The proposed changes to housing benefit for the under 25s. My next door neighbour is an 18 year old lass and to be honest I can't fault her. I'd probably say she's the perfect neighbour but if the changes came in she would have to move out and I would say rightly so. She lives alone, doesn't have kids and having seen her Mother I know that they are a normal decent family and there would be nothing stopping her from moving back home. She has never been in full time employment so has put nothing in the pot. Should it really be up to the tax payer to fund someone's lifestyle? You can't have a free house just because you want it. It will be interesting to see how this will be enforced as there will be people who can't move back home, but something has to be done.
The problem with the 'broad brush' approach is it affects people it shouildn't. socialists on the left criticise 'means testing' as degrading and demeaning but it DOES enable limited resources to be targeted at the most needy. The problem is doing that in a cost effective and humane way which has tended to be the problem in the past. The argument that 'we have all paid tax and NI so as pensioners we should all be entitled to free bus passes, heating allowances etc doesn't really wash in the same way paying insurance premiums doesnt entitle everyone to a payout at the end of it all. Welfare and benefits should be a safety net. Many of us (and I include myself in this) although not exactly stinking rich can manage without a bus pass, heating allowance etc at present and many middle income people are pepared to give up certain benefits, in spite of what the press would say, if the money helps those in real need. What they are not prepared to do is give up benefits to scroungers, and fund people who see welfare as a lifestyle. means testing would satisfy peoples desire for fairness and would then make the job of persuading people to forego benefits for the common good much easier. The one exception to all this is the fact that people who have worked all their lives and saved and have property have to sell to get care in old age whilst others who have never worked get it all paid for. The current assets threshold is far too low when people