David Cameron suggets abolishing housing benefit for under 25's
- Thread starter Things change I've changed
- Start date
Exactly as above, dont hammer those that want to contribute, that kills morale. Some people are beyond encouragement, if they dont want to work, dont make it easy for them by supplying money to waste on cigarrettes, alcohol etc, give them vouchers for food, electricity etc.
DLA schemes should be similar, instead of giving a choice, a specific model and colour of car should be given out. Imagine the savings when servicing, parts and buying power could be planned in advance, it would also stop family members using it for social and business.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,511
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
Despite being under 25 myself, this doesn't bother me too much for some reason. Even though I feel it should xD
It's clearly a way to save money, but I'm not sure how it works. In an odd way, I feel like it would be much better if they just attempted to improve the way housing benefit is distributed, and make it more fair, rather than just blanket excluding a set group. That said, I do feel that more people could happily stay at home if they needed. I realise there are some exceptional circumstances, but more 25 yr olds, could clearly stay at home...
I myself am considering sticking at home and saving up a deposit etc... It's just that there are clearly some people who will not be able to due to parental/family situations...
It should be aimed, as others have said, at rewarding those who work hard, and penalising those who do **** all...
kd
It's clearly a way to save money, but I'm not sure how it works. In an odd way, I feel like it would be much better if they just attempted to improve the way housing benefit is distributed, and make it more fair, rather than just blanket excluding a set group. That said, I do feel that more people could happily stay at home if they needed. I realise there are some exceptional circumstances, but more 25 yr olds, could clearly stay at home...
I myself am considering sticking at home and saving up a deposit etc... It's just that there are clearly some people who will not be able to due to parental/family situations...
It should be aimed, as others have said, at rewarding those who work hard, and penalising those who do **** all...
kd
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,126
- Location
- Shepley
So if you are 26 you get HB, but if you are 24 you do not, even if your circumstances are the same!
Sure, that makes sense.
There has to be an arbitrary cut off somewhere, like all things in life.
I've said it loads in this thread, there's no right to housing. People should not have their money taken by force and given to other people.
It's theirs though - who is anyone else to say it should be taken from them?
Perhaps, but personally, I don't think that'll be the case.
Well if that's your counter argument...
Have you ever visited the United States?....levels of homelessness and the relative life expectancy compared to people in similar circumstances but in DHHS housing programs is significant.
Simply relying on inadequate provision of NGOs to support social care goes against the very precepts of a fair society in my opinion.
Another retarded idea by Cameron, no surprise there!!!!
What about care leavers? They will be homeless at 18 as they can no longer be in foster or children's homes, good plan to kick already vulnerable young people, Tories make me sick, I hope Cameron gets assassinated!
What about care leavers? They will be homeless at 18 as they can no longer be in foster or children's homes, good plan to kick already vulnerable young people, Tories make me sick, I hope Cameron gets assassinated!
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Many in the Tory party consider Cameron to be a left-wing wet. Just think how extreme the Tories would be if they didn't have to put up with the Liberal Democrats 
My views on the matter have already been expressed by others in the thread, generally speaking the man is just a little arse. That is all.
A fair society does not work sadly as it takes all sides to be fair and the reality is in many circumstances that simply isn't the case. We have bred a culture of people who feel they are entitled to 'things' without effort on their behalf and those of us who have a different outlook have become tired of this. Now sadly there are also people who are fighting hard to survive and work but are finding it very hard but as I said, a fair society does not work and time has come to realise this and address the problem, at both ends of the scale be it mums with 18 kids at 12 years of age or businessmen with £5 per year tax bills and £555M take home per day.
So who pays for your education, health care, municipal services, defence, policing, and all the other things that your money is taken by force (what normal people call Taxes) pays for......
Nice society, one based purely on your ability to pay for basic needs such as housing, education, medical care, and so on......not!
Except you do not do that by removing help to the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.......and we should be working towards a fairer society, not simply saying 'I can't be bothered, I'd rather pay less taxes so I can afford a new BMW'
Just because a minority of people take advantage of a system doesn't mean you remove the support from everyone using arbitrary demarckations such as age groups.
