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

18911131418

Comments

  • CRTHDCRTHD Posts: 7,602
    Forum Member
    And how exactly will they "Make Work Pay" ?

    By making sure that not working doesn't.

    The proposed new benefit cap (down from £26k - £23k) continues the good work.

    (That's net mind you - that's in your hand, so still equivalent to +£30k before tax).

    Why would these needy scrotes bother peeling themselves off their stinky sheets, when they can just fester and wait for the "giro"!?
  • Chester666666Chester666666 Posts: 9,020
    Forum Member
    CRTHD wrote: »
    By making sure that not working doesn't.

    The proposed new benefit cap (down from £26k - £23k) continues the good work.

    (That's net mind you - that's in your hand, so still equivalent to +£30k before tax).

    Why would these needy scrotes bother peeling themselves off their stinky sheets, when they can just fester and wait for the "giro"!?
    The reports say the cap doesn't work
    And penalising the unemployed just get beibg unemployed is terribke
  • gulliverfoylegulliverfoyle Posts: 6,318
    Forum Member
    The reports say the cap doesn't work
    And penalising the unemployed just get beibg unemployed is terribke

    I dont think people object to being unemployed

    its when thats your "Job" being unemployed trying to milk the system thats what people have issues with

    benefits are meant to be a short term helping hand not a lifestyle forever
  • koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    I dont think people object to being unemployed

    its when thats your "Job" being unemployed trying to milk the system thats what people have issues with

    benefits are meant to be a short term helping hand not a lifestyle forever

    That's fine if unemployment is meant to be short term too. But guess what?

    There are 2 million unemployed and 500,000 job vacancies.

    And guess what too?

    It's been that way for over 30 years.
  • tim59tim59 Posts: 47,188
    Forum Member
    CRTHD wrote: »
    By making sure that not working doesn't.

    The proposed new benefit cap (down from £26k - £23k) continues the good work.

    (That's net mind you - that's in your hand, so still equivalent to +£30k before tax).

    Why would these needy scrotes bother peeling themselves off their stinky sheets, when they can just fester and wait for the "giro"!?

    The main reason for the cap being dropped down from £26,500 to 23,00 is because NET average wage have gone down from £26,500 to £23,500. And this was admitted by IDS in a select commitee hearing on november the 5th, 2014.
  • gulliverfoylegulliverfoyle Posts: 6,318
    Forum Member
    That's fine if unemployment is meant to be short term too. But guess what?

    There are 2 million unemployed and 500,000 job vacancies.

    And guess what too?

    It's been that way for over 30 years.

    but there not the same people, obviously. even at boom times with "full employmet" there are people classed as unemployed its never zero people leave one job become unemployed for a few weeks and then get aonther job

    you must know this, but have your silly agenda do grow up
  • gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CRTHD wrote: »
    By making sure that not working doesn't.

    The proposed new benefit cap (down from £26k - £23k) continues the good work.

    (That's net mind you - that's in your hand, so still equivalent to +£30k before tax).

    Why would these needy scrotes bother peeling themselves off their stinky sheets, when they can just fester and wait for the "giro"!?

    Looks like you're going back to the 80's/90's the unemployed don't receive "giro's" anymore.

    If you think the unemployed are contemptible then it's to be hoped you are secure in your job otherwise.......;-)
  • DrillerKillerDrillerKiller Posts: 475
    Forum Member
    Well it should be rather obvious, I saved up to buy my own home which was just affordable, then all my children did the same and bought their own affordable home before they were 23.

    Then the Government introduces housing benefit and the cost of housing goes through the roof making housing unaffordable for a lot of folk.

    Well you did it, thus so should everyone else in the country be able to do it too.
    Why do all right wingers seem to share this same simple minded logic?
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    These Conservatives are creating a system of permanent benefits for people in work.


    By order of the state, for a persons lifetime, a person will be receiving state benefits even as they work a full week. This is what Universal Credit is all about.

    So people become permanently dependent on the state, and under the control of the state. And in fact their personal details are now being handed over to various government agencies, including medical details.

    People who would have never been on benefits 30 years ago are now on them, and will be forever. As will their children.


    Is this a conservative ideology? Because to me it sounds like something communists would think up.
  • koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    but there not the same people, obviously. even at boom times with "full employmet" there are people classed as unemployed its never zero people leave one job become unemployed for a few weeks and then get aonther job

    you must know this, but have your silly agenda do grow up

    You said it yourself.

    They are NOT the same people.

