Housing benefit for under-25s could be scrapped, PM to announce
Quote:
David Cameron is to set out plans to scrap housing benefit for the under-25s, in a speech that will make clear pensioners are to be protected from a second wave of welfare reform.
The government wants to cut as much as £10bn from the welfare budget by 2016, and is looking at setting regional benefit levels and cutting benefits from striking workers. Cameron and the Treasury set the £10bn target for new welfare cuts in last year's autumn statement and the PM will go into detail in a speech on Monday.
The chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, distanced the Liberal Democrats from the plans, though stopped short of denouncing them. He described them as Cameron's own plans and argued the coalition's priority should be to bed in universal credit – the new single working-age benefit due to be introduced from 2014.
Both the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, and the Liberal Democrats have been highlighting middle class welfare, such as the universal access to winter fuel payments, as a better target. But Cameron believes he made commitments to the electorate not to touch pensioner benefits, and would suffer electorally if he dumped them now – even if he delayed the changes until after the next election.
He has pointed privately to the experience of Tony Blair, who suffered politically when he promised not to introduce changes to tuition fees, but then legislated for such a change on the basis that it would not come into force until after the next election.
Instead, he will propose that 380,000 people under 25 are stripped of housing benefit and forced to join the growing number of young adults who still live with their parents. He will make exemptions for those that have been victims of domestic violence. The savings – which will mean an average loss per person of around £90 per week – are likely to be in the order of £1.8bn.
Labour accepts that the housing benefit budget is out of control and last week the party welcomed proposals of cuts from the left-of-centre thinktank the IPPR, but in the contest of a massive housebuilding programme.
In an interview with the Mail on Sunday, Cameron argued: "We are spending nearly £2bn on housing benefit for under-25s – a fortune. We need a bigger debate about welfare and what we expect of people. The system currently sends the signal you are better off not working, or working less.
''A couple will say, 'We are engaged, we are both living with our parents, we are trying to save before we get married and have children and be good parents. But how does it make us feel, Mr Cameron, when we see someone who goes ahead, has the child, gets the council home, gets the help that isn't available to us?''
"One is trapped in a welfare system that discourages them from working, the other is doing the right thing and getting no help."
Asked if he would take action against large families paid large sums in benefits, he replied: "This is a difficult area but it is right to pose questions about it. At the moment the system encourages people not to work and have children, but we should help people to work and have children."
Cameron also wants more done to cut jobseeker's allowance for those refusing to seek work actively. The government has already tightened up requirements in this area, but the PM wants to go further. "We aren't even asking them, 'Have you got a CV ready to go? '" Cameron said.
He is also looking at restricting child benefit to those who have more than three children and forcing a small minority of unemployed people – an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 – to take part in community work if they fail or refuse to find work or training after two years.
Awful. Just awful. What about people with disabilites who rely on their indapendance? It's not their fault they can't work. There are so many issuse with this
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality
I think it'd be better to wait and see the full announcement and details before making any conclusions. There is also the problem of getting it through a vote and the Lords first.
i worry all about these new benefits reforms this is awful , but we have to wait and see what happens with the vote and it going through the lords
you never know it might be rejected .
Stop Cruelty To All Beings Including Yourself
Omniniest -A Person Does Not Believe In Any Religion or Practice or Belief But Finds Truth In them All
While I agree with protecting the elderly, it should not be at the expense of the young. Both sections of society are the most vulnerable and given the current climate it's getting worse and worse for young people in Britain.
Don't be fooled, they're not protecting the elderly because it's the right thing to do, the elderly tend to vote Tory, it's complete self interest.
I'd go into the expected rant about the rich staying rich at the expense of the poor but it IS the Tories we're talking about here, why the shock?
Everyone gets shafted unless you're mates with them.
While I agree with protecting the elderly, it should not be at the expense of the young. Both sections of society are the most vulnerable and given the current climate it's getting worse and worse for young people in Britain.
Don't be fooled, they're not protecting the elderly because it's the right thing to do, the elderly tend to vote Tory, it's complete self interest.
I'd go into the expected rant about the rich staying rich at the expense of the poor but it IS the Tories we're talking about here, why the shock?
Everyone gets shafted unless you're mates with them.
They are not even protecting the elderly, there are cuts to the sevices that help the elderly like day centers and stuff like that, EVERYONE is getting attacked apart from the fatcats in big business.
They are not even protecting the elderly, there are cuts to the sevices that help the elderly like day centers and stuff like that, EVERYONE is getting attacked apart from the fatcats in big business.
You do realise that not everyone in "big business" vote Conservative, right? Labour, as well as other smaller parties like the SNP (traditionally quite leftist in its economic policy) are funded and supported by some of the richest people in the country. It's a bit simplistic (and rather untrue) to infer that it is the fault of the Conservative Party (let's not mention the Liberal Democrat's part in this, eh?) for the way the country's finances are.
We are living in a country that is trying not to turn out like Greece, or Spain (like not too many years ago when we were *coughunderalabourgovernmentcough*). Everyone is taking hits. Yes, these hits will hit the poor, but they will also, arguably, be hitting the middle classes hardest.
At the moment someone under thirty-five is not going to get Housing Benefit for anything more than a bedsit or a room in shared accommodation. To me, that seems fair. I think the proposed changes could be thought out and developed more before being released, perhaps make it under twenty-one years old instead. But people will do what they have to do, and it shouldn't be up to any government to support you.
Last edited by The One Who : 25-06-2012 at 11:10 AM.
The problem with the benefit cuts are they seem to be attacking the people that actually need them, while saying its all about weeding out the scroungers and making sure they people that need it get help its not really.
"Its not how long a star shines, what is remembered is the brightness of the light"
^ That will always be the case though. It's unfortunate, and I don't agree with all of what is happening, but I don't think anyone can deny that there is a massive problem with the welfare system and that it needs to be changed.
Location: third star from the right and straight on until morning
I am currently:
how about forcing the privat rented landlords to charge a reasonable price for the rents? when i lived in dudly i had a HUGE two bedroom flat for £80 a week... i moved im not in ONE room thats £100 a WEEK how bout they sort that out first? i doubt anyone under the age of 20 would ever chose to be out of home... there are curcumstances where you simply have no other choice.....
how about forcing the privat rented landlords to charge a reasonable price for the rents?
Private landlords (as with most private companies) will charge what the market will pay; if they price a property too high, they'll struggle to let it out, and if they price it too low then they'll lose out on income. What is "reasonable" will depend on a lot of factors, such as location, facilities, etc.
The bit at the end about child benefits being only for people with three children bugs me quite a lot. I can think of people who i know that would never work for. Yes, i know a man who claimed child benefit for a child who didnt even live with him and should have been stopped from doing that, but in some cases its just necessary.
A single parent, two growing children, minimum wage job.... They struggle as it is
He was no longer jean valjean but no. 24601 -les miserable
Some of life's mysteries will never be solved, such as why, after spending an entire evening listenong to Bach, do I find myself humming "the birdie song".......
I am reaching, but i fall, and the stars are black and cold, as i stare into the void of a world that cannot hold- les miserables
But that goes to the issue don't have kids you cant afford to look after, they want to stop it for family's that choose to have more than three children they cant afford to look after. Its not to stop for familes where the parents work, its for those who are unemployed and dont want to work. And to be honest if you cant afford to look after a child people shouldnt have them, a child does not deserve to be brought up in poverty.
It doesnt matter what happens, the changes are going to affect those who need them the most, the genuine cases while the people who scrounge will keep on scrounging.
"Its not how long a star shines, what is remembered is the brightness of the light"
Fair enough if its for families who arent even trying to earn money. But when they had the children they were married and had the money, they didnt know they wouldnt be able to manage in future
He was no longer jean valjean but no. 24601 -les miserable
Some of life's mysteries will never be solved, such as why, after spending an entire evening listenong to Bach, do I find myself humming "the birdie song".......
I am reaching, but i fall, and the stars are black and cold, as i stare into the void of a world that cannot hold- les miserables
Im not keen on the new jobseekers, i do feel jobseekers at the moment is very lax and no one bothers checking if you have applied for jobs or not, and there minimum of 3 steps a week is far too low. But they expect people to look for jobs 9-5 which is impossible really, after you have looked and applied for all you can you need a wait a few days for more jobs to appear. Its why the job hunting courses never worked because after the first day there was nothing to apply for until a few days had passed.
"Its not how long a star shines, what is remembered is the brightness of the light"
I am so worried about all this my partner is unemployed and im a full time mother he helps me look after my daughter, its enough grief as it is trying to find jobs and survive of benefits let alone the cost of childcare then they just cut everything trying to leave people with nothing! Then again i can see where they are coming from in the respect of people being too picky about what jobs they want to do and avoiding working at all possible costs! They need to make it easier for people to find the work they want to do in my opinion.
Last edited by nellasfelagund1988 : 25-06-2012 at 05:10 PM.
Reason: wanted to add more to it andshow my new signature
Location: third star from the right and straight on until morning
I am currently:
im not sure if anyone else had this but i was actraully being paid an extra £60 a month as a thank you for not using my full housing benifit allowence even with my stupidly hiugh rent! i never udnerstood this that was pretty much someone else rent for a week! they stoped it in erm... march i think? anyone else had this happen?
About Child Benefit, it's funny, in France you get nothing for the first child and only start receiving after your second, presumably because with two you are sustaining the current population of the country. If you have a third (or more) child your money increases.
This might be a really simple question but... what if the parents wont take them back?
Not everyone has the luxury of being able to live with their parents. What will happen to the thousands of young people who've left home due to family breakup, the domestic situation, parents having problems with alcohol/drugs, etc? If they can't return, they're struggling with finding a job, yet the government wont support them it's going to lead to thousands being forced onto the streets. Which ultimately is going to cost the government a lot more in the long term to fix especially if those homeless young people then fall into drugs or crime.
I fear this is short sightedness which will result in higher costs later on down the line.
Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money.
They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with.
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
