Radical benefits shake-up

TBH I'm from a 'not-well-off' background but I totally agree with this stance on benefits.

The issue with the no housing for under 25s is that they'll make exceptions for the ***** that lay on their backs, hoping to get pregnant for a council house. Then some clever muppet will start bleating that it's unfair on the males and launch a lawsuit under sexism laws and it'll all be repealed and we'll be back at square 1.
 
Resident said:
TBH I'm from a 'not-well-off' background but I totally agree with this stance on benefits.

The issue with the no housing for under 25s is that they'll make exceptions for the ***** that lay on their backs, hoping to get pregnant for a council house. Then some clever muppet will start bleating that it's unfair on the males and launch a lawsuit under sexism laws and it'll all be repealed and we'll be back at square 1.
Click to expand...

They are saying that under 25a do not have the same rights as those over 25, clear age discrimination.
 
They should have done this sooner, I've thought for years benefits should be capped to two children. What about men who have a whole string of babies with different women though?
 
matdom said:
Tories unelectable, they are out in the next election.
Click to expand...

I think you'll be taken aback and surprised on how popular these benefits cuts will be.

There was some poor diddum complaining that they're getting cut down to £500 per week! About ****ing time!
 
matdom said:
Tories unelectable, they are out in the next election.
Click to expand...

Apparently this is proving extremely popular as well as helping reign in spending.

I have mixed views on it. On the one hand I don't want to see children affected by the changes but on the other hand it's about time that having a large family on benefits wasn't easier than having a large family and holding down a job.

On balance, as this wouldn't apply retrospectively, I think it's a welcome move.
 
The people at the top constantly moaning about the average age to first buy and then they limit people under 25's independence by propsing this: "He also proposed under-25's to be denied housing benefits". I agree with everything else however. I personally don't believe that people being unemployed for no reason at all should be getting any luxuries over people working. Personally, I'm fed up of sitting on my ass I've been doing it all my school life, I'm ready to get into the working world :p
 
Its still capped at well above minimum wage, so nothing but a public opinion policy.
If they're going to do it, have the balls to do it properly.
Still i suppose its a tiny shuffle in the right direction.
Capped at the same as a 26k job is insane, that's a well paid job.
 
cjgardens said:
Way to much. Does that include the housing benefit?

That 500 a week is more than 2 working people on minimum wage, why would they get a job?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course it includes Housing Benefit, and that is the whole point, most of that money the claimant doesn't even see, it goes to pay private landlords...who are the ones raking it in off your tax money.

So what would you suggest is the solution, because if there was an easy one it would be done, rather than this stupid cap which will save the most miniscule amount of money (iirc the data said this cap will affect a few thousand people only) and is purely political to appeal to the likes of you guys rather than address the problem at hand.
 
Is this a net £25k?

Regardless, the real problem is that benefits have increased due to rental escallation which has in part been driven by house price inflation. I would imagine that this has pushed up the benefit bill more than any other factor. Granted that the rental increases are a self driven problem as council tennants can often afford to outbid employed renters, therefore increasing returns for the owners and therefore increasing house prices...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom