David Cameron suggets abolishing housing benefit for under 25's

If housing is for the "most vulnerable", how do you explain that half of Sheffield is basically a council estate.

There's 5 million people claiming housing benefit in the UK!
 
Castiel said:
levels of homelessness and the relative life expectancy
Click to expand...

Ah, government is the answer then. Wait, no... how many hundred billion dollars is being spent on military? That money is being taken by force (taxes, for you normal people), it is being ripped out of the economy and spent however their trusty government feels it should be, which clearly ISN'T on helping the homeless.

Life expectancy is a funny one... I'm not sure how those stats are gathered so I can't really comment too much. I did however saw a TED talk (speakers corner, video thread) where a guy used life expectancy in correlation with the gap in wealth between the rich and the poor to help prove his point. Of course Japan came out on top and the USA on the bottom... but can that not be purely attributed to diet alone? :p

Castiel said:
Simply relying on inadequate provision of NGOs to support social care goes against the very precepts of a fair society in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Not relying upon them goes against the idea of a fair and free society in my opinion.
 
It should be abolished. There should be a minimum threshold of tax until you unlock any any state held, probably best to exclude education from that & NHS.

I see anything else as a luxury that should be earned.
 
jsmoke said:
Two words, vote Labour.
Click to expand...

No.

---

The average age of an unassisted first time buyer is in their 30s.

Why? Is it possible that all the housing is going to underclass families who spread themselves out every time they breed?

Someone mentioned a minority of people abusing the system. I'd say it's the vast majority. If you're under 25 and you're claiming housing support then unless you have no parents you're abusing it.
 
I'm not normally one to agree with David Cameron but I don't think this is the most retarded idea by a long way. The government coffers have no money and cuts need to be made somewhere. I don't really see the problem in encouraging young people who are able to live with their parents to do so. I've no problem with housing benefit for those who need it.

Taking it away from everyone is not the answer but neither is letting things carry on the way they are at the moment.
 
I dont see how age matters here? Its the circumstances that should matter more! It doesnt change much if you are homeless at 22 or homeless at 26 does it now? You are stll homeless and you need help l.

These crying about your taxes being wasted on these people.. cmon wake up they will be wasted on something else anyway :-)
 
grudas said:
I dont see how age matters here? Its the circumstances that should matter more! It doesnt change much if you are homeless at 22 or homeless at 26 does it now? You are stll homeless and you need help l.
Click to expand...
Homeless my arse. Homeless because they know the council will provide? If they have parents they have no reason to be homeless - not unless the parents have been struck off for being abusive etc.

grudas said:
These crying about your taxes being wasted on these people.. cmon wake up they will be wasted on something else anyway :-)
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
steve-h said:
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.
Click to expand...

There should be a right to housing. Or at the very least shelter. Only the greedy would want to keep all their money to themselves.

It's theirs though - who is anyone else to say it should be taken from them?
Click to expand...

The principle that no person should have to suffer needlessly. It's not as if you're being robbed of all your wages - and even if you are in the higher tax bands, then you're not exactly living on scraps.

Perhaps, but personally, I don't think that'll be the case.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately evidence suggests that it will be, and that many people will suffer and even die as a result.


The Halk said:
Someone mentioned a minority of people abusing the system. I'd say it's the vast majority. If you're under 25 and you're claiming housing support then unless you have no parents you're abusing it.
Click to expand...

Yes, because everyone lives in perfect family units with parents who can afford to support their adult children. You clearly live in a fantasy world.
 
Labour is the party that made the complete mess of fiscal policy in the uk which grew into this complete joke of a welfare state in the first place.
 
Gackt said:
There should be a right to housing. Or at the very least shelter. Only the greedy would want to keep all their money to themselves.
Click to expand...
A right to shelter - yes. That's not what's at question here though.



Gackt said:
The principle that no person should have to suffer needlessly. It's not as if you're being robbed of all your wages - and even if you are in the higher tax bands, then you're not exactly living on scraps.
Click to expand...
Socialist wordplay and justification to take someone's money to give it to someone else. What is suffering? "I have to live with my parents and we only have a 2 bedroom semi and I have to share with my brother and now I'm pregnant you'll have to give me a house."

And the higher tax bands? That's it, if you can afford it then the socialists will take it from you.

Gackt said:
Unfortunately evidence suggests that it will be, and that many people will suffer and even die as a result.
Click to expand...
Evidence people will die? Really? I don't think you're telling the truth here - or are you trying to say that withdrawal of housing benefit will force people to live on the streets and die? :rolleyes:
 
Buy to let landlords and lack of social housing is the reason housing benefit is at the obscene levels its at now anyway.

Rents in the south east are absolutely ridiculous. 2 bedroom flat for an entire months wages at minimum wage? Yeah that system is working out really well.
 
lowrider007 said:
Testicles.

You can't assume that as an absolute across the board, that's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I have assumed it. There are of course exceptions, but the initial position should be the parents are responsible. Exceptions would be as I have mentioned further up the thread - if the parents are deemed unsuitable. Otherwise it's the parents responsibility not societies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom