Teenagers to be given jobs funded by taxpayers.

Teenagers to be given jobs funded by the taxpayer

Tens of thousands of unemployed teenagers will have half their wages paid by the taxpayer if companies offer them a job, under radical plans to tackle the record number of young people out of work.



Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, will today announce a £1 billion scheme to pay firms more than £2,000 for each young unemployed person they hire.

The payment — effectively a taxpayer-funded bribe for companies — is designed to get more than 400,000 young people into work.

The scheme, which has hallmarks of the Thatcherite Youth Training Scheme of the 1980s, will be funded by freezing tax credits for up to three years, hitting millions of workers earning up to £28,000.

Yesterday it emerged that the number of so-called Neets — young people not in education, employment, or training — has risen to 1.163 million. This represents an increase of 12 per cent over the past year.

Mr Clegg insisted that he would not allow a “generation to fall behind” and “bear the brunt” of the recession. “Youth unemployment is an economic waste and a slow-burn social disaster,” he said. “We can’t lose the skills and talent of our young people, right when we need them most. We can’t afford to leave our young men and women on the scrap heap. We need the next generation to help us build a new economy.



“If people are out of work when they’re young they bear the scars for decades. If they have a false start, they might not ever fully catch up.
He added: “These are tomorrow’s mothers, fathers and taxpayers. If they end up falling behind our whole society pays the price.
“We want to give every young person a reason to get up, a reason to go out, and a reason to feel great at the end of the day.”
The new “Youth Contract” is similar to YTS, which saw teenagers paid by the state to work for companies, while receiving some training.
Like YTS, it is likely to raise concerns about firms securing cheap labour for unskilled menial jobs subsidised by the taxpayer. There will also be fears that companies will “churn” young workers, replacing those subsidised by taxpayers with new recruits once the government payments end.



Senior Coalition sources insisted that businesses had privately assured them that they were committed to finding long-term work for young applicants. John Cridland, the director-general of the CBI, said: “This is good news for young people up and down the country. We’re pleased that the Government has developed our idea to incentivise businesses to take on the young unemployed. It will encourage firms to take a gamble on a young inexperienced person and help tackle the scourge of youth unemployment.”
Labour criticised the Coalition for announcing the new initiative 18 months after it scrapped a £1billion Labour scheme to create jobs for the young unemployed.
Under the Youth Contract, 160,000 workers aged between 18 and 24 will have half their wages paid for the first six months. The scheme will only pay half the minimum wage – worth £2,275 – to employers who will then make up the difference.
Another 250,000 young people will be offered work experience, lasting up to eight weeks, during which they will continue to receive benefits. Money will also be paid to firms taking on another 20,000 apprentices.
Teenagers “failing to engage positively” with the Youth Contract and take up job placements could be forced to accept them. Those dropping out of the programmes might have their benefits removed.
“The aim of the Youth Contract is to get every unemployed young person working or learning again before long-term damage is done,” Mr Clegg said. “But it’s a contract, a two-way street: if you sign up for the job, there will be no signing on for the dole. You have to stick with it. Despite the huge pressures on the public purse we’re pulling out all the stops. But young people have to meet us halfway. If you break your side of the bargain, don’t just expect to live your life on benefits.”
The work scheme was drawn up by Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, and Chris Grayling, a minister in the department, over the past few months. The ministers have been buoyed with early indications that large numbers of teenagers on a work experience programme secure longer-term employment. The youth unemployment scheme will form a key part of the growth strategy to be presented by George Osborne, the Chancellor, next week.
Ministers are rushing to unveil an array of programmes to boost employment, the housing market and infrastructure projects as officials prepare to downgrade forecasts for Britain’s economy. Writing in The Daily Telegraph today, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, a former Cabinet minister who previously advised Mr Osborne on tax policies, calls for more radical solutions to the country’s economic woes and to tackle Britain’s debts. “The problem is that the Coalition is not actually cutting debt. It is increasing it,” he says.
“That is why it is essential that in his Autumn Statement next Tuesday, the Chancellor puts forward a coherent and consistent supply-side reform programme for long-term growth… This package of supply-side measures would mean tax cuts for business, vigorous labour market reforms to encourage firms to take people on – reducing unemployment ought to be the Coalition’s top social priority – and an energy policy that enhances the competitiveness of the UK.
“And add to this the abolition of the 50p tax rate — new research reported in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph shows what many of us have long suspected — it is damaging growth and must go.”

Now Erich, I know that you personally think that all unemployed people are all "lazy scum", as you so nicely said about my dad in another thread. So, if that were the case, the posts wouldn't be filled and the money not spent.

Spending a relatively small amount of money, specifically targetted at encouraging a group with enormous difficulties with employment is a good decision. It may not work since that group is already quite disenfranchised, but there is only one way to find out.

By the way, I support no particular party, and my politics are neutral. I agree with some things that all the major parties say, and disagree with others. So there is no point people from the UK calling me right-wing, or people from America calling me a socialist, as I'm neither. I just think that this is the logical thing to do given the circumstances. If it works, it works, if it doesn't it doesn't -try something else

£1billion isn' a small amount of money and more than likely it would only solve the problem in the short term.

It may 'discriminate (Personally think this word is used too much)' against 'older' people - But at the end of the day we need to give youths a fighting chance to actually get a job and/or some experience - Something that most older people will already have.

True a lot of older people may already have experience.... but not all older people will have experience that could be easily transferable to another job.

I'm currently the majority shareholder of 2 inns in Britain, no one gets paid less than £9 per hour in either of those places and I give out staff benefits that are similar to what a Swiss 5* hotel would give out since the business is registered as a Swiss company..... just that it is minus the restrictive Swiss employment laws

What are the problems with the Swiss employment laws out of interest?

The lowest paid will have money taken off them and given to wealthy companies.

£1billion isn' a small amount of money and more than likely it would only solve the problem in the short term.

What do you reckon most employers that make use of the scheme is going to do? This is what I'm going to do the moment I get my hands on the full details of that program, if it is anything as generous as the article is insinuating and doesn't come with all that restrictive a set of conditions, I'm currently the majority shareholder of 2 inns in Britain, no one gets paid less than £9 per hour in either of those places and I give out staff benefits that are similar to what a Swiss 5* hotel would give out since the business is registered as a Swiss company..... just that it is minus the restrictive Swiss employment laws

Here is what is going to happen, the manager I've put in place has earmarked several people who are ripe to be given a P45. Just that I've told her no for now..

But now I will tell her to slash and cut as many as the low or underskilled jobs, get rid of as many as the low or no skilled jobs.... got at least 8 of them at bare minimum. For each that quit I will take on 2 at minimum wage and without any extra staff benefits, now suddenly I have 2 workers that I need to pay less. Then just before the subsidy ends I will tell the manager to keep the top 25% of them and get rid of the rest.

Lovely scheme actually.... now that 1 chamber maid I paid £9 before taxes and benefits I can have 2 for less..... I don't give a damn of what happens to the one that got dismissed, she is just a number to me as would the 2 new ones that will come in.

All I can say is............. more of these please.

How exactly?

Read the article in the OP.

The lowest paid will have money taken off them and given to wealthy companies.

It doesn't say anywhere.