Tradescanthia Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 We get the government we deserve. We allowed the 'two bob millionaires' to install a Tory government, the 'I'm allright Jack's' won. In my youth during the '60s youth had bottle. Students had more bottle and used to PROTEST............now all they think about is booze. If the young 'uns dont hassle the government they will be ignored and exploited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted June 24, 2012 Author Share Posted June 24, 2012 You aren't living independently if you're relying on benefits. I wholeheartedly agree with these reforms. Far too many kids expect their own place when they turn 18, with no job to pay for it, or any sense of decency or respect for their neighbours. How the hell can somebody on £2.60 per hour without access to working tax credit, or JSA of £56.25 a week (and lower housing benefit) compete with elders on higher oakey cokey benefits. We shouldn't be giving 5 year olds housing benefit to that I would agree but nor do we hold them criminally responsible for their actions, (we would ensure they are housed with their parents - or in an appropriate home if they did not have parents). We can't be treating adults like children. For starters we don't let people build their own slum housing, they are forced to rent. And there is no social sector left, it is full to bursting point and being destroyed by the government. Christ, most workers rely on working tax credit. And parents need their child tax credits, child benefits, housing benefits and working tax credits too. Everybody relies on the state to some degree, if only in the sense it provides for peoples needs and ensures we have a healthy society in which to live in the first place. Large companies with their big government subsidies or contracts, the list goes on, and on and on and on! Pensions! Banks! The lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Or it may turn out to be a good thing. Housing benefit is keeping rent prices way higher than they should be. If half the people renting can't afford to rent, who will the evil landlords rent to? If they can't keep the money for nothing payments coming in from "property portfolios" they'll sell up = more supply of houses = lower house prices. Housing benefit's one of the sillier benefits anyways. It should be limited to 6 month/1 year periods to help people out of difficult situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted June 24, 2012 Author Share Posted June 24, 2012 Or it may turn out to be a good thing. Housing benefit is keeping rent prices way higher than they should be. If half the people renting can't afford to rent, who will the evil landlords rent to? If they can't keep the money for nothing payments coming in from "property portfolios" they'll sell up = more supply of houses = lower house prices. Housing benefit's one of the sillier benefits anyways. It should be limited to 6 month/1 year periods to help people out of difficult situations. Abolish it entirely then, for all age groups. Let interest rates rise instead of punishing savers in favour of mortgage slaves. Abolish SMI for the unemployed mortgagees and tax breaks for landlords. Abolish planning permission so everyone can build their own home in their native country. Abolish Right to Buy. Get rid of the land monopoly and impose LVT, so that every man can rent a patch of land from wider society upon which to build a home. Let's have an even playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Abolish it entirely then, for all age groups. Let interest rates rise instead of punishing savers in favour of mortgage slaves. Abolish SMI for the unemployed mortgagees and tax breaks for landlords. Abolish planning permission so everyone can build their own home in their native country. Abolish Right to Buy. Get rid of the land monopoly and impose LVT, so that every man can rent a patch of land from wider society upon which to build a home. Let's have an even playing field. I'm with you on everything except planning. The appearance and politics/neighbour consideration should be done away with. But there still needs to be building reg enforcement and protection of green belt/agriculture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 And I worry. They owe us nothing. And we owe them nothing. If they realise they won't walk straight into a taxpayer-funded home, maybe they will try at school instead of ******* about on their mobiles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLakeland Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I don't think it will happen. Its another example of a badly thought through idea. What if the parents say the kids can't come home? What will happen to all the belongings. Will they be forced to dump them? Who will pick up the tab for all the evictions? I can't see many going willingly. What if the parents don't have a spare room? Will they suffer overcrowding? All in all its another attack on people at the bottom, when the situation we're in was created by those at the top, who seem to be doing very nicely. There are very few jobs for young people. No manufacturing or construction for ordinary working class young people. I too predict a riot...and I don't blame them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9351604/New-welfare-clampdown-could-axe-housing-benefit-from-under-25s.html#disqus_thread People under 25 will be forced to revolt. Else many will become homeless and die prematurely. (Not everybody has parents etc. to rely on, and people are denied by law from building their own slum housing) I feel sorry for the youth of today. They are like small mammals being tortured. . It’s nice that they get free housing, my under 25’s work and can’t afford a house, allowing the unemployed to occupy housing at the cost of the state as made housing unaffordable for the workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Or it may turn out to be a good thing. Housing benefit is keeping rent prices way higher than they should be. If half the people renting can't afford to rent, who will the evil landlords rent to? If they can't keep the money for nothing payments coming in from "property portfolios" they'll sell up = more supply of houses = lower house prices. Housing benefit's one of the sillier benefits anyways. It should be limited to 6 month/1 year periods to help people out of difficult situations. Sounds about right to me. All these single unemployed that want the state to care for them should be housed in army style barracks in which they are fed and housed in return for some work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 It’s nice that they get free housing, my under 25’s work and can’t afford a house, allowing the unemployed to occupy housing at the cost of the state as made housing unaffordable for the workers. maybe they should get a better paid job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.