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,442
- Location
- The Orion Spur
I'm really not sure how you surmised that from what I wrote, but anyhow, no, I believe the burden is on us, the nation and society as a whole to help the vulnerable, we are all in this together, we shouldn't penalise those that are genuinely vulnerable because of others that choose to abuse the system.
Yes, because if for example you happen to be thrown out of your home with no job what choice do you have as it is effectively illegal to make shelter anywhere so yes I believe the government do have an obligation to shelter these vulnerable people.
How about we abolish the NHS and use this philosophy for medical care also? why should you pay into the pot for other peoples medical care that doesn't match your pay-grade.
Last edited:
No there doesn't.....it can be addressed by individual circumstances, it doesn't have to be arbitrary at all.
If they are going to remove HB from everyone under 25 then why should anyone under 25 get any financial assistance at all, for anything.....according to some in this thread it is effectively stealing my money and giving to someone else after all, why should I support your education, your healthcare, and so on.....if you or your Parents can't afford to educate you, tough...if you can't afford the insulin for your diabetes...tough...it's not my problem I can afford all these things for my family. You basically only deserve what you or your family can afford to pay for, can't afford the costs of a full secondary school education, thats ok, you will simply have to make do with what you can afford.
Frankly I don't want to live in such a selfish society and would rather society guarantees a minimum standard of living with effective programs and education that engenders encouragement and incentives for people so that they can gain the tools they need to be self sufficent......removing support on such arbitrary criteria as age group is unfair and doesn't address the issues at all, it simply creates more.
Last edited:
So are parents now going to be obliged to keep kids until they're 25? What's going to happen to 18 year olds who are booted out by their parents?
In all honesty I'm tempted to go with Cameron on this one. We pay a staggering amount for useless sacks of meat to breed and be housed. If the parents fail to raise kids as a child who can cope with life then it should be the parents not society in general that has to deal with the problem. Once they reach 25 then the parents can give up, but until then I'm all for forcing parents to deal with their spawn.
On the other hand.... some people are doomed from birth. If you're born to unemployed parents then what chance do you have? So we do need some kind of programme to break the cycle, to get involved and stop the underclasses breeding more underclass and to give people a chance at life.
Typical of the Tories though they do the stick but they don't deal with the problem.
In all honesty I'm tempted to go with Cameron on this one. We pay a staggering amount for useless sacks of meat to breed and be housed. If the parents fail to raise kids as a child who can cope with life then it should be the parents not society in general that has to deal with the problem. Once they reach 25 then the parents can give up, but until then I'm all for forcing parents to deal with their spawn.
On the other hand.... some people are doomed from birth. If you're born to unemployed parents then what chance do you have? So we do need some kind of programme to break the cycle, to get involved and stop the underclasses breeding more underclass and to give people a chance at life.
Typical of the Tories though they do the stick but they don't deal with the problem.
So who do you define as the poorest and most vulnerable, surely not under 25 year olds with their life ahead of them? It is broken today, it needs action, simply telling people what can't happen gets us nowhere, if you have a better approach table it.
But it also means you don't address the problem. People have said 'you can't' for years, they did it with the minimum wage for example but sometimes you have to take radical action to address problems no matter how distasteful people might believe it to be.
What if the only job you could get wasn't a commutable distance from your parents house. What if you could get no job at all, then your parents are out of pocket. What if your parents kick you out, or you want to move out before your mid twenties. Most people I know finishing uni now really wouldn't want to be forced to move in with there parents again.
No, I don't think this is a good idea. But we do need to do more to stop people abusing the system
I think a lot of people in this thread either live with their parents still or live in social housing..
Once you actually start having to pay for a house you'll understand that free housing is a joke and completely support this idea.
Once you actually start having to pay for a house you'll understand that free housing is a joke and completely support this idea.
If you said that on a US forum about their president and you were in the US you'd be getting a visit by the secret service. No joke, its happened.
http://gawker.com/5507786/what-happens-when-you-tweet-obama-death-threats
I doubt that happens over here, but nonetheless, at the very least using such extreme language makes you sound childish and will not convince anyone of your point of view.
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,442
- Location
- The Orion Spur
Out of interest are you against the idea of social housing?