Conservatives discuss whether to remove housing benefit from under 25s

[Teddybare]

Who said anything about 'locking'. They would be free to come and go as they please do what they wanted as long as all their visitors were out by 8pm, and no drugs or alcohol were consumed. And I have a feeling there would be very, very few fathers sticking around so it would be mainly mothers who can't get each other pregnant.

 

The point I'm making is a lot of teenagers dream life is having their own place where they can drink and smoke spliffs and hang out with their mates and the best way some see to get that is by having a baby and getting their own house.

 

I think if they were put in supported housing were not only would they get support but they wouldn't be able to indulge in destructive habits it might put off some of the worst offenders in this case. The ones who just wanted the house wouldn't be having kids and the ones who genuinely needed it would be housed, get support and it would ensure their children were in a better environment.

 

Anyway, why are you such an advocate of the right of teenagers to drink and take drugs when they have children? If they have kids they shouldn't be doing that anyway, ior having their mates round till all hours. It would be better for the kids if they were in an environment were this wasn't happening.

 

I was a teenager not that long ago and I remember that teenagers (myself inculded) were always congregating round the house of some single mother who dumped her baby upstairs whilst a squad of people got drunk downstairs.

 

How much would "supported housing" cost?

 

I'm not advocating anything. I think teens and everyone else will always do whatever they want. Your idea of putting them all into some kind of a big brother house to curb teenage birth rates is quite ridiculous. If you'd ever visited a youth hostel, or kibbutz or travelled as a teenage backpacker you'd understand why.

[Badlittlepup]

We need to increase our birthrates so that we need not rely on immigration (as much) to fund future pension burdens.

 

There's quality of birth rate though isn't there? If you're encouraging an underclass to pop out kids they can't afford and the state will support who will then go on to do the same thing and won't work themselves then there is no point increasing the birth rate that way as that will increase the burden on tax payers rather than allieviating it.

 

And the same people would probably still have kids. They would just delay them slightly if they weren't going to get total freedom on a plate.

[Badlittlepup]

How much would "supported housing" cost?

 

I'm not advocating anything. I think teens and everyone else will always do whatever they want. Your idea of putting them all into some kind of a big brother house to curb teenage birth rates is quite ridiculous. If you'd ever visited a youth hostel or travelled as a teenage backpacker you'd understand why.

 

I only mentioned teenagers with children. And I mentioned that they couldn't have visitors after 8pm. And I don't see how it would be different from someone living on a house on an estate having the freedom to have four kids with four different Dads.

 

The supported aspect I am guessing would be paid for in the savings from benefit monkeys not popping out a kid just to get a house when they realised it wouldn't give them the total freedom to sit around getting drunk and smoking skunk all day and poncing benefits that having a child gives them these days.

[Teddybare]

I only mentioned teenagers with children. And I mentioned that they couldn't have visitors after 8pm. And I don't see how it would be different from someone living on a house on an estate having the freedom to have four kids with four different Dads.

 

The supported aspect I am guessing would be paid for in the savings from benefit monkeys not popping out a kid just to get a house when they realised it wouldn't give them the total freedom to sit around getting drunk and smoking skunk all day and poncing benefits that having a child gives them these days.

 

So teens without children should get housing benefit?

[Badlittlepup]

So teens without children should get housing benefit?

 

Yes, we should always provide people who fall on hard times with housing, it's a basic need. But perhaps for under 25s it should be for a room in a shared house or a cubicle in a dorm type environment like American unis have.

[Teddybare]

Yes, we should always provide people who fall on hard times with housing, it's a basic need. But perhaps for under 25s it should be for a room in a shared house or a cubicle in a dorm type environment like American unis have.

 

Again you're suggesting communal housing.

Why are teens without kids any more deserving than teens with kids?

[Badlittlepup]

Again you're suggesting communal housing.

Why are teens without kids any more deserving than teens with kids?

 

I'm not suggesting they are.

 

Cameron is suggesting getting rid of housing benefit altogether for under 25s as he says it is being abused by people who see it as an easy route to moving out of home without working. I'm suggesting that rather than getting rid of the obligation of the state to house them we should deal with abuse of housing benefit by making the housing available to live in with it less attractive to those who wish to abuse it.

 

I'm suggesting that those with children are offered a different type of housing as they have different needs, but they would still both be housed. Also those with kids could live elsewhere if they could fund it themselves.

[Teddybare]

I'm suggesting all housing benefit and tax credits are scrapped with immediate effect. Then the state can repossess all the landlord owned properties, thus creating a massive supply of affordable housing.

[chem1st]

There's quality of birth rate though isn't there? If you're encouraging an underclass to pop out kids they can't afford and the state will support who will then go on to do the same thing and won't work themselves then there is no point increasing the birth rate that way as that will increase the burden on tax payers rather than allieviating it.

 

And the same people would probably still have kids. They would just delay them slightly if they weren't going to get total freedom on a plate.

 

Poor people don't mate with 'poor stock'.

 

Likewise, rich people of 'poor stock', don't get to mate with people of good stock because they are of good stock themselves, tis only because they are rich.

 

The poor have the best stock. The rich have the worst, and the poor stock amongst the rich can only recreate because of monetary privilege.

 

Idiocracy doesn't ring true.

 

IF your scared of creating inferior stock, then perhaps you should argue for DLA to be cut, or for the disabled to be sterilised.

 

Healthy stock that is poor should be encouraged to breed.

 

Besides which, your argument is a load of ******.

 

If people in the West are wealthy, then surely we should be able to bring up 10 kids without a problem.

In the poorest regions they have 6/7/8!

 

The problem we have is the cost of basic housing. People in flats putting off children for the sake of a small room!

 

Can we not afford to feed and house a family?

 

Surely an Englishman on minimum wage should be able to marry and father 5 children and house his whole family?

 

Or maybe we are just servants to the land held in a form of slavery...

 

Taxpayers are a joke. They are a make believe group of people, comprised mainly of the serfs.

 

It's the serfs, that pay rent, rent on this, rent on that. They might buy something off of somebody that doesn't pay rent, but that person bought off somebody who did pay rent.

 

RENT rent RENT rent RENT.

 

Whose land is that?

 

Balls to that. I was born on this Earth, tis mine, fair do's I'll have to share it, but owt that is idle I'll use and claim as my own!

[I1L2T3]

I'm suggesting all housing benefit and tax credits are scrapped with immediate effect. Then the state can repossess all the landlord owned properties, thus creating a massive supply of affordable housing.

 

A 2% or 3% rise in BofE base rates would be a good start.

 

If people have trouble paying their mortgage(s) then assess their mortgage applications:

 

1. If the mortgage was applied for legitimately (i.e. legally) and the mortgagee is suffering hard times through no fault of their own then allow some form of continuing support.

 

2. If the mortgage was applied for fraudulently then provide a choice of criminal prosecution or two months notice to leave.

 

The under 25s have done nothing wrong. Those who made fraudulent mortgage applications have. Punish the latter.