Tories pledge to remove housing benefit from jobless 18 to 21-year-olds

1679111218

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 513
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Maybe this is also another ploy to push countless more into zero hour contracts, would be a bonus to as it would mean the government being able to manipulate the true unemployment numbers. A win win Tory policy when I think about it!.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,180
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    LostFool wrote: »
    As long as you are healthy then being 18-21 doesn't make you "vulnerable" or "practically a child". You are in the prime of your life.

    I'm perfectly happy to have the state removed from my life. I can assure you that if I lost my job today I wouldn't claim a penny in benefits until I found something else - which is exactly what I did the last time I was out of work.

    But it is people from disadvantaged backgrounds it will really hit as unemployment is higher for them. It's not necessarily their fault that is the case, but what this policy will do is further kick those people in the teeth whose needs are most likely to have not been properly met while growing up.

    You may be happy to have the state removed from your life, but the chances of finding a job that pays adequate to support yourself without any social security from the state is not a simple task for people nowadays. If we had affordable housing, secure jobs and a decent living wage and not a housing market geared towards opportunities for the wealthy and piss poor wages you'd have more of a case, but as it is people do rely on the state because there is no choice.
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Alan1981 wrote: »
    To put things in perspective. In 1999 I started a job that paid £6.00 and hour, paid a half share of rent of £180 a Month with probably another 70 a Month for council ran and utilities. No need to rely on benefits and with a few hours overtime I could save for a deposit on a house (if I hadn't spent it down the pub)

    That's pretty much where I was in 1999. I was working in a call centre making around £6 an hour (so almost twice what the NMW was then) and paying about £150 in rent for a tiny bedsit. It wasn't a fortune but it was affordable especially as I would work double-time overtime as an acting supervisor on a Sunday which was a nice little earner and it kept me out of the pub. £12 an hour for reading the paper, drinking coffee and waiting for call escalations was just about the easiest money I've ever made.

    Later in 1999, I then got my first salaried job earning £18,000 and moved into my own one bed unfurnished flat which had a rent of £300 a month. At the time I thought it was a fortune to pay.

    You are right that throughout the 2000s, entry level pay really didn't keep in line with growing prices. Rather than raising incomes in many cases the NMW put a cap on pay levels.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,180
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dave9946 wrote: »
    Maybe this is also another ploy to push countless more into zero hour contracts, would be a bonus to as it would mean the government being able to manipulate the true unemployment numbers. A win win Tory policy when I think about it!.

    Ah yes, so the youth will be forced to accept any demoralizing job offer chucked at them while the Tory government continue to subsidize big business profits by helping them avoid paying any employers tax.

    I also recall seeing on the C4 dispatches programme a worker who was being employed as an apprentice and being paid less but he wasn't even aware that he was employed as an apprentice until it was explained to him. These are probably the appenticeships Dave has in store for young people. Of course it will do nothing for long term future investment.
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ah yes, so the youth will be forced to accept any demoralizing job offer chucked at them while the Tory government continue to subsidize big business profits by helping them avoid paying any employers tax.

    Most people have to go through a phase of "demoralizing" jobs when they are young. It's how you get experience of the workplace and climb the ladder. You can't expect the land the job of your dreams straight out of school. There will always be crap jobs and someone has to do them.
  • CharlotteswebCharlottesweb Posts: 18,680
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    LostFool wrote: »
    Most people have to go through a phase of "demoralizing" jobs when they are young. It's how you get experience of the workplace and climb the ladder. You can't expect the land the job of your dreams straight out of school. There will always be crap jobs and someone has to do them.

    You used to get paid for it. That is not necessarily the case any more.

    And when discussing 'how it used to be', I'll reiterate 2 figures for everyone.

    Youth unemployment is currently 18%.

    Youth unemployment for those from care or abusive homes is 50%.

    Remember that when regaling us of how you managed it and so should the kids of today.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    These forums are practically a cliche these days.

    Talk of "in my day...", they really have no idea. The Conservatives have re-introduced slavery into the UK to all intents and purposes. Incredibly hard to rise up out of that.
  • CRTHDCRTHD Posts: 7,602
    Forum Member
    Jol44 wrote: »
    I'd say unemployed homeless people of any age are quite a priority.

    It's exactly what the welfare system is supposed to be for. It's supposed to be a safety net for such issues.

    Removing housing benefit, the roof over someones head when the fall on hard times, is barbaric.

    It's supposed to be a safety net for genuine hardship cases, not idle layabouts who've been kicked out by their parents - for being idle layabouts.

    In most cases all they need to do is stop behaving like morons and they would be welcome back at the family home.

    These people know how to work the system and will get their parents to say they refuse to let them live at home, because that then leaves the council no choice.

    The "I'm entitled" culture that was created in the Blair / Brown years has ruined this Country. People have no self-respect anymore.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    These forums are practically a cliche these days.

    Talk of "in my day...", they really have no idea. The Conservatives have re-introduced slavery into the UK to all intents and purposes. Incredibly hard to rise up out of that.

    (thunk)

    ...and you want to complain about cliches...

    I appreciate you want to knock the Tories at every possible turn. You're not the only one on here doing so. But it might be a little bit helpful if, instead of just coming up with this stuff, you validated it in some way.

    Let's start with this: HOW, WHERE and WHEN have the Conservatives (not the Lib-Dems?) - re-introduced slavery to all intents and purposes? Bearing in mind slavery is being forced to work for no money whatsoever and with absolutely no rights at all.
  • tim59tim59 Posts: 47,188
    Forum Member
    CRTHD wrote: »
    It's supposed to be a safety net for genuine hardship cases, not idle layabouts who've been kicked out by their parents - for being idle layabouts.

    In most cases all they need to do is stop behaving like morons and they would be welcome back at the family home.

    These people know how to work the system and will get their parents to say they refuse to let them live at home, because that then leaves the council no choice.

    The "I'm entitled" culture that was created in the Blair / Brown years has ruined this Country. People have no self-respect anymore.

    And what do you think the council do give them a flat or house? Well the truth is no they dont because of the under 35 year old housing benefit law, which say a single person under 35 is only entitled to a room in a shared house, at the lowest end of the market. And JSA for people under 21 is only £52 perweek , and out of that £52 they have the bills to pay things like gas, electric, food.
  • Alan1981Alan1981 Posts: 5,416
    Forum Member
    LostFool wrote: »
    That's pretty much where I was in 1999. I was working in a call centre making around £6 an hour (so almost twice what the NMW was then) and paying about £150 in rent for a tiny bedsit. It wasn't a fortune but it was affordable especially as I would work double-time overtime as an acting supervisor on a Sunday which was a nice little earner and it kept me out of the pub. £12 an hour for reading the paper, drinking coffee and waiting for call escalations was just about the easiest money I've ever made.

    Later in 1999, I then got my first salaried job earning £18,000 and moved into my own one bed unfurnished flat which had a rent of £300 a month. At the time I thought it was a fortune to pay.

    You are right that throughout the 2000s, entry level pay really didn't keep in line with growing prices. Rather than raising incomes in many cases the NMW put a cap on pay levels.

    Pay levels were rising right up until 2005, right up until the flood of unlimited labour arrived. A quality control operative back then paid £7.20 and hour. Today it's nmw. Why? because they can get away with paying it when there are millions of East Europeans prepared to work for that.
    Factories around here used to be full of youngsters who had just left school, now it's virtually all East Europeans. And it's the younger generation who have been shafted.
  • gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Alan1981 wrote: »
    Pay levels were rising right up until 2005, right up until the flood of unlimited labour arrived. A quality control operative back then paid £7.20 and hour. Today it's nmw. Why? because they can get away with paying it when there are millions of East Europeans prepared to work for that.
    Factories around here used to be full of youngsters who had just left school, now it's virtually all East Europeans. And it's the younger generation who have been shafted.

