Let's put the under 21 ones on the streets who cares eh?

[Cyclone]

Perhaps they should just get the same support as someone over 21 can access. Otherwise it's age discrimination.

[Berberis]

Who is going to decide who is vulnerable and what criteria are they going to use?

 

I hope its not Capita

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 08:30 ----------

 

Perhaps they should just get the same support as someone over 21 can access. Otherwise it's age discrimination.

 

I hope someone tests this in court, but what with the almost abolition of legal aid, I don't see anyone being able to afford to take the government to court over this. Especially not people who rely on benefits.

[sgtkate]

Hang on a second. Let my just put some substance to this sensationalist headline and unsubstantiated opening post.

 

So, young persons 18-21 who are NOT living with their parents and/or NOT under the protections of the care system and/or NOT a protected vulnerable person and/or NOT within the exemptions to the government protocol are being denied housing benefit.

That will genuinely effect how many exactly?

 

Firstly I would question what exactly are these allleged "huge numbers" of immediately street homeless 18-21 year olds are doing with their lives.

 

Surely at that age they are either:

 

1. working and earning their own money.

2. in university and get accommodation/support from their student loans

3. on a apprentice scheme and earning at least minimum wage

4. in the armed forces with accommodation provided

 

I've snipped a bit of your post out as this was the pertinent bit. Why should someone under 21 be expected to be in a job and not require housing benefit more than someone who is 22? I'm really struggling to understand your post and more so seeing as you say you've been dealing with homelessness for 6 years too. I find your response even more strange as a result.

 

You can be in work, and yet still not earn enough to afford a place to live. HB is given to people who are working just as much as to people who aren't, in fact more money is given in HB to those who are working.

 

You think an apprentice scheme pays minimum wage!!!!!!! FFS. Go and do some research then have a rethink. Even on full time minimum wage, you can still qualify for housing benefit.

 

This is one of the most deluded posts I think I've ever read on here from someone who claims to know better.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 10:03 ----------

 

Well then the care system isn't working,kids coming out of care should be ready for the real world,are you saying that these kids need looking after all their life.

 

Well done Sherlock.

[ECCOnoob]

I've snipped a bit of your post out as this was the pertinent bit. Why should someone under 21 be expected to be in a job and not require housing benefit more than someone who is 22? I'm really struggling to understand your post and more so seeing as you say you've been dealing with homelessness for 6 years too. I find your response even more strange as a result.

 

You can be in work, and yet still not earn enough to afford a place to live. HB is given to people who are working just as much as to people who aren't, in fact more money is given in HB to those who are working.

 

You think an apprentice scheme pays minimum wage!!!!!!! FFS. Go and do some research then have a rethink. Even on full time minimum wage, you can still qualify for housing benefit.

 

This is one of the most deluded posts I think I've ever read on here from someone who claims to know better.

 

Firstly apprentice wages:

https://www.gov.uk/apprenticeships-guide/pay-and-conditions

 

As I say, minimum amounts set by government. Not made up by employers. Not at the mercy of some evil scrooge character. NATIONAL MINIMUM.

 

If that's not enough to live on, they should stay at home until they can afford properly to move out.

 

Secondly, if someone is in work earning full wages and "still cannot afford a place to live" then they have a problem. What the hell are they spending their money on? How on earth do the rest of the working population cope? As I have said before, if someone is genuinely in such a financial mess then further questions need to be asked.

 

Unlike many older adults in the working world, the 18-21 year olds affected by any cuts will have a family home. Their parents and guardians are still supporting them up to any point they choose to leave (and since they choose to bring them into the world they should do).

 

The proposals state that:

http://news.sky.com/story/housing-benefits-cuts-plan-for-18-to-21s-revived-by-government-10788982

 

"...vulnerable people will continue to be protected, as will carers, families and those who have been in work for at least six months prior to claiming will be exempt, and those working at least 16 hours at the National Minimum Wage..."

 

So, if they have worked for at least six months and are earning minimum wage for at least 16 hours a week they will not be subject to this cut

 

Simple message for the younger generation. If you choose to move out and find your own place to live - get a job and ensure you work properly to pay for it. For those few remaining who insist on moving out early without sufficient means - that's their problem.

 

No abled bodied, fully competent, healthy young individual with no specialist exemptions fresh from mandatory education should be in a position to immediately demand the state supports their lifestyle.

 

That support quite rightly should be for those individuals who do have genuine issues and are genuinely homeless. You bring up my past career and I would say that I am very familiar of those people. Some of them were young persons the topic of this very discussion. They were people who had genuine family problems. People who had physical or mental health illness. People who had bereavements, children of their own or relationship breakdown which prevented them from living in their existing homes.

 

They WERE NOT every tom, dick and harry who chooses to move out from a perfectly safe and available parental/guardian's home without sufficient funding to do so.

 

Nowhere have I said that vulnerable people will be denied the support they need. Nowhere have I said that there will not always be exceptions to the rule. Those exemptions have clearly been included within a policy and services provided for those who need it.

 

That does not mean that there should be blanket entitlement to anyone irrelevant of whether they can pay a home for themselves.

[sgtkate]

Firstly apprentice wages:

https://www.gov.uk/apprenticeships-guide/pay-and-conditions

 

As I say, minimum amounts set by government. Not made up by employers. Not at the mercy of some evil scrooge character. NATIONAL MINIMUM.

 

If that's not enough to live on, they should stay at home until they can afford properly to move out.

 

 

Sorry, I gave up reading the rest of your post after these two points.

 

Do you know what the minimum salary is for an apprentice? Do you REALLY think someone could find a place to live, eat, get transport to and from their job on £3.40 an hour? What world are you living in?

 

Secondly, we are talking about people who are coming out of a care home...they haven't got a home to come home to...are you intentionally being ridiculous?

[ECCOnoob]

Sorry, I gave up reading the rest of your post after these two points.

 

Do you know what the minimum salary is for an apprentice? Do you REALLY think someone could find a place to live, eat, get transport to and from their job on £3.40 an hour? What world are you living in?

 

Secondly, we are talking about people who are coming out of a care home...they haven't got a home to come home to...are you intentionally being ridiculous?

 

Ahhh. The poor dears. £544 a month all without any tax deductions - how on earth do they cope.

 

They have two choices dont they. Stay at home until they earn a full wage or find a bedsit/shared room/one bed in their price range.

 

Not impossible at all. We have all been there and all had to start somewhere. Its tough but that's life.

 

You ask how to they find a place to live, eat and get transport? Exactly the same as everyone else in the working world.

 

Anyway, since you have seemingly given up on bothering to read the rest of my post, I am going to give up with you.

 

My point is clear. If you are choosing to ignore reading through it because im saying something you dont agree with, that's entirely your choice.

Edited March 6, 2017 by ECCOnoob
incorrect calculations.

[onewheeldave]

Firstly apprentice wages:

https://www.gov.uk/apprenticeships-guide/pay-and-conditions

 

As I say, minimum amounts set by government. Not made up by employers. Not at the mercy of some evil scrooge character. NATIONAL MINIMUM.

 

Ahhh. The poor dears. £900 a month all without any tax deductions - how on earth do they cope.

 

From your link

 

The current minimum wage rate for an apprentice is £3.40 per hour.

£3.40x40hrsx4=£544

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 19:52 ----------

 

 

If that's not enough to live on, they should stay at home until they can afford properly to move out.

 

They're from the care system, they have no home.

[Anna B]

Ahhh. The poor dears. £900 a month all without any tax deductions - how on earth do they cope.

 

They have two choices dont they. Stay at home until they earn a full wage or find a bedsit/shared room/one bed in their price range.

 

Not impossible at all. We have all been there and all had to start somewhere. Its tough but that's life.

 

You ask how to they find a place to live, eat and get transport? Exactly the same as everyone else in the working world.

 

Anyway, since you have seemingly given up on bothering to read the rest of my post, I am going to give up with you.

 

My point is clear. If you are choosing to ignore reading through it because im saying something you dont agree with, that's entirely your choice.

 

Just out of interest ECCOnoob, did you know that lawyers, solicitors, and Judges are among the professions most likely to be replaced with AI in the next 10 - 20 years..... It's going to save a lot of money. Just sayin'.....

[ECCOnoob]

From your link

 

 

£3.40x40hrsx4=£544

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 19:52 ----------

 

They're from the care system, they have no home.

 

I stand corrected. My mistake - looking at the wrong column. £544 it is.

The two choices still stand.

 

So what if SOME of them are from the care system? Not everyone from care is totally incapable of living their life like a competent grown adult. Those who choose to leave the system face the same circumstances as any other young adult joining the working world. Those who remain unable or volnerable adults are still protected parties within the exemptions.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 20:07 ----------

 

Just out of interest ECCOnoob, did you know that lawyers, solicitors, and Judges are among the professions most likely to be replaced with AI in the next 10 - 20 years..... It's going to save a lot of money. Just sayin'.....

 

Is that supposed to be a treat? You think I have not been out of work for periods in my life.

 

Incidentally Anna, the talk of lawyers losing their careers due to advances in technology has been thrown around since the introduction of computers and semi-automatic case management systems 20+ years ago. The reality is very different.

 

I am still working in a profession where the courts still cannot accept emailed documents over a certain size, solicitors offices refuse to accept service by fax and email and judges demand multiple copies of paper bundles for their hearings. We are still using pink tape, wax seals, certified and stamped copies of pages. We have only very recently started to use electronic disclosure (and even then only in extreme cases).

 

Funding and costs is far more of a risk to my profession but that will just lead to lawyers working in different types of organisations away from a ye olde solicitors offices.

 

I'm really not sure what you are trying to score points on but I am not playing ball. Dont start with personal digs just because I am raising debate that you dont agree with.

Edited March 6, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[sgtkate]

I stand corrected. My mistake - looking at the wrong column. £544 it is.

The two choices still stand.

 

 

There is absolutely no way someone could run a household on £544 a month. Looking at rightmove for the entirety of Sheffield and ignoring the ones for parking (unless you expect someone to live in a garage?) the cheapest place is £75 a week or £300 a month. Add in basic bills, electricity, gas, water etc. I won't even bother with a phone line or internet or mobile but god knows how this hypothetical person is going to find out about any work without it but there we go...so even if I underestimate lets say £50 a month? So we are up to £350, add in a monthly bus pass at £53 so it's now £400. Food, even budgeting I doubt you can eat a decent diet for under £35 a week, so that's us up to £540. Leaving a grand sum of £4 a month for luxuries. Sorted.