axe On Housing Benefits For Under-25S

[csgohan4]

exactly jim, if you are 5k down but are not working then its a win for alot of people... it makes me sick that unfortunately we probably will never be able to have a flawless benefits system and thus someone will lose (someone that actually deserves help!). My sister gets a fair bit of help from the government being a single parent but she works part time and goes to college trying to get a better education(i.e the way the system should work alot of the time ). She gets a fair few vouchers that are for supermarkets that she can use on fruit + veg which i think is due to having a child but a system like that is what we should have, if you're on benefits you shouldnt be able to take taxpayers money and have a tv, that should be earned as im yet to find anything educational on tv that isnt available freely in a book at a library or online(as the government says this is a necessity).

Should just be able to purchase food and drink, get the rest of the bills paid for and no essentials like sky/virgin. Obviously this wouldnt work as much for people with disabilities but im more aiming this at the majority e.g. the ones who can work but would rather sit on their arses and pop out more kids. That also brings me to the point that we REALLY need a system that says you are only allowed 1 or 2 children while on benefits, its stupid that you almost get encouraged to have more kids even when you cant fend for your own child, its sickening that the system is flawed like that, you find the working class have to wait till their in 30s/40s to have a kid now but the people on benefits get paid to have them.

But the housing benefit changes that Cameron is mentioning is again him being a twonk, he may do some thinks right but from what i hear (is it reliable? ) he is terrible and still rather have the rich keeping their money and the working class either paying more tax or receiving less back.

Unfortunately there isn't a one size fits all solution and there will be bound to losers. But tackling those who choose to abuse the system is a must, but it's also about education from the way down and to value work and contribution to society, than lazyness. I am not voting for the conservatives this time round

[TooNice]

Oh, and as an aside - as a former benefits assessor, I can assure anyone who thinks they'll be better off on benefits that they won't. The system is designed to ensure that. If anyone has friends who plan on getting sacked so they can be better off on benefits, I'll happily do them a rough calculation to demonstrate how wrong they are. Or alternatively, if they're that daft and lazy, let them get sacked so someone more worthwhile can have their job

EDIT 2:
If you want to know the maximum housing benefit award for a single person aged under 35 in your area, go to https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/search.aspx , choose "Shared Accommodation" for the number of bedrooms, then enter your postcode or pick your local authority. It could be quite revealing...

I know someone who has done exactly that. According to the website, the maximum for him is £250 per week just on housing allowance. As I remember, that sounds about right.

That's £13k just for accommodation. I am not sure what other benefits he qualifies for, perhaps job seeker allowance? Correct me if I am wrong (I do not know how benefits work, since I have never claimed any), but wouldn't that be another £2.9k to 3.7k?

It's nothing glorious, you might even call it a pittance in London. As someone who has obtained a good ("useful") degree from a top University, I am sure he can earn more. But he now he has a lot more time and actually doing work compared to when he was working and sees it as a comfortable trade off (he admitted that it's "wrong" but but can't find the rational of spending that much time working when he is getting what he is getting). *Shrug*

[Unique]

when there are (how many? millions? hundreds of thousands?) people who do work full time but still can't afford to buy or rent a place of their own, or even move out of their parents house, why should people who don't work, don't pay taxes and already get money from benefits get to be able to do so?

the age of people being able to move out from their parents seems to be increasing, with so many people in their 30s not having moved out before, as low wages and high property values and rents have priced then out of the market. it's not just the rent/mortgage, but council tax and bills

so if working 30 year olds can't afford a place of their own, why should <25s get one funded by money paid in taxes by people who work full time and can't get their own place?

the whole system where girls can get knocked up, and their own home paid for them, plus benefits, without having to work, is just wrong. this could perhaps help resolve that problem, as perhaps if people have less benefits and more incentive to work for financial gain, they will do so at an earlier age, and by 25 be more responsible to get knocked up for a free house and benefits

[Unique]

I know someone who has done exactly that. According to the website, the maximum for him is £250 per week just on housing allowance. As I remember, that sounds about right.

