The Student Room Group

Should families under 25 lose housing benefit?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by meenu89
This is a proposal for what might happen after the next election should the Tories win the next election, it is not something this Government may introduce.


Well, we all know that's not going to happen.
Original post by Elipsis
So let me get this straight; The 18-25 category no longer get anything - no help with uni costs, very few jobs available, and no housing benefit, but they are the ones who are expected to pick up the tab for everything for everyone else? The families, the elderly etc? I am going to avoid all the tax I can at all costs. Even if saving £1 means I give £1 to an accountant instead of the government. I say this as a conservative.


no help with uni cost? let's put this in simple terms , this new wave of students which I am part of get a minimum of 5600 assuming parents don't earn over 42,500 for those parents on 25,000 their child get's such a ridiculous amount of money it's obscene, that child who is on 25,000 is getting a minimum of 8400 from the government + bursaries from the school of around 2000??? please explain how that is nothing they live on more than £100 a week while the stretched middle have to give their kids money as their costs only cover accom and £25 a week? even so more than last year who received 3600 ish? then on top of that the fee increase means nothing to most due to the average wage is £30000 for men and 24,000 for women, let's say an average of 27000 so people this year will pay approx £600 a year for 30 years paying back a total of around 18000, while last year pay back around 10000 at 1200 a year, I think the first choice is better, as it is slower meaning you are more motivated using maslows hierarchy blalalal.

Housing benefits also encourage laziness in the majority of people which outweigh the few on this chatroom who I'm told are above average students and actually want to work, why should the rich pay for the poor's housing? Their political agenda doesn't match yours, they may choose not to be part of this dysfunctional society and leave? if anyone is going to preach about giving money to the poor, it cannot be the poor. it must come from the source of money, the rich, so all in all if you are rich and left wing, you should be quite happy to pay for the housing benefit of these people, if not take a very long hard look in the mirror as you have probably gone against your on morale code.

you also mentioned the elderly, I'll make this section quick, average life expectancy-up pension age -up, makes sense.
people reliant on state when young-people then even more reliant on state when old, where do you think the pensions go, on the young's housing... a pension is a luxury anyway...

I agree with your tax statement If you are smart enough to get away with it in a society which you do not agree upon and don;t wish to be part of, why should you pay for the governments mistakes and failures?

I am agreeing with you, it's put slightly weirdly, bloody general studies exam had this in :L
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by The Socktor
For some people it happened by accident; e.g. their condom might have ripped, they were pissed out of their minds, perhaps even that they were raped. You can't tackle them all with same brush (or whatever the expression is). There's always abortion, of course, but there's a legal limit to how late you can wait and the individual might be religious or something which might at least make them less decisive about it.


Well a systematic procedure needs to be created so we can control the population numbers before we let mass starvation happen. In my ideal world, the rapist would be paying for abortions.
Original post by Snagprophet
Well a systematic procedure needs to be created so we can control the population numbers before we let mass starvation happen. In my ideal world, the rapist would be paying for abortions.


Mass starvation? WTF? are you talking about on a global scale because I don't see any starving people around here?

In my ideal world, the people who created the X Factor would be punished with slow torturous death, but we live in the real world. :wink:
Reply 44
Original post by concubine
Yeah. **** over the young people that are more likely to be in lower paying jobs.


BRILLIANT PLAN.


I would think that the government would have something in place for those who are working and dont forget that those in jobs with low incomes can claim working tax credits.

Generally its those without work that the government will be targeting
Reply 45
Original post by pshewitt1
no help with uni cost? let's put this in simple terms , this new wave of students which I am part of get a minimum of 5600 assuming parents don't earn over 42,500 for those parents on 25,000 their child get's such a ridiculous amount of money it's obscene, that child who is on 25,000 is getting a minimum of 8400 from the government + bursaries from the school of around 2000??? please explain how that is nothing they live on more than £100 a week while the stretched middle have to give their kids money as their costs only cover accom and £25 a week? even so more than last year who received 3600 ish? then on top of that the fee increase means nothing to most due to the average wage is £30000 for men and 24,000 for women, let's say an average of 27000 so people this year will pay approx £600 a year for 30 years paying back a total of around 18000, while last year pay back around 10000 at 1200 a year, I think the first choice is better, as it is slower meaning you are more motivated using maslows hierarchy blalalal.

Housing benefits also encourage laziness in the majority of people which outweigh the few on this chatroom who I'm told are above average students and actually want to work, why should the rich pay for the poor's housing? Their political agenda doesn't match yours, they may choose not to be part of this dysfunctional society and leave? if anyone is going to preach about giving money to the poor, it cannot be the poor. it must come from the source of money, the rich, so all in all if you are rich and left wing, you should be quite happy to pay for the housing benefit of these people, if not take a very long hard look in the mirror as you have probably gone against your on morale code.

you also mentioned the elderly, I'll make this section quick, average life expectancy-up pension age -up, makes sense.
people reliant on state when young-people then even more reliant on state when old, where do you think the pensions go, on the young's housing... a pension is a luxury anyway...

I agree with your tax statement If you are smart enough to get away with it in a society which you do not agree upon and don;t wish to be part of, why should you pay for the governments mistakes and failures?

I am agreeing with you, it's put slightly weirdly, bloody general studies exam had this in :L


If you could please try and make this rant a bit more readable that would be great. I happen to think that if the government wants to take a higher percentage of my wage because I earn more because I have a degree then they'd better make damn sure they help me get my degree in the first place, or they have no right to any of my money.

I am not adversed to providing housing for people who need it, that's the whole purpose. To say under 25s shouldn't get housing benefit when they need it is just as stupid as saying under 35s shouldn't get it. By 25 you could easily have a 5 year old, been in employment and married for almost a decade, yet the government is still saying you are basically a child? Well if i'm a child get your theiving hands out of my pockets to pay for everyone else!
Reply 46
Original post by Mr Dangermouse
Well, we all know that's not going to happen.


Can I have the numbers for Wednesdays lottery draw?
Original post by The Socktor
Mass starvation? WTF? are you talking about on a global scale because I don't see any starving people around here?


Well the more land used for growing food that becomes land for housing more and more people then eventually there'll be more people than food. No, I am not talking about the present. I am talking about the future. I don't think it's a good idea to wait to you've crashed before applying the brakes.
Reply 48
Original post by Snagprophet
Not sure why anyone under 25 would have kids.


You can claim housing benefit without having to have kids. If you do have children and live in your own home as well as housing benefit you can claim child benefit and if you dont have time to work can also claim job seekers allowance.

This example shows how the benefit system can seem unfair and why many young mums are a point of criticism
Original post by Macabre
You can claim housing benefit without having to have kids. If you do have children and live in your own home as well as housing benefit you can claim child benefit and if you dont have time to work can also claim job seekers allowance.

This example shows how the benefit system can seem unfair and why many young mums are a point of criticism


My mistake. I thought the thread was about families under 25.
Reply 50
Original post by inksplodge
It's not just families - it's individuals as well. I'm fully against it. Housing benefit is a lifeline for a lot of people, including new graduates without jobs.


Just because someone has graduated doesnt entitle them to a free house. if they graduate and dont have a job strait the way they should do as everyone i know have done and move back in with their parents.

Also dont forget this applies only to those 25 and under.

I think if someone is of a young age and doesnt have a job, why should the government pay for someone who can move back in with their parents?
Reply 51
Original post by OU Student
And live where, exactly? Not everyone has relatives who can take them in.


That is true but its rare that people have literally no oneto turn to such as freinds.

Though in cases such as this people should be given benefit to support themselves as these are the kind of people the government should be helping.
This government has taught me that if I ever get the chance, I will leave this country.

I just feel like us younger generations aren't wanted here. The adults take everything they can, leave us with nothing and then have the gall to call us: lazy, apathetic, selfish, spoilt, dumb, unable to spell or speak English, useless, rude... while completely forgetting that we're going to be the ones paying for their retirement.
Reply 53
Original post by Macabre
Just because someone has graduated doesnt entitle them to a free house. if they graduate and dont have a job strait the way they should do as everyone i know have done and move back in with their parents.

Also dont forget this applies only to those 25 and under.

I think if someone is of a young age and doesnt have a job, why should the government pay for someone who can move back in with their parents?


Why are you assuming because some is a graduate they can move back in with their parents?
Its a joke. It would likely apply to those in work too! (A very large percentage of young housing benefit claimants actually are in work).

Original post by Snagprophet
If someone can get a stable income and house before 25 then I don't see any issue with them having kids. It won't be a drag on the government. Of course, everyone can get child benefit but this is the sort that people live off.


And if someone has a kid in those circumstances, but then ends of loosing their job through no fault of their own, what do you suggest? We take the kid away from them?
Original post by Macabre
Just because someone has graduated doesnt entitle them to a free house. if they graduate and dont have a job strait the way they should do as everyone i know have done and move back in with their parents.

Also dont forget this applies only to those 25 and under.

I think if someone is of a young age and doesnt have a job, why should the government pay for someone who can move back in with their parents?


Not everyone can move back in with their parents. And what if your parents don't want you back?
Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox
I think that there should be a lot more questions asked before people of ANY age get ANY kind of benefit. My friends who have just graduated from uni have decided that they want their own place, so they've got one, and are paying for it with benefits. There is no reason that they couldn't have lived with their parents for a bit longer, they just "felt like" moving out, which is ridiculous, and what I assume the government is trying to avoid.


At the same time, forcing a person to live with their parents could easily hugely damage their chances of getting a job (as some areas of the country have a vastly worse job market).
Original post by Macabre
Just because someone has graduated doesnt entitle them to a free house. if they graduate and dont have a job strait the way they should do as everyone i know have done and move back in with their parents.

Also dont forget this applies only to those 25 and under.

I think if someone is of a young age and doesnt have a job, why should the government pay for someone who can move back in with their parents?


And if:
1 - Their parents are abusive.
2 - Their parents say no.
3 - Their parents live in an area that will be hugely detrimental to their chance of getting a job.
4 - Their parents simply cannot take them in (maybe they have downsized after the person left for uni).
5 - They have a low paid job and such need help to pay rent. Forcing them back to their parents will make unemployment worse.
Reply 58
Original post by Subology
Coupled with the regional pay proposals I think this could really be detrimental for the movement of people. Disastrous for social mobility. People will be stuck where ever they happen to be born. So no matter what they do to educate themselves, and make themselves employable, they may find themselves handicapped because they where born in a poor area of the country. The result? The poorer regions see decline.


To be honest i believe that the system we have encourages poor mobility. When you have a benefit system which allows you to live without working for what you have that in itself discourages social mobility.

I am working class, my dads currently on minimum wage warehousing and my mums clinically depressed ever since my parents divorced when i was 16. Neither of them has ever had a job that is 20K or more, much less than the apparent national average.

However it wasnt the benefit system that encouraged me to better myself and get an education. It was to improve myself and my standing. It was to have a better life than some of my peers. I want my parents to be proud and want to look after them in their old age.

An over generous benefit sytem does not encourage these things.
If someone can get a stable income and house before 25 then I don't see any issue with them having kids. It won't be a drag on the government. Of course, everyone can get child benefit but this is the sort that people live off.


Not everyone is in this position though are they. Some people have a stable income and their own home and have children and then they are made redundant.

You cannot predict what happens in the future x

Quick Reply