MrSmith Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Never heard of them Peter Davies, The Mayor of Doncaster is an English Democrat. All though the man at the top used to be a Tory so that might put you off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Personally I think it's a terrible idea to get rid of housing benefit for under 25s, for all the reasons about vulnerable people being made homeless etc. But even if you don't care about 18-25 year olds being made homeless, two points; a) Because if you only get it when you're under 25 if you have kids more people are going to have kids for benefits. b) Is it really going to be pleasant in our towns and cities if we have a massive upturn in 18-25 year olds sleeping rough in them, which there will be. Personally I was proud to live in a country where nobody would be left on the streets destitute and thought it was part of what made us civilised. I don't think it has ever been mentioned that those with kids under 25 will be excempt from the restrictions has it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I've always thought that for under 20s with children they should be housed in supervised complexes where alcohol and drugs are banned and there are no visitors after 8pm. Would be expensive at first but then would make the birth rate in teens drop so much it would save money in the long run. I suspect if the attraction of the freedom was gone it might tempt a lot less people, but those who genuinely needed it would still be housed. I have always thought they should live at home supported by their parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I have always thought they should live at home supported by their parents. That makes the most sense, but alas not everyone as parents that care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 That makes the most sense, but alas not everyone as parents that care. I quite agree .....but within the current situation those that do care are able to see their child rehoused in social housing. So caring parents or not the cost to others is still the same in terms of housing benefit and the like. The difference is probably that those with parents that do care (and can afford it) perhaps get a better "start up" ie they get some support in buying furniture etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 We need to increase our birthrates so that we need not rely on immigration (as much) to fund future pension burdens. Which does nothing other than to move the problem on a generation. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 That's depressing. Especially if you happen to be in the 46.6% who are basically subsidising the rest. It's precisely that kind of ubiquitous misunderstanding that makes the public debate so unedifying. You seem to think that they are the same households. Households will move in and out of this group fluidly. The figures will be the same next month more or less, but many of the households will have moved from one to the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Would be expensive at first but then would make the birth rate in teens drop so much it would save money in the long run.. How much would it save, do you estimate? Millions, billions or trillions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 If Labour are Tories, and UKIP, LIB DEMS, BNP etc. are all nutters, whom should we vote for. Thats the problem, perhaps we have too much Party politics and ignore the individual. I dont know either........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 It's precisely that kind of ubiquitous misunderstanding that makes the public debate so unedifying. You seem to think that they are the same households. Households will move in and out of this group fluidly. The figures will be the same next month more or less, but many of the households will have moved from one to the other. Many households only claim housing benefit fluidly? Really? How exactly do you define fluidly? I know several tenants of a particular landlord that have been claiming it for well over ten years. Doesn't seem very fluid most of the time. My objection is having to pay massive amounts in tax working to pay landlords a wage for not working. Housing benefit is scandalous- if I couldn't afford a house I wouldn't expect everyone else to pay my rent for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.