation.
Very very sad that this is a society people are happy to live in.

(Oh, I mean up to 18. I never did end up claiming housing benefit before I was 25, but have no doubt that without that option plenty people will end up in serious trouble- which will only end up costing more (financially and in other ways) in the long run.)

I shall call him 'twat' once more. Twat.

God he is a slimy bastard. I just saw him on the news and he just looks horrible. This is another nail in his political coffin.

That's right Dave - what about care leavers, those in abusive homes?

Safeguarding anyone?

Typical Tory going after the little people while ignoring tax evasion.

This is ridiculous.

Under 25?

Many people are married, have children, have lived away from home for years by then.

You are not a child at 25.

You could be seeing people forced to live with their parents up until their own child is 10! It isn't right.

And what if the parents refuse to have them there? What if they hate each other? What if the parents live in a one bed bungalow?

If housing was affordable, it wouldn't be as bad. When I first left home, my flat was £50 a week. my wages were £800 a month.

so how is a young person supposed to manage? Even if they can get a job!

So the tories are gunning for disabled people and now the young.

Going after the most vulnerable in society, those least able to fight back. As always.

I swear to God I wake up expecting to hear the news that the government has brought back the bloody workhouses!

My first question is : What is going to happen to care leavers? Very few FC's let you stay on past 16, and even less past 18. Without Housing Benefit, surely it will be next to impossible for SS to find them accommodation?

My next question is : What happens if a couple with DC's split up, and the mother is left with the DC's, and can't find a job to fit in with the available local child care? Without Housing Benefit, even short term, Lone Parents will become homeless with their DC in the event of a relationship breakdown if they are under 25.

Then : what happens to those who are made redundant, if they are already renting. Not all of their parents will be ABLE to take them back in. If their parents are in Social Housing, they will have been forced to downsize when that person left home, so will no longer have the ROOM for them. Are they meant to live in the streets?

And MOST claimants of Housing Benefit that are Under 25 ARE IN EMPLOYMENT. A Couple, aged 24 and 22, both in low paid work, receive Housing Benefits as their wages are too low to pay the rent on a one bed flat in the SE. They will be made homeless when their Housing Benefit is stopped because they cannot cover even the rent on a bedsit on their wages.

A Couple, both aged 23, have one DC, one works, for NMW, the other is on Mat leave and gets SMP. They get part of their rent covered by Housing Benefit. Their Housing Benefit is stopped as they are both under 25. They and their DC will be homeless.

Someone who is currently in a refuge with their DC's after fleeing a DV relationship. Because they are under 25, they stop receiving Housing Benefit. Their choices are to either be on the streets homeless, or go back to their Ex who was committing DV.

WTF are this Government thinking?!

There are so many ways in which this policy is wrong, and if it is applied retrospectively, then anyone UNDER 25 who is currently receiving Housing Benefit will be made homeless.

That's a bloody lot of homeless people AND HOMELESS DC.

Has he thought about the adverse affect this would have on the housing market and PRIVATE housing agencies?

What happens as these overgrown children turn 25?

How are the ageing parents meant to afford having children at home until they're 25? Many are downsizing by then.

How are these children meant to be saving, with interest rates at rock bottom, piss-poor salaries, threat of redundancy and huge university debts.

Cameron is living in a parellel (and much more pleasant) universe to me. His lack of understanding about what is going on the country (as our premier) is frightening.

I think this is an interesting opening shot in the big debate on benefits that is long overdue. What do we want for under 25s? The current well-worked system of getting parents to declare young people 'homeless' solely to improve their points score for the housing association list doesn't do the young person any favours. In the past, before HB existed, young people were motivated to achieve independence by travelling to get work, keeping the accommodation costs down by house-sharing with others. Someone mentioned saving. It's far easier for a young person to save up staying at home, making a contribution to the housekeeping, and helping their parents' budget, than it is when they are responsible for running one of their own.

I think it's a lame, already failed, attempt to stop people talking about tax avoidance and get them back onto benefits bashing.

Even Daily Mail readers were not impressed with this piece of bullshit.

Whatever we want for adults under 25, I'm pretty sure a life of dependence on their parents is not it.

