They do not, but I agree that they will. People do not have a problem having government taking people's private property via threat, sadly.
Charity.
David Cameron suggets abolishing housing benefit for under 25's
- Thread starter Things change I've changed
- Start date
They do not, but I agree that they will. People do not have a problem having government taking people's private property via threat, sadly.
Charity.
This has to be some sort of sick joke. Not everyone under the age of 25 has a choice to stay with parents or even have family (I know I never I spent my younger years in foster care and was told had to live on my own at age of 15 as they needed the space for other children). Also People seem to forget some working people also get benefits.
Dont matter who run the the uk they all seem to make a mess of it but I do hope that Ed Milliband gets in next time lesser of 2 idiots in my mind.
Dont matter who run the the uk they all seem to make a mess of it but I do hope that Ed Milliband gets in next time lesser of 2 idiots in my mind.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,127
- Location
- Shepley
I'm not a big fan of Cameron but I work with a number of "vulnerable" people and they have been an enormous challenge to my existing liberal values. I used to think all this stuff about people getting pregnant at 21 and taking the **** out of the benefits system was conservative propaganda but so many of these people exist it's scary.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,506
How much is paid in housing benefits to the under25s currently i wonder?
Catch a grip. Vulnerable people should be cared for, not dumped into a house when they can barely look after themselves never mind a house and the associated worries. My wife has an uncle in this position, everything stresses him out, so much so that he has to have injections regularly to chill him out. They have put him in a flat in the middle of a housing estate when he would admit himself that he should really be in a development which gives better care. His flat is a mess, doesnt get hoovered etc unless a relative calls round etc. Some folks do need full time assistance.
Dont call me clueless, I know exactly how some people require help from the state. I am not saying they should not receive it. I am saying that instead of making it easier on anyone to quit trying and just take a handout, make it awkward socially for them so that they want to get back onto the rungs to a productive life. If you genuinely need assistance, you wont care how that comes, as long as you dont go hungry.
So get that inside your thick 'quick to judge' skull.
Hang on, working people pay Tax and National insurance, getting working benefits equates to paying a little less tax/NI. They are not taking handouts really, at least they are still contributing to the pot.
There's a massive lack of personal responsibility, it's not even surprising.
Why bother doing things for yourself, just get the "rich" to pay, they have load of money! Wee free money!
omg they have seven kids! they need somewhere to live! let's steal people's money from them so we can buy them a house!
Last edited:
If people under 25 want to setup on their own and run a household with their own money then they should be given every assistance. Likewise young people coming from the existing childcare system.
If people under 25 want to breed meal tickets and free housing and see exploiting every flaw in the benefits system as a valid career option then screw them. This is a nail in the coffin of the entitlement culture and i hope to see more soon.
If people under 25 want to breed meal tickets and free housing and see exploiting every flaw in the benefits system as a valid career option then screw them. This is a nail in the coffin of the entitlement culture and i hope to see more soon.
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,442
- Location
- The Orion Spur
What do you mean housing isn't a right?, everybody should have the right to shelter, the problem is we are born into a world where every form of shelter is owned by everybody else, your not allowed to just find a piece of land and start making a shelter, that is illegal, it is pretty much illegal to be out of the system because wherever you rest your head you'll probably be breaking the law, so the government do have an obligation to house the vulnerable overwise there would be anarchy.
And what about people like myself that were chucked out at 16? what about younger people living in abusive homes?, what happens to a younger couple that has a breakup or loses their job/s?
This proposal is based on the premise that everyone can actually stay at home when that is far from the truth.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,127
- Location
- Shepley
This is a very good way of summing it up, I'm all for a helping hand but, let's face it, the current system goes way beyond that.
That doesn't mean you should take away the help from other people who genuinely require help just because there's a problem with morons in the system. If I suggested banning alcohol because of alcoholics and the related problems, people would say I was crazy and that the responsible shouldn't be punished because of the irresponsible.
Simply cutting benefits won't make these morons suddenly 'wake up', but what it'll certainly do is harm vulnerable people and the unfortunate.
That wasn't the reason.
You obviously care about these people and wish to support them, so I'm sure people like yourself will be more than willing to pay into charities aimed at helping them.
Do you think that if government stops forcefully taking money from people to give to these other people, they'll just be homeless and die?
There is no perfect answer, leaving everything as it is though, is wrong.
if someone finds themselves out of the family home at 16 (or any age under 18), they are still minors and should be looked after in some form of care facility. I do not dispute that.
Right to housing in the context of " I want a house, council, give me a house".
For a young person that maybe had a home and lost it, that is for them to sort, if it means swallowing pride and going back home for a while, so be it, responsible parenting doesnt end when their children hit 18 so some responsibility still stays at their doorstep.
It is funny that something as simple as this sounds so out there in these days of kid glove mentality.
So you agree then? You definitely do not have the right to make other people pay to house you.
I'm sorry, I don't see how you made the leap... you can't "rest your head" on other people's property - so government should take money from people via force in order to house the people who do not have a house? How is that fair or moral in the slightest?
Charity is a thing. People care about the well-being of young people, do they not?
Things i'd support are free nursery places for children of students, shared ownership schemes for young people getting on the property ladder, government pays the deposit on mortgages, schemes where employers don't pay NI for young employees, free training for young employees, free nursery places for children of young workers, free public transport for young people to get them to work and back....anything to encourage young people to contribute to society, and get them on the property ladder.
Paying people, encouraging them, to not work and to use their ample spare time to breed further drains on society is not sustainable.
Paying people, encouraging them, to not work and to use their ample spare time to breed further drains on society is not sustainable.
Last edited:
This, I think its a good idea.
Given that's pretty much what happens in other countries that don't have strong social welfare programmes (e.g. USA), why do you think it wouldn't happen here?
People have short memories, the homelessness problem in the UK was appalling in the '80s and '90s, and was one of the reasons why housing benefit was brought. Sure, it didn't solve the problem of homelessness and it is abused, but I don't see how introducing an arbitrary age limit will help the country at all. All I can see is further regression for UK society, it's just another coalition attack on the young.
Forgive me, then, what is the reason?
No, but it allows the morally bankrupt to hoard their money as if the paltry tax amount takes all their money or something.
Although I'd like to think that those who care about vulnerable people would continue to donate through charities, I imagine a lot of people won't 'get round' to doing it. Charity also has a limited scope as compared to the state itself.
There's no reason to stop housing benefits for under 25s. As if they don't have a need for housing.
Perhaps trying to tackle the actual problems would help rather than to just 'cut losses' and abandon it. There are plenty of social reasons to be looked at, as well as the poorly organised and managed benefit system and a failing economy which the Conservatives are pretty much useless at solving.