That's £13k just for accommodation. I am not sure what other benefits he qualifies for, perhaps job seeker allowance? Correct me if I am wrong (I do not know how benefits work, since I have never claimed any), but wouldn't that be another £2.9k to 3.7k?

It's nothing glorious, you might even call it a pittance in London. As someone who has obtained a good ("useful") degree from a top University, I am sure he can earn more. But he now he has a lot more time and actually doing work compared to when he was working and sees it as a comfortable trade off (he admitted that it's "wrong" but but can't find the rational of spending that much time working when he is getting what he is getting). *Shrug*

i've known a few people with similar thoughts. the way they see it is, how much money will they get more than their benefits pay, then divide by the hours worked. so they will think along the lines of getting £20 more a week for 40 hours work, and then say "well, i'm not working for 50p an hour". one guy i know turned down a job starting at £18k moving to £20k after 6-12 months, because of a similar reason. he worked the minimum hours to get full benefits, his girlfriend didnt work in 20 years and they had 2 kids, home paid for etc. any extra money he got from small time gambling on horses, lottery etc was spent on stuff like LCDs, PS3s, computers etc. they had the full virgin tv, phone, internet package, sports channels etc. it was far from a live of poverty. no debts at all either as that lifestyle doesn't let you get credit. so he was better off financially than many full time workers, plus he only worked about 16 hours a week and had plenty time on his hands to enjoy his pursuits like snooker and going to the gym

[roachcoach]

Well, current data shows us spending more on benefits alone than we bring in via income tax...sounds pretty unsustainable to me.

In fact, I'll just link the charts from wiki, it's easier:

The charts are a year apart, but wont be a million miles away for comparison.


Expenses:


Income:

[petercook7]

Well, current data shows us spending more on benefits alone than we bring in via income tax...sounds pretty unsustainable to me.

In fact, I'll just link the charts from wiki, it's easier:

The charts are a year apart, but wont be a million miles away for comparison.

its easy to just say that but if you broke it down you'll be shocked at who gets 2 thirds of the money spent on welfare, i bet you didnt know that jsa accounts for less than 2% of the welfare bill. and the majority of HB payments are too people on low wages.
What about land subsidies paid to uk landowners? what about closing the tax loop holes, those too cost us billions a year.
Sorry but the conservatives have too go.

[roachcoach]

It's easy to say that because it's fact. The how why and wherefores of the reduction are not up to me though.

What is beyond question though, is that we are running a screwed up budget and it needs addressing. No one is prepared to face up to the hard questions and deal with them and any attempt by (any) government to do so is shouted down.

We're in **** so deep it might as well be a war, we should all be pulling together and grinding through this; instead we're like a bunch of small children shipwrecked on an island...

[petercook7]

It's easy to say that because it's fact. The how why and wherefores of the reduction are not up to me though.

What is beyond question though, is that we are running a screwed up budget and it needs addressing. No one is prepared to face up to the hard questions and deal with them and any attempt by (any) government to do so is shouted down.

We're in **** so deep it might as well be a war, we should all be pulling together and grinding through this; instead we're like a bunch of small children shipwrecked on an island...

There are ways to address it, but they are making choices that have high negative consequences. They seem to attack the poor and allow the rich to continue to profit.
One of the solutions is to stop foreign ownership of property, stop giving rich land owners money to keep there land unused, the queen does not need tax payers money, close tax loopholes, reduce foreign aid, do something to reduce rents like having rent controls with the power to fine if the properties are kept to a min standard.
Close the doors on those that do not hold British passorts from getting social homes.
And the reason why we are init was not because of the poor but due to the rich, plus the welfare bill has always been around the same for 50 years, with a 3 % increase in times like these.

[roachcoach]

Everything stopping spending has a negative consequence *somewhere*. Something most people seem unable, or are unwilling, to grasp.

