Should families under 25 lose housing benefit?

I think there should be a mandatory retirement age so that elderly people aren't taking up the jobs that young people need, so fewer young people would need to rely on housing benefit - but the pensions for the elderly people must be maintained at a sensible rate that means the people can survive comfortably on them, not slashed like the government are doing. They're going at it from the wrong angle.

I'm interested in how mandatory retirement would be beneficial in our ageing population. Also older workers tend to be more skilled so forcing them to retire would have a tremendously detrimental effect?

I'm interested in how mandatory retirement would be beneficial in our ageing population. Also older workers tend to be more skilled so forcing them to retire would have a tremendously detrimental effect?

Say you have a skilled old person on £50k, and two young people on benefits. You could replace the old person with the two young people and pay the old person's pension. You'd be paying more for the pension, sure, but since they were going to retire anyway you're only looking at a few years of it, but the increase in earnings from the youngsters over their working lives will counter that. Plus other benefits of youngsters having something to do, lower unemployment etc.

I agree the idea in princeple makes sense, however a companies main interest more often than not is the make profit so attempting to force then to force there workers into retirement and the replace them with people that may need a great deal of training which is costly and a risk to the company as after training they may leave. There would also be very large admin costs of hireing workers. All the additional cost and admin it would bring could cause Multinationals to leave and therefore lead to even larger unemployment.

I think in small companies, this would be too much to ask. But for a large company with a lot of tiers, you can just have a chain of promotions, all of which would happen anyway, and the retirement would have happened anyway - it isn't as if they'd need extra infrastructure.

Yes the retirement would happen eventually but if you force this on companies, who to allow earlier retirement may have to alter there pension scheme which would again increase admin costs, the larger ones able to move to a different country with less regulation ect. It doesn't make economic sense, for the individual in the short term yes but not long term

Any increase in admin will be dwarfed by the effort to move country

Not that I'm in favour of forced retirement, I'm on the fence about it, but just giving reasons in favour. My main arguments against it would be that it's unfair to favour someone younger just because of their age, and you're going to make employers more unwilling to hire old people who they were already wary were going to retire soon, but now know they will retire soon. Plus, if someone wants to earn more money that they probably don't/won't need, I see no reason why to whack old people first.

1) Well they're Asian. Culturally, you stay with your parents. But why should I have to stay with mine just because they stay with their parents? And they're all married and have kids or are expecting kids. They simply can't afford to move away although they have jobs because house prices and rents are too high. And a few of them are now moving out this year so it wasn't a permanent thing. Only one of my cousins is going to stay with his parents because he can't afford to on his salary. I probably won't move out after uni right away unless my family situation changes.

2) It generally doesn't happen? Sorry to burst your bubble but it does happen. Morals aren't going to solve the answer. Unless we make parents legally responsible for their children until they turn 25, parents won't have any reason other than morals to take their children in again.

3) Graduate pay is higher than minimum wage yeah. But there are still a lot of graduates that can't get these jobs and so are working in minimum wage jobs. I know graduates who are working these kind of minimum wage jobs and and they all believe that their degree is being wasted.

4) Well people are still losing jobs or they may have a business which is in decline. Some parents may just simply want to downsize because they no longer want a big house or don't expect their children to move back in.

5) Well good for you. But may I ask, how have you benefitted from this government?

Im sorry but living in a world where parents legally have to look after their children until 25 is crazy when we consider someone is an adult by law at 18. It seems that you dont want to live at home as opposed to cant live at home and that is an important point. We often have to do things we dont like and living with your parents until you can financially look after yourself is one of them. Why should the state pay for your place jus because your parents are cramping ur style, not fair in my opinion.

This governemnt is putting investment into maths, the sciences and engineering. I studied at college for my level 3 course free of charge and had my travel costs covered by the government, all this as an adult of 21/22. I've almost finished my biology degree then plan to move into teaching. If i just get a 2:1 i can get a £5K grant as well as getting student finance to cover my tuition. They've done fine by me.

The real answer to this is were does the responsibility of the state and the parents lie. I think that you believe the state should take over at 18 where as i think your parents should be investing in your future and your home along side your own efforts.

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?

Just because someone has graduated doesnt entitle them to a free house.

What free house? Many peoples housing benefit doesn't cover their full rent.

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.

But they could, in almost all cases, have found somewhere that would have been covered by their housing benefit.