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.

"We are moving to a situation where only the children of the very wealthy can take any chances in life."

The children of the very wealthy have always been the ones taking time out to doss about on gap years and similar. Young people from more ordinary backgrounds are usually more motivated to start making a living - entrepreneurs usually have a rags to riches story. I really don't buy the idea that all young people who are taking up HB or moving into social housing are there because they are trying to break into showbiz.

Oh God, yet again the Tories want to make me vomit with their unihibited greed and insensitivity. The sooner we get rid the better

I agree that a debate on our welfare system is long overdue. One where we can talk openly without being accused of the rich trying to kick the poor etc.

Personally I once again think that the govt have thought up a good sounding idea in principle which is flawed because it's too arbitary. It reminds me of the child benefit debacle.

Of course the current welfare system doesn't exactly encourage people to succeed. But I am fast coming to the conclusion that either the Tories simply don't understand how complex and far from ideal some people's lives can be. Or that there's a new unwritten govt policy whereby they announce a shit rule to start with then water it down after a bit then people think they've listened.

I agree with this to some extent. Many, many young people in work are forced to live in house shares where they pay their own rent and obviously rent what they can afford from their salary. I don't see why those young people not in work should be given money to rent a place when they could be living with their parents.

Sure there are going to be exceptions like people who have no home to go back to, orphans, those in care etc and those need to be dealt with on a case by case basis but hasn't it been the case throughout history that people stay with their parents until they have enough money/job to afford their own place. Nobody is entitled to live independently courtesy of the taxpayer and that is not what the welfare state was about. Unfortunately people are so used to being given handouts and nuLabour telling them that they don't have to take any responsibility for their lives that we have a whole generation of people who think they are entitled to a lifestyle without having to work for it.

I can see there's an argument to say that a young person with no dependant's shouldn't be given access to full housing benefit for a house of their own. Maybe limit it to the same as what a houseshare costs.

But to have a hard rule with no allowances for those who have been kicked out or suffered abuse, that's not going to help them one bit. And to say it doesn't happen is foolish.

Orwellian, but that's the whole problem isn't it? the most vulnerable are the ones who will suffer most. The orphans, those who were in care, the young married couples with children. What you have to accept with any benefit system is that while some might benefit who shouldn't, the most vulnerable will also benefit. That was the main argument for keeping the winter fuel allowance non means tested, and I think it applies to all benefits. Sorry if that means you might get some people abusing the system, but that's what you have to accept if you are going to help those genuinely in need. The key thing is to keep the level of inappropriate/fraudulent benefit payments to a minimum.

Believe it or not, it is possible to go from living at home to living independantly without relying on any state support at all. To hear people on this board, you'd assume it was impossible.

For many less fortunate than yourself MrJudgyPants, it is impossible. Or damn well near it.

it a couple decide they want to have children young thats fine but it should not give them any access to state provision beyond what is available to people who decide to save up first, establish a career etc.

we need to focus the limited resources on people who need support .e.g. leaving care.

My Dh was brought up in the 70's care system, no family at all. At 16 he was left to his own devices and was basically homeless and slept where he could. He joined the Army just to have somewhere to live. and call home. This policy assumes we all have lovey dovey families with big homes etc

Am I right in thinking that you can't claim tax credits until you are 25?

Tax Credits can be claimed by anyone aged 16 and above if there are children or disabilities involved. Otherwise you have to be 25 before WTC can be claimed.

yoyoyo, it doesn't appear that this policy will consider those in more vulnerable positions... it seems to be a blanket policy. Perhaps as mentioned further up in the thread it's a deliberate policy so they can turn round later when they water down the plans and say "see, we are compassionate".

I do wonder sometimes if this government is on some kind of suicide mission. They really don't want to get re-elected do they? They've already said they're not touching benefits for the elderly until after the next election. That's guaranteed to kill their support among the people most likely to vote - pensioners.

It's not a policy it's a discussion. The system at the moment, like other areas of welfare, is open to abuse. What started as attempting to help young peple in genuine need by giving them priority for accommodation, has now become families claiming to have evicted their kids as a standard technique. According to my friend who has done this twice now, she was advised to do it by the housing officers themselves and given suggested wording for the 'eviction' letter. When it's become the normal way to get a flat rather than the exception, something's wrong.