Currently, it seems to me that most people in the country want everyone else to pay for it. I may be wrong, of course, but it is the overriding impression I'm getting: A vast sense of entitlement and an unwillingness to face up to hard truths.

Yes, it is difficult and no, it is not nice. But it is necessary. Unless we want to do a greece, without the sunshine.

[Hicks12]

It's funny how council places are better maintained than anything else, one block of flats has had ongoing work for about 6 months (scaffolding and all) just to paint it all pretty nice colours and wasting money on giving them all nice shiny railings for their balcony! Why do we continue to waste money on these things? Why not tell the occupants, here you are this is a tin of paint apply it yourself please.

They had 6 or so painters there all the time!. It didn't even look bad in the first place, our house looks like a **** hold in comparison now.

The problem with government is they take to long to do everything, they should have made massive changes at the start, now they are to busy thinking if we do harder cuts now no one will vote for us... Well I'm sorry to say I won't vote for them on the basis they lost their chance and it's between to wevils and so far labour looking like the lesser weavil again.

[petercook7]

Well i did a contract for a council for a few weeks ago well in March and out of the 200 properties I visited all residences were foreign and out of that 200 around 130 could not speak English, I had to visit with a translator.

[scaryjim]

I know someone who has done exactly that. According to the website, the maximum for him is £250 per week just on housing allowance. As I remember, that sounds about right.

Then he's not a single person under 35, is he To get an allowance anywhere near that he presumably has a couple of kids and a wife to keep, in which case chances are he would have qualified for tax credits and maybe some HB even when working (seriously - with that kind of rent allowance, a wife and two kids, he could have been earning in excess of £600 net per week and still qualified for some HB). Are you seriously telling me he'd have been better off on ~ £450 total benefits than on > £600 a week earned income?

... he worked the minimum hours to get full benefits, his girlfriend didnt work in 20 years and they had 2 kids, home paid for etc. ... so he was better off financially than many full time workers, plus he only worked about 16 hours a week and had plenty time on his hands to enjoy his pursuits like snooker and going to the gym

Assuming he declared that work (which it sounds like he did) any earning from it would be deducted from total maximum benefits. Any person with the same family situation working full time and receiving less money in wages would be entitled to tax credits, Housing Benefit (if renting) and Council Tax Benefit which would make their total income greater. And they could use a similar ploy of gambling carefully and not taking credit to avoid being and debt, leaving them financially better off through working (you don't have to borrow money just because you can ). Seriously - the system is designed so you don't end up with less money when working than if you didn't. The time issue is entirely different, but then you have to decide what your time is worth to you - if he could live comfortably off a small amount of part time earnings and the top-up benefits he received that's great - but that's a lifestyle matter more than a problem with the benefits system. He was obviously happier with more free time and less disposable income. Fair play to him.

Of course, if he didn't declare that work that's a different matter entirely...

Well, current data shows us spending more on benefits alone than we bring in via income tax...sounds pretty unsustainable to me.

Not really - the UK has always been a consumption tax economy. You seem quite happy to neglect the £142bn tax income from consumption-related taxes - almost as much as we generate in income tax. And people on benefits contribute to that just as much as working people - in fact moreso percentage-wise, because consumption taxes are inherently regressive.

[roachcoach]

Not really - the UK has always been a consumption tax economy. You seem quite happy to neglect the £142bn tax income from consumption-related taxes - almost as much as we generate in income tax. And people on benefits contribute to that just as much as working people - in fact moreso percentage-wise, because consumption taxes are inherently regressive.

Neglect is a tad strong, I also ignored the rest of spending for the comparison, income taxes vs welfare is a reasonable, if very simplistic comparison in my mind.

Frankly I'm afraid that so long as benefits remain a viable alternate to work as a permanent lifestyle choice I'm unlikely to change my belief they need to be cut to ribbons.

