Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

More reforms to the Housing Benefit on the way?

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    New welfare clampdown could axe housing benefit from under-25s
    People aged under 25 could be stripped of housing benefit payments in a new drive for welfare reforms to be launched by David Cameron this week.

    The Prime Minister will use a speech in south-east England tomorrow to outline future radical changes which are aimed at saving an extra £10 billion by 2016 on top of existing plans.

    Ministers expect this “next wave” of benefit cuts to include the axing of all housing benefit currently paid to around 380,000 people aged under 25. Such a move would force many to move back in with their parents rather than living independently.

    A source close to the Treasury told The Sunday Telegraph: “ We are always looking at bringing in changes which make work pay. No10 – quite rightly – wants radical reform proposals.”

    Another controversial reform which could come in further down the line is setting benefit payments regionally – which would mean less money going to claimants who live in less-expensive parts of the country.

    Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, raised the prospect of making this change earlier this year. At the moment, although housing benefit is set according to local rent levels, all other benefits, including Jobseeker’s Allowance, are paid at the same rate in all parts of the UK.

    Some Tory MPs say the current system is unfair – with differing “incentives” on people to seek work depending on where they live. Liberal Democrats, however, would be likely to oppose any such changes.

    In the Budget, delivered in March, George Osborne, the Chancellor, sprang a surprise on Mr Duncan Smith by effectively ordering him to cut £10 billion more from welfare by 2016 on top of the £18 billion his department has already pledged to achieve by 2014.

    Sources close to Mr Duncan Smith, who was Tory leader between 2001 and 2003, hit back by suggesting that savings could be made by means testing benefits currently paid to all pensioners, which include winter fuel allowances, free TV licences and free bus travel.

    However, Mr Cameron is understood to have ruled such changes out, citing a promise he made in the last general election campaign to protect such universal payments to the elderly.

    There are currently tensions between No10 and Mr Duncan Smith’s department – although all sides are united on the overall purpose of the reforms: to insure nobody loses financially from going to work rather than remaining on benefit.

    Mr Cameron’s speech will be the latest example of senior Conservatives pursuing a deliberately Tory agenda, following recent interventions from leading ministers on Europe, immigration, the replacement for Britain’s future Trident nuclear deterrent and moves to deal with “problem families”.

    The aim is to boost Tory morale – and to achieve an opinion poll boost – by pursuing a “differentiation” strategy which risks alienating the Lib Dems. Since the Budget, which sparked several embarrassing U-turns, Labour have opened up a big lead over the Conservatives in the polls.

    In an intervention earlier this year, the Prime Minister said his overall aim in reforming welfare was to stop people “languishing on the dole and dependency”.

    Source
    I wonder if this will go through this time round.

    I wonder if implemented whether this would perpetuate the homeless crisis going on in UK or whether it would create a new phenomenon of "mama's boys" like you see in Italy where it is rather common to find 35 year olds still living with mama.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well the housing benefit rate was dropped last month and now the landlord is going absolutely mad over it - not just my landlord but next door's as well. It is set to drop again in September.
    • 17 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    What a joke. Especially for those who come from certain areas of the country where jobs are even rarer. You hear the right wing press all the time go on about how the unemployed should move to where there are jobs. But if this is pushed through, that will be pretty much impossible and it is likely they would be forced to go back to where they are from.

    Also, I like how it ignores the fact a large number of people who are on housing benefit actually work. So are they suggesting they will force people to give up jobs and go back on the dole?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Ridiculous. Unless I get the job I've possibly been offered, I may have to move to find work. But how can I when the government won't give me housing benefit? It'll work out cheaper than paying me JSA until / if I ever find a job down here.
    • 48 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Generally areas with high employment have higher rents :beard: Clearly he wishes to see the UK overtake Spain's youth unemployment rate.