    And it's not because the younger generation don't want to do these jobs, employers employ East Europeans because it's cheap Labor for them..
  • DaccoDacco Posts: 3,354
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CELT1987 wrote: »
    Expect more homeless young people if this happens.

    I don’t, suspect most will look forward to a life free from dependency and excel. Welfare and Benefits for the young/unemployed are a symptom of a broken society, they should be managed and time restricted so a life on the dole/benefits can be avoided.
  • VDUBsterVDUBster Posts: 1,423
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Moves like this just show how gullible & stupid their supporters are.
    This is nothing more than a vote winner that will save no money at all.
  • CRTHDCRTHD Posts: 7,602
    Forum Member
    tim59 wrote: »
    And what do you think the council do give them a flat or house? Well the truth is no they dont because of the under 35 year old housing benefit law, which say a single person under 35 is only entitled to a room in a shared house, at the lowest end of the market. And JSA for people under 21 is only £52 perweek , and out of that £52 they have the bills to pay things like gas, electric, food.

    No doubt 51% get around that complication by popping a sprog out. The other 49% move in with them.

    Then that's them sorted for life.
  • CharlotteswebCharlottesweb Posts: 18,680
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    And it's not because the younger generation don't want to do these jobs, employers employ East Europeans because it's cheap Labor for them..

    It isn't the wages.

    Its the training.

    I've had some real arguments with other business owners about this, because it is so short sighted both in terms of the country as a whole and the businesses themselves, but there seem to be a generation of 'businessmen' that see nothing but short-termism and profit maximisation rather than long term planning.

    Training young people costs money, but it is an investment in the long term future of your business, or should be, it always was even back when I worked in the corporate world a few decades ago. Now, its cheaper to use ready trained immigrants who often have work experience in the jobs. However, most of them only stay 3 or 4 years in the country, and of course the less jobs we make available to today's youth, the higher the cost of looking after them.

    As Ive said, 18% youth unemployment, and this governments answer to the issue is to take money away from unemployed youths. Its asinine.

    A tax break for actual training, make it restrospective and only valid if the trainee is in full time employment for 12 months with the business to stop scams, would be cheaper than what we have now.

    We shouldnt need to incentivise business to train staff, but short-termism means we do. Its a better way to approach the issue, because it actually deals with it, not passes the buck down the line.
  • tim59tim59 Posts: 47,188
    Forum Member
    CRTHD wrote: »
    No doubt 51% get around that complication by popping a sprog out. The other 49% move in with them.

    Then that's them sorted for life.
    90,000 children in Britain to face Christmas homeless

    3 November 2014

    90,000 children in Britain – the equivalent of three in every school – will spend this Christmas homeless, government figures show.

    With their helpline already stretched to breaking point, Shelter are launching an emergency appeal in response.

    The figures also show that the number of homeless families living in B&Bs has almost doubled in three years. This is particularly alarming following the shocking results of a Shelter investigation into living conditions in B&Bs(. Its strange how the government NEVER want to talk about these kind of things but then again there was a damming report came out on monday that this government has failed badly on housing
  • welwynrosewelwynrose Posts: 33,666
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And it's not because the younger generation don't want to do these jobs, employers employ East Europeans because it's cheap Labor for them..

    Are you saying employers pay less than the minimum wage of that the "younger generation" don't want to work for minimum wage
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    LostFool wrote: »
    Most people have to go through a phase of "demoralizing" jobs when they are young. It's how you get experience of the workplace and climb the ladder. You can't expect the land the job of your dreams straight out of school. There will always be crap jobs and someone has to do them.

    My first job was as a petrol pump attendant/till operator/shelf stacker/floor washer/delivery checker/store man for the local supermarket on NMW. Awful job.

    Then I got a temp contract on some government programme doing filing and photocopying, again NMW.

    Then I got a job in front line IT taking crap from idiots for as near as makes no difference NMW.

    Then I worked in and insurance call centre again taking crap from idiots for as near as makes no difference NMW.

    Then had a couple more jobs in front line IT taking further crap from idiots for still as near as makes no difference NMW.

    It has all paid off though as I am now on a decent career path in software quality control.

    Time in the trenches well and truly served :D This was all just last decade as well as I left education in 2004.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CRTHD wrote: »
    It's supposed to be a safety net for genuine hardship cases, not idle layabouts who've been kicked out by their parents - for being idle layabouts.

    In most cases all they need to do is stop behaving like morons and they would be welcome back at the family home.

    Oh come off it, you're just making a lame excuse to remove help for everyone suffering. It's a fact that everyone isn't in that situation you describe, full stop.

    There is no excuse.

    Making hard up people homeless is a vile policy supported by people who couldn't give a sh*t about other human beings. There are no ifs nor buts on this one.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,916
    Forum Member
    Jol44 wrote: »

    Making hard up people homeless is a vile policy supported by people who couldn't give a sh*t about other human beings. There are no ifs nor buts on this one.

    What about high rents and unaffordable mortgages that Labour have created. Where's your contempt for them for families who struggle to find enough money to feed themselves, because their rent is double than what it was before Labour inflated the market. What about the average age of the first time buyer now being 38 years old? What if they don't have parents to live with, so are forced into private accommodation, where high rents due to inflated house prices mean they cannot save for a deposit?

    What about the people who have been made homeless because they cannot afford their mortgage and rent, so have been evicted? What about the crazy amounts that are paid in housing benefit due to Labour inflating house prices, money which could have been spent supporting homeless and jobless 18-21 year olds, rather than line the pocket of some landlord. Where is your vitriol for your beloved party here?
  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CRTHD wrote: »
    It's supposed to be a safety net for genuine hardship cases, not idle layabouts who've been kicked out by their parents - for being idle layabouts.

    In most cases all they need to do is stop behaving like morons and they would be welcome back at the family home.

    These people know how to work the system and will get their parents to say they refuse to let them live at home, because that then leaves the council no choice.

    The "I'm entitled" culture that was created in the Blair / Brown years has ruined this Country. People have no self-respect anymore.
    All you'll do is make young people live in fear for years on end if their parents subject them to abuse. At 18, if parents don't want you at home, you have no option but to leave. You'd happily have them in a gutter. What positive outcome does that create? How do you gain self-respect when your only option left is in a bulk bin for scraps?

    Good luck finding anywhere to live as "no fixed abode", you can't work or pay tax (IIRC) without a registered address. If you work on a zero hours contract, no landlord - social or private, indeed any bank will touch you with a 10ft barge pole.
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It has all paid off though as I am now on a decent career path in software quality control.

    Time in the trenches well and truly served :D This was all just last decade as well as I left education in 2004.

    I spent 5 years in software QA/QC before escaping. It can have its frustrations but it certainly better than the previous jobs shelf stacking, trolley pushing and being in a call centre for 9 hours a day talking to idiots. It's also a good career stepping stone as it can lead in many different directions.

    Yes, it's important to have done crap jobs on your way up as it makes you appreciate what you've got. I see some high flying new MBA graduates dropped into executive management training programmes who I know within a few years will be my boss but have likely never worked on the front line.
  • Hollie_LouiseHollie_Louise Posts: 39,760
    Forum Member
    And they wonder why young people don't vote lol
  • CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,157
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Time for the 18-21 years olds to get out and vote methinks.

    Just like the Grey vote.
    yet to find any one to vote for, my protest vote of anyone but the 3 main parties, whose party does not seem racist, isnt getting me very far, ok im 30 but its always been my view.
Sign In or Register to comment.