We've long since left the 'safety net' aspect behind

Don't worry though, the nation won't let it happen, they've proven that time & again

[petercook7]

Neglect is a tad strong, I also ignored the rest of spending for the comparison, income taxes vs welfare is a reasonable, if very simplistic comparison in my mind.

Frankly I'm afraid that so long as benefits remain a viable alternate to work as a permanent lifestyle choice I'm unlikely to change my belief they need to be cut to ribbons.

We've long since left the 'safety net' aspect behind

Don't worry though, the nation won't let it happen, they've proven that time & again

Have you thought that companies aren't paying a decent wage, and our JSA is the lowest in Europe? did you know that the government has to fork out £35 billion a year because wages don't cover living expenses. Did you know that land owners get paid to keep there land free, unused.
Did you know that going by historical data jsa is a lot lower in real terms.

[Zak33]

I think that this story is just another "shake the bottle, wake the drink" moment.... something less aggressive will be announced soon ...

there are loads of people who are working and earning by 18 ( I was) and by the time they're 24 they've been living away from home for years on their salary, AND have paid tax for all of that time. But getting a mortgage will be next to impossible so getting housing benefit on their rent will be tricky to cut out.

[Unique]

Assuming he declared that work (which it sounds like he did) any earning from it would be deducted from total maximum benefits. Any person with the same family situation working full time and receiving less money in wages would be entitled to tax credits, Housing Benefit (if renting) and Council Tax Benefit which would make their total income greater. And they could use a similar ploy of gambling carefully and not taking credit to avoid being and debt, leaving them financially better off through working (you don't have to borrow money just because you can ). Seriously - the system is designed so you don't end up with less money when working than if you didn't. The time issue is entirely different, but then you have to decide what your time is worth to you - if he could live comfortably off a small amount of part time earnings and the top-up benefits he received that's great - but that's a lifestyle matter more than a problem with the benefits system. He was obviously happier with more free time and less disposable income. Fair play to him.

Of course, if he didn't declare that work that's a different matter entirely....

yes he declared the work. i'm not sure what he was claiming exactly, and over the 15+ years he was doing it i'm sure he claimed for different things as the rules change and his personal circumstances changed. ie. 1 kid to 2 kids, etc

it was something along the lines of he had to work 16 hours or more, but the more he earned over a certain amount, say £100, his benefits would decrease by an amount. i'm not sure if it was the full amount or not. so when the NMW increased, he choose to work less hours instead, but within the rules. he just did the bare minimum of work to claim the maximum benefits

so for one fully grown man from his early 20s to his early 40s he literally worked part time and only about 16 hours a week, paying no tax or NI, his long term girlfriend never worked during the entire duration with the exception of her working 2 hours a day lunchbreak cover at a local school for a handful of weeks, giving it up as it "was too much for her" (i'm not sure if she has a registered disability due to her weight, she's a fat git but you've seen worse, and she certainly has no geniune illness that prevents her going to pubs and clubs). the pair of them basically worked the system for all they could. he was perfectly capable of doing a full time job, he was relatively fit so could have done manual work easily. she was just what we all refer to as "a lazy bastard", in the true sense of the phrase. absolutely genuine laziness, but she got away with it

he did do the odd bit of work cash in hand, but even then when offered some extra work at his job when they really really needed help and cover, he would refuse to do it as the snooker championship was on, or he had bingo to go to instead (he went to bingo with his mum every friday. not to be nice to his mum, but because he loved bingo, and he wouldn't come out with us on a friday night if he was going to the bingo, and that's how his priorities in life were)

he had an estimate that he would have needed to earn about £25k-£30k to make working worthwhile. but with his skillbase and not having worked full time in about 20 years, the chances of him being offered such a job/wage were slim. so when he turned down a job that could have given him £20k and a chance to improve himself and work his way up in a well known upmarket dept store, we couldn't believe it. we couldn't believe they would actually want to employ him in the first place