Conservatives discuss whether to remove housing benefit from under 25s

[Anna B]

The headline from Cameron seemed to suggest it was most under-25s. IDS adopted a more measured tone and acknowledged the various categories of under-25s who are not abusing the system but still require help. It's a balance of helping the genuinely needy and deserving but identifying abusers of the system and discouraging further abuse.

 

The thing is if you have say a 23 year-old single mum of two who wants to work but can't find work, and has been in her home for years then what happens to her? She might appear to push all the buttons for being an object of hatred but really it might be the right thing to continue to support her. Would plunging the kids into dire poverty and worse housing conditions, maybe into homelessness, help anyone? It might make people with similar views to yours happy but in that domesday scenario for that family I fail to see where the genuine long-term savings would come from.

 

Making people into objects of hatred and easy targets for punishment is not the right way to solve our problems.

 

I do hope that there will be something in place to allow individual judgement to be used if this piece of legislation is passed.

 

One of the problems these days seems to be that everyone has to work to a strict set of rules set in stone that treat the innocent and guilty alike and people are not allowed to use their discretion to make judgements. This means that every eventuality has to be covered by evermore complex rules and legislation.

 

I can see that this might lead to problems as well, but what do other people think?

[Agrajag]

I do hope that there will be something in place to allow individual judgement to be used if this piece of legislation is passed.

 

One of the problems these days seems to be that everyone has to work to a strict set of rules set in stone that treat the innocent and guilty alike and people are not allowed to use their discretion to make judgements. This means that every eventuality has to be covered by evermore complex rules and legislation.

 

I can see that this might lead to problems as well, but what do other people think?

 

When deciding who is eligable for disability benefits, you would think that since every disabled/sick person's circumstances are very different, they would use their discretion there, but they don't.

 

It's far easier and cheaper to divide people up into certain groups depending on which boxes they tick on a form.

 

The same will no doubt happen here.

[MrSmith]

I remember the last time I was out of work, I was constantly hassled by the Job Centre to show exactly what I was doing to find work, under the threat of having my benefits stopped.

 

Maybe keeping track of so many job seekers is more difficult since many of the people who used to do that are now looking for jobs themselves.

 

Personally, I see this speech by Cameron as way of distracting attention from the tax evaders (or avoiders), who are far worse in my opinion than the so-called spongers. At least social security benefits get pumped straight back into the British economy and not into some off-shore bank account.

 

So in your opinion an individual that employs people and contributes to society is are worse for the country than someone that sits on their arse and sponges off the state. (A parasite)

[MrSmith]

There is no joined up thinking in these proposals,he talks about time limits on JSA but the fact is there are precious few jobs to go round,but at the same time he lets in a quarter of a million immigrants every year who will readily work for peanuts and deprive the British people of jobs,if your going to time limit JSA stop letting in millions of immigrants and then maybe there will be enough jobs to go round.

 

That kind of contradicts your statement that there are no jobs.

[MrSmith]

The rules of supply and demand would say that if the country had an over abundance of affordable housing then house prices would drop, catastrophically.

 

Any government, left or right has to strike a balance: enough houses to go around, but just enough so people have to fight over them to keep prices high.

 

Would you still support a mass house building programme if it meant that your house could lose up to 50% of its value?

 

It's interesting to note that the population of the UK is rising by 0.7% per year, yet the rise in the numbers of dwellings is only 0.5%

 

The answer to that conundrum is to stop the population from rising, or better still to allow it decline and then start demolishing the unoccupied crap houses.

[MrSmith]

Nice post. The fundamental reason why HB has got out of control is a shortage of affordable housing to rent/buy, and artifically high prices. What we are seeing now is the reult of various policies from right and left over the last 30 years.

 

The blame for this clearly cannot be fairly lumped onto one group of society or another.

 

No doubt a lot of these people wanting to target the under-25s are a part of the problem. They want the high house prices but are too short-sighted to see that with a housing market operating more efficiently and priced more fairly the issue would be reduced, and their own hard-working children could enjoy the reward of their own home.