If we make it impossible for young people to move, to take risks, to be young and irresponsible while following their dreams while they aren't burdened with responsibility, our society will ossify.

Loading the young with debt, forcing them to save just to out a tiny, poxy roof over their heads, taking away the safety net that exists for everyone else, will lead to a generation of fearful, resentful, inflexible young people wasting their youthful energy living like the socially retarded adults of yesteryear.

Current government policy is disastrous for the young. It seems spiteful.

" following their dreams while they aren't burdened with responsibility,"

Where is this in the script? We are 'children' and then we are 'adults'. As adults we take on responsibility for ourselves, always have done. There's never been some halcyon time where we've said as a society it's OK for a big swathe of young grown-ups to be irresponsibile and we'll pick up the tab.

I'm not sure how I feel about the entire issue, however, it is unrealistic to condemn it due to "bad family relations".

In 1990 aged 15 and "squatting" - it was made clear to me that HB and IS was available to 16 year olds who were estranged from their parents - not just the legal orphans.

There is, will be and always has been financial help for those who need it.

If you want people to live their lives according to a script, then we are barely talking the same language.

Of course young people should be responsible for themselves (which is the opposite of what this policy intends, which makes their parents responsible for them until they are halfway through their 20s) but they are usually not responsible for anyone, or anything, much else.

So they can move where the opportunities are, where the interesting stuff is happening, take risks with their time and start businesses/art scenes/political movements, meet other young people doing important, but low or non-paying stuff.

There have always been risk averse young people who moved in with their parents and immediately saved for a house nearby and looked for a safe job so they could have a family and live a life just like their parents.

But we really don't want all our young people to be so boring and uninspired, do we? (Well you do, obviously, but I think that is misguided and shortsighted.)

Young people should absolutely have access to the same safety nets as the rest of us. The things they do matter just as much.

The ridiculously high tab we are picking up for HB is because if the lack of wage growth and combined with extremely high rents in parts of the country.

The safety net should remain, but the enormous amounts of public money being shovelled straight into the pockets of private landlords needs to stop.

Capping rents will do that.

I'm quite happy to pay taxes to provide a safety net of housing for everyone. The way that benefit has been turned into a cash cow for wealthy property owners is shameful and needs to end.

Getting jobs and saving for houses is not 'boring and uninspired' it's called being a grown-up. The young people I know that got mum and dad to fraudulently declare them homeless so that they could get a council/HA property weren't joining art scenes or starting businesses or any of the romantic vision you seem to have. They were simply swapping dependency on parents for dependency on the state. It's a scam.

Surely parents of 18-25s will have to be able to claim housing benefit for up to 25 year old children, then.

I would like to know what they're planning for under-25s with children (ie me!) I can't move back into my mum's house because there is no room for DS. I could share a room with my sister, however, then I'm further away from work.

My wages don't actually cover my rent at all because I work part time and study part time. Even if I went full time in the holidays (which isn't an option in my job anyway) the childcare bills would increase so much as well that the increase in pay would make very little difference to how much I had left over for rent and bills etc.

I do actually happen to have an alternative option (thank god!!) but even that's not foolproof and could fall through - hopefully I'll be 25 by then, though.

I know a lot of people who would be seriously affected by this. I see there are reportedly going to be exceptions made for domestic violence, but how is that calculated? If a young woman is in an emotionally abusive situation but has no concrete incidents to go to police about, is that classed as DV? Would she be forced to make statements etc? This just makes the barriers bigger to leave.

"Getting jobs and saving for houses is not 'boring and uninspired' it's called being a grown-up."

Moving away from your parents and taking a low paid job as a runner/intern/waiter so you can do shows/meet other people doing similar things is also "being a grown up".

A grown up with more vision and ambition that just getting a mortgage and having some kids.

We are moving to a situation where only the children of the very wealthy can take any chances in life. We are squandering talent and leaving the best jobs to be taken by the stupid children of the rich.

I get why the rich are keen on it...

There is nothing remotely grown up about being dependent on your parents until you are 25. It is utterly infantalising.

You can't pretend that this has anything to do with individual responsibility. That would be the opposite of forcing adults well into majority to live with their parents.

My "romantic visions" are based on young people I know and have known. I'm sorry you only know shit people.

But that doesn't make all people shit.