    Oh well, if one positive can come from this, I can see labour easily winning the next election.
    • Thread Starter
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zedbrar)
    Oh well, if one positive can come from this, I can see labour easily winning the next election.
    Except it is most likely the case that the policy will remain regardless of who is in power.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The sheer horror! 18 to 25 year olds with no dependant children that have the ability to move back home, yet spend above their means are denied parasitical tax loot from the state that is expected to foot the bill for self-entitlement that is beyond their own affordability.

    Self responsibility is a social construct.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I cant see this going through personally.
    • 17 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FluxD)
    The sheer horror! 18 to 25 year olds with no dependant children that have the ability to move back home, yet spend above their means are denied parasitical tax loot from the state that is expected to foot the bill for self-entitlement that is beyond their own affordability.

    Self responsibility is a social construct.
    You are assuming that:
    1 - They don't have any dependant children.
    2 - They can move back home.
    3 - They are spending above their means (having to claim housing benefit is quite often not the fault of the person, as is proved by the fact that 80% of under 25's who claim it are actually working).

    And you fail to answer my point about those who have no choice but to move away to give themselves a chance of finding work.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    You are assuming that:
    1 - They don't have any dependant children.
    2 - They can move back home.
    3 - They are spending above their means (having to claim housing benefit is quite often not the fault of the person, as is proved by the fact that 80% of under 25's who claim it are actually working).

    And you fail to answer my point about those who have no choice but to move away to give themselves a chance of finding work.
    You are assuming that:
    1 - The retraction of housing benefit will affect those under 25 that have children. Currently any benefits limited to those over 25 (i.e. Working Tax Credits) have that limit revoked in the case where the claimant is responsible for a child.
    2 - That the retraction would apply to those that do no have the ability to move home or elsewhere.
    3 - Yes they are spending above their means. They are renting a property that they cannot afford on the basis of their own income, hence relying on the state to manage their personal finances.

    Those who are moving away to find work or anyone complaining about this: compromise.

    Sadly in life people have to make sacrafices and compromises in order to attain a future standard of living that is superior to the present. Relying on the state, due to your impatience, to provide those luxuries now is sheer entitlement. Do not cry because you do not have other people's money to spend on rent in an area that is beyond your own affordability, and thus are required to downgrade and rent cheaper.
    • 17 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FluxD)
    You are assuming that:
    1 - The retraction of housing benefit will affect those under 25 that have children. Currently any benefits limited to those over 25 (i.e. Working Tax Credits) have that limit revoked in the case where the claimant is responsible for a child.
    2 - That the retraction would apply to those that do no have the ability to move home or elsewhere.
    There is no evidence to say that those groups would be except though.
    If they are, then fair enough. But right now it just seems like a total ban on under 25's claiming housing benefit.

    (Original post by FluxD)
    3 - Yes they are spending above their means. They are renting a property that they cannot afford on the basis of their own income, hence relying on the state to manage their personal finances.
    So as I said, you would rather then sit around doing nothing on the dole, but living at home, than actually working?

    (Original post by FluxD)
    Those who are moving away to find work or anyone complaining about this: compromise.
    Care to explain how?
    If someone has to move away to get a job, then what do you suggest?

    (Original post by FluxD)
    Do not cry because you do not have other people's money to spend on rent in an area that is beyond your own affordability, and thus are required to downgrade and rent cheaper.
    But what I am talking about is NOT about downgrading. It is about having to move away from the area that allows you to work.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    There is no evidence to say that those groups would be except though.
    If they are, then fair enough. But right now it just seems like a total ban on under 25's claiming housing benefit.
    There is no evidence they would not be an exemption either, so everything at the minute is speculative nonsense. Although I was basing the reasoning for there being an exemption on common sense, and on the basis of rules regarding age on already existing benefits that have a "25 and over" age criteria; and you were basing the notion of an outright ban on thin air.

    So as I said, you would rather then sit around doing nothing on the dole, but living at home, than actually working?
    What has being on the dole got to do with anything I said in the section you were quoting?