    And if anyone has an agenda, it is those who are trying to scape goat the unemployed for the faults and greed of capitalist society.
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Private landlords, utility companies and supermarkets all being examples of a capitalist society at work since that's probably where most of people's money goes.
  • koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    nanscombe wrote: »
    Private landlords, utility companies and supermarkets all being examples of a capitalist society at work since that's probably where most of people's money goes.

    It's also where most benefit money goes. The rest goes to tobacco and alcohol companies.

    Very little actually goes to the benefits claimants.
  • mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dosanjh1 wrote: »
    What happens to a young person who leaves care? Sounds like encouraging a life of crime to me, at least that way they'll get a roof over their head.

    In the eighties Mrs Thatchers government restricted benefits for under 21-s not living with parents to two weeks. Result was lots of teenagers begging on the streets.
  • mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CRTHD wrote: »
    By making sure that not working doesn't.

    The proposed new benefit cap (down from £26k - £23k) continues the good work.

    (That's net mind you - that's in your hand, so still equivalent to +£30k before tax).

    Why would these needy scrotes bother peeling themselves off their stinky sheets, when they can just fester and wait for the "giro"!?

    How many households get 26 grand in benefits?
  • Raring_to_goRaring_to_go Posts: 20,565
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nanscombe wrote: »
    Private landlords, utility companies and supermarkets all being examples of a capitalist society at work since that's probably where most of people's money goes.

    That’s not exactly true, the majority of folk are home owners who only spend a limited amount on housing so they will invariable have surplus funds to spend on the luxuries of life, that’s the true effect of capitalism.
  • LakieLadyLakieLady Posts: 19,713
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    It's worth pointing out that this policy is aimed at jobless 18-21 year olds. If the households figure in the Mail is right, this implies that about 15% of that age group will be affected. Or, to put it another way, 85% won't. I wonder what view they'll have on this?

    So anyone under 21 who has the misfortune to lose their job is likely to lose their home as well, unless they're still living with mum and dad. Nothing like piling on the misfortune is there?

    It's hard enough to find landlords willing to accept young tenants as it is, without making sure that they won't be able to pay their rent if they lose their job.

    After 7 years of working in housing support and homelessness prevention, I know that the under 25s are the hardest group to find housing for, and the group most likely to find themselves homeless over and over again. They're already penalised by their housing benefit being restricted to the lowest possible rate (until they reach 35) and their other benefits being £15 pw lower than someone over 25.

    If the government is trying to alienate a whole section of the population, they're going the right way about it.

    Meanwhile, in other news, they promise to maintain bus passes and free tv licences for older people, even if they're millionaires. As someone who hasn't many years to go before reaching bus pass age, I'd far rather pay my bus fares, tv licence and forego my winter fuel payment than see one young person sleeping rough because of this heartless bunch of vote-buyers.
  • LakieLadyLakieLady Posts: 19,713
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stoatie wrote: »
    Seems a bit unfair on the parents, too.

    Mr Lakie said something very similar, Stoatie, but the unfair bit was prefaced with "F*** me, there's no way I'd have Son move in with us if he was homeless, and he's f****** housetrained. Wtf should parents have to put up with their kids for over 18 years?"

    My generation (born in the 50s and 60s) the idea of living with your parents until well into your 20s is weird. Most of my friends had left home by 21 and those who went to uni rarely moved back in afterwards.

    We were all absolutely skint, it wasn't unusual for a flatshare to cost nearly half your salary, but we preferred independence to things like car ownership and foreign holidays.
  • LakieLadyLakieLady Posts: 19,713
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    rusty123 wrote: »
    So if an unemployed youth with a perfectly good roof above their head and a loving family environment is told the state won't just gift them a flat it's a punishment in your eyes!!

    I don't think anyone is asking the state to "gift them a flat", merely to give someone under 21 the same rights as anyone else to help with keeping a roof over their head if they fall on hard times.

    There a million and one reasons why young people need to live away from home: to take a up or keep a job, for example, or the main breadwinner's job may be relocating to another part of the country. My friend needed to retire early because of poor health, the only way she could afford to do this was by moving to France, so her 19 year old had to get his own place.

    Young people are already discriminated against in benefit matters, this proposal is just absurd and will cause no end of hardship. Projects that currently house vulnerable young adults and help them in training and employment would no longer be able to do that if they couldn't get housing benefit to cover at least the housing cost part of the project.
  • LakieLadyLakieLady Posts: 19,713
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jol44 wrote: »
    I can sort of see a side to the argument with the benefit cap.

    Perhaps you'd like to explain it to me. Perhaps in a way that will be meaningful to the mother of 6, abandoned by her husband, who has no way of paying the rent for her children's home. She faces a real prospect of homelessness as she's only lived in the area for 18 months and doesn't meet the residency criteria for social housing.