 

The defence of these latest ad-hoc policy proposals is just as haphazard as the policies themselves.

 

A £20K house bought in South Yorkshire in 1979 would have risen by 189.79% to £58K by 1997

 

The same house would then have risen by 205.99% over the next ten years, so in 2007 it would cost £177K. Over this same period we had inflation running higher than wage increases.

 

Buy to let was also encouraged which made it more difficult for first time buyers, and mass immigration increased the population well above the available housing stock.

 

Only people with their heads buried in the sand will have missed the fact that Labours policies made housing unaffordable for the lowest paid in our country, whilst the conservatives under right to buy made housing affordable to people that would have never dreamt of owning their own house.

[Agrajag]

So in your opinion an individual that employs people and contributes to society is are worse for the country than someone that sits on their arse and sponges off the state. (A parasite)

 

If companies such as Vodafone paid the correct amount of tax, it would go a long way to sorting out the countries financial problems.

 

About £18 Billion is spent every year on Jobseekers Allowance and Housing Benefit, yet it's estimated that £25 billion is lost every year to tax avoidance. Close that tax gap and the problem sorts itself out.

 

The answer to that conundrum is to stop the population from rising, or better still to allow it decline and then start demolishing the unoccupied crap houses.

 

How would you do that? Forced sterilisation? Euphanasia for the over 65s? Nobody is about to tell people to stop having babies.

 

Buy to let was also encouraged which made it more difficult for first time buyers, and mass immigration increased the population well above the available housing stock.

 

Only people with their heads buried in the sand will have missed the fact that Labours policies made housing unaffordable for the lowest paid in our country, whilst the conservatives under right to buy made housing affordable to people that would have never dreamt of owning their own house.

 

Check some local property ads and you'll see that a great many of the properties available for private rent are ex-council houses which only came on to the market after John Major's property crash in the 90s. This made them a good investment to anyone looking to buy to let.

[I1L2T3]

A £20K house bought in South Yorkshire in 1979 would have risen by 189.79% to £58K by 1997

 

The same house would then have risen by 205.99% over the next ten years, so in 2007 it would cost £177K. Over this same period we had inflation running higher than wage increases.

 

Buy to let was also encouraged which made it more difficult for first time buyers, and mass immigration increased the population well above the available housing stock.

 

Only people with their heads buried in the sand will have missed the fact that Labours policies made housing unaffordable for the lowest paid in our country, whilst the conservatives under right to buy made housing affordable to people that would have never dreamt of owning their own house.

 

Popping the housing bubble is they key to sorting this out. Your point about right to buy is wrong though. Ex-council houses are massively overpriced when they do come up for sales and lots of them are rented out at prices beyond what a social housing property should cost. There is also a shortage.

[communities]

The under 25s need to start voting.

[MrSmith]

If companies such as Vodafone paid the correct amount of tax, it would go a long way to sorting out the countries financial problems.

 

About £18 Billion is spent every year on Jobseekers Allowance and Housing Benefit, yet it's estimated that £25 billion is lost every year to tax avoidance. Close that tax gap and the problem sorts itself out.

 

If they didn't employ people there would be more people wanting benefits, and if the benefits claimant got jobs tax's could be lower, we need employers more than we need unemployed.

 

 

How would you do that? Forced sterilisation? Euphanasia for the over 65s? Nobody is about to tell people to stop having babies.

 

No I'd stop immigration, which is the only reason the population had increased over recent years.

 

 

Check some local property ads and you'll see that a great many of the properties available for private rent are ex-council houses which only came on to the market after John Major's property crash in the 90s. This made them a good investment to anyone looking to buy to let.

But selling them didn't contribute to an increase in house prices, they increased because of supply and demand and very low interest rates, and this happened because of high immigration and a move to buy to let, both happened over the past 12 years.