It assumes that everone has perfect familes living in big houses with lots of bedrooms. (like most of the cabinet of course)

But Cogito, like all benefit systems it's open to abuse. The answer is to investigate abuses of the system, not shut everyone out.

Agree it's only discussion though... typical Daily Mail bluster blowing it up to huge proportions again.

but lots of what is wrong with the benefits system is not people abusing it, its how its been designed.

e.g. where i live on central london, there are no families except the superrich & social housing. lots of the central london housing is occupied by long term claimants (>50% of children are born to workless households).

noone in the middle can afford to live there but they are paying for others to do what they cannot afford.

blog.shelter.org.uk/2012/06/5-reasons-why-cutting-support-for-young-people-is-a-bad-move/

But isn't the difference yoyoyo that you can buy or rent something within commutable distance. I can't afford to live in Westminster, but I can afford to buy something within a commutable distance. That's fine, I'm happy with that. But the alternative you're suggesting is we ship out poor people who can't afford to live in central London turning it in to a place only the super wealthy can afford to live. That makes for a very depressing city. Oh hang on, that's Paris and they've never had any social problems associated with the ghettoisation of that city have they? Oh no sirreee

perhaps the kids who can't live with their parents need to go into a hostel rather than receive housing benefit. I remember working with a girl in the 80's from Newcastle and I believe she had a room in one. wouldn't that save money?

also I can't afford to live in central london so why should someone on benefits who may not even be working be able to?

I think what Cameron is doing is a step in the right direction.

also I wish someone would do an audit on how many 'council' properties are being sub let and who actually lives in them.

But only one in eight people claiming housing benefits is unemployed.

The people who are going to be disadvantaged by this are those people starting out in their careers, often paid less than the adult minimum wage.

So vulnerable adults (or teens) should have to lumped together in some 'workhouse' type hostel accommodation if they are kicked out of home or are care leavers then?

I can't see any social problems arising from that...( hmm, not much sarcasm there...)

Would you like these hostels to be built in YOUR street, or are you a NIMBY? Out of sight, out of mind?

Did I wander into the Victorian age by mistake? What is wrong with topping up the income of an under 25 to enable them to rent a room in a shared house, rather than a hostel? 5 together is a lot less problematic that 50. 80% of those that claim HB ARE FUCKING EMPLOYED.

In my town, a room in a house share is £70 a week, bills on top. An apprentice wage is about £2.60 an hour...do the fucking maths!

And BTW, rent in those 'hostels' you are on about is DEARER AS THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR A WARDEN. So, the YP still won't be able to afford it without HB.

Sort out capping Private rents and the impossibility of living on NMW before you take away the safety net you cunts.

And NiceGuy2 - We agree on something?!

the current system:

1. allows people claiming benefits to afford houses/locations other cannot.
2. allows people to claim unemployment benefit for years, even when there is a boom
3. does not promote work

this is not a safety net.

"The answer is to investigate abuses of the system, not shut everyone out."

Welfare was originally designed as a system where 'no assistance' was the norm, with exceptions for people that can demonstrate they genuinely need the help. Right now, when a loving parent with a house with plenty of room is advised by those allocating homes that the best thing they can do for their DD and her new baby is to officially evict them in writing, there is something really wrong with the system. The people using the system can't be blamed if they rules are so easily bent.

alemci Have you been to a hostel recently? They're not nice places. Not somewhere I'd want an 18 year old girl to spend her years of early adulthood so I can save a few more pennies in tax while thousands avoid paying theirs altogether

yoyoyo You're right, the current system is not a safety net, however removing it completely doesn't solve anything. Many of the people we're talking about have much deeper problems than not being able to find work (though of course that's a huge one). Many come from households that have never seen anyone working. Think what impact that may have on someone's confidence. Think how that might affect someone starting out on life. And think how whipping the carpet out from under their feet changes that situation. Oh it doesn't, that's right.

cogito I don't have any numbers to hand right now, but I think no assistance is still the norm (I don't include WTC etc in that, as you have to be in work to claim that, and I see it as topping up low wages to create a living wage).

no headfairy i haven't but perhaps they need some money putting into them to improve them. I wouldn't want my 18 year old their either but I doubt very much whether she would be entitled to any housing benefit anyway.

I think we have to break the cycle of the benefit dependent culture.

I take your point about the shared housing instead of a hostel but you don't have to swear because I have a different point of view to you.