    She was in tears yesterday when I had to explain why the housing benefit on her £220 pw house had gone down to £14 a week. Even if she moves to the cheapest of areas, she'll never get a place for £14 a week.
  • LakieLadyLakieLady Posts: 19,713
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Rent caps would be more effective at solving the issue of high benefit payments, as that is where the majority of it goes, in housing benefit.

    And of course, the majority of housing benefit claimants today are in work, and those in work are unaffected by any caps on how much they receive.

    Completely removing anything in relation to benefits is never a good idea because the subject is complex and cannot be applied in blanket fashion.

    What happens to those coming out of care?

    Abusive homes?

    Those whose parents have left the country or have died since they left home?

    It is a sign of intellectual paucity from the decision makers that they think this is a viable solution to a problem.


    Great post.

    Councils have a statutory duty to house care leavers and in some circumstances they are exempt from the shared accommodation rent restriction.

    I can't believe they won't be exempt from this proposal, if it ever comes to pass.
  • LakieLadyLakieLady Posts: 19,713
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Does the benefit cap apply to those on disability allowance? Because if so it's pretty offensive for anyone to all them 'work shy'.

    No, it doesn't. It doesn't apply to a family where a child gets DLA either.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,916
    Forum Member
    LakieLady wrote: »
    Perhaps you'd like to explain it to me. Perhaps in a way that will be meaningful to the mother of 6, abandoned by her husband, who has no way of paying the rent for her children's home. She faces a real prospect of homelessness as she's only lived in the area for 18 months and doesn't meet the residency criteria for social housing.

    She was in tears yesterday when I had to explain why the housing benefit on her £220 pw house had gone down to £14 a week. Even if she moves to the cheapest of areas, she'll never get a place for £14 a week.

    There will always be a portion of people affected through circumstance of any policy which gets implemented, but is it fair that people who go out to work earn less than others who don't? Whilst I have empathy for the situation, cutting benefits is a popular policy amongst a large swathe of the electorate.

    Besides, the CSA should be chasing the husband as he has a legal obligation towards his children to keep a roof over their head and provide for them.

    If Labour hadn't inflated house prices, and then weaned everyone onto housing benefit, then £880 per month rents (which is more than my mortgage) would not be happening and would be more affordable. The only people benefiting in this climate are private landlords who see the value of their investment appreciate and have a sitting tenant to pay off their asset. The real travesty is ex-local authority housing has been falling back into private hands, who have then rode the crest of the housing market.
  • LakieLadyLakieLady Posts: 19,713
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    rusty123 wrote: »
    I don't know what the definition of shared accommodation is (shared bathroom perhaps?)

    Only one room for the claimant's sole use and no exclusive use of any of the following: bathroom, toilet, kitchen/cooking facilities. Even if you only share the toilet, it still only gets the shared accommodation rate.

    Studio flats where you have your own kitchen and bathroom get the one-bed rate of LHA, which has priced them out of the market for under 35s.
  • tim59tim59 Posts: 47,188
    Forum Member
    There will always be a portion of people affected through circumstance of any policy which gets implemented, but is it fair that people who go out to work earn less than others who don't? Whilst I have empathy for the situation, cutting benefits is a popular policy amongst a large swathe of the electorate.

    Besides, the CSA should be chasing the husband as he has a legal obligation towards his children to keep a roof over their head and provide for them.

    If Labour hadn't inflated house prices, and then weaned everyone onto housing benefit, then £880 per month rents (which is more than my mortgage) would not be happening and would be more affordable. The only people benefiting in this climate are private landlords who see the value of their investment appreciate and have a sitting tenant to pay off their asset. The real travesty is ex-local authority housing has been falling back into private hands, who have then rode the crest of the housing market.

    The CSA are a joke, read this report from 6 days ago. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEsQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-30955060&ei=iq7MVNvbJIGvU6WEhLAO&usg=AFQjCNGKWLApAXsFkYsGp5NL5oymYKdZJg&bvm=bv.85076809,d.d24&cad=rja. Billions of pounds owed in child maintenance may never be recovered, government accounts show.

    The money is owed by absent parents who have been referred to the Child Support Agency.

    Accounts prepared for Parliament by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) class £2.9bn of the £3.9bn in maintenance arrears as "uncollectable".
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,916
    Forum Member
    I guess there's no point in here chasing him through them then. I know several people who have been successful, so that link doesn't represent individual cases where they have got the absent father to cough up.
Sign In or Register to comment.