    Irrelevant.

    Care to explain how?
    If someone has to move away to get a job, then what do you suggest?

    But what I am talking about is NOT about downgrading. It is about having to move away from the area that allows you to work.
    Rent in a crappier area that is within the means of affordability for the job they are working.

    Sadly they might have to sacrifice a few nights out a month, or cut down on other luxuries, but they have a roof over their head which can not be said for some and therefore should be grateful.

    This decade of entitlement and excess is coming to an end, and people still attempting to milk the state's teat for all its worth in order to fund their own lives are in for a shock.

    The state should not exist to manage the personal finances of individuals.
    • 17 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FluxD)
    and you were basing the notion of an outright ban on thin air.
    Nope. I am basing it on that is all has been reported so far.

    (Original post by FluxD)
    What has being on the dole got to do with anything I said in the section you were quoting?

    Irrelevant.
    But it isn't irrelevant. It is what I am talking about. A lot of people have two options. Move, hope to get a job, and probably have to claim housing benefit to be able to support themselves. Or stay at home on the dole. Which one do you prefer people do?

    (Original post by FluxD)
    Rent in a crappier area that is within the means of affordability for the job they are working.
    And if the "crappier area" is still too expensive? Move even further way, so they then have to give up their job and go on the dole!

    (Original post by FluxD)
    Sadly they might have to sacrifice a few nights out a month, or cut down on other luxuries, but they have a roof over their head which can not be said for some and therefore should be grateful.
    One again, we are not talking about things like nights out or luxuries

    (Original post by FluxD)
    This decade of entitlement and excess is coming to an end, and people still attempting to milk the state's teat for all its worth in order to fund their own lives are in for a shock.

    The state should not exist to manage the personal finances of individuals.
    We are not talking about entitlement or the state managing finances for people. We are talking about the fact that house prices and rents have increased by so much, that it is not quite common to find that people simply cannot afford to have a roof over their head without some kind of help.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think the fault lies with the landlords of the properties.They know only too well that they can ask for a small fortune a week/month and the DSS will pay it.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I blame the people who sold off social housing.
    • 17 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Note - I am not saying that housing benefit cases should not be closely reviewed to ensure people aren't using it inappropriately.
    But to say under 25's can't claim it is just stupid.
    Ironically of course, the Tories caused this problem themselves after they sold off many council houses without replacing them.
    • Thread Starter
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie72)
    I think the fault lies with the landlords of the properties.They know only too well that they can ask for a small fortune a week/month and the DSS will pay it.
    Except plenty of landlords will not take in tenants who are on benefits.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FluxD)
    The sheer horror! 18 to 25 year olds with no dependant children that have the ability to move back home, yet spend above their means are denied parasitical tax loot from the state that is expected to foot the bill for self-entitlement that is beyond their own affordability.

    Self responsibility is a social construct.
    Even assuming they could move back in with parents, which is a very big assumption. Why should they?

    18-25 Year olds pay income tax just like everyone else, why should they be discriminated against only because of their age?

    Where is this magical age of 25 pulled from (apart from David Cameron's arse)?

    If a 25 year old can move back with their parents, why can't a 30 year old? Just think of all the extra money we would save. :rolleyes:

    Why should parent's be expected to bear the cost of supporting their adult offspring?


    This whole thing is just a farce. The only thing this will achieve should it get through, is further disillusionment of young people (maybe they want more riots, so they can give police more powers?) and trapping people in deprived areas with low job opportunities.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie72)
    I think the fault lies with the landlords of the properties.They know only too well that they can ask for a small fortune a week/month and the DSS will pay it.
    Housing benefit has already been capped, so this is not that much of an issue any more, though a better solution would be to cap rents.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I expect the govt will do a U turn in the next few days on this.

    This is obviously a job creation scheme for rich kids.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 27, 2012
New on TSR

Your favourite film of the year?

For you personally what has been the best 2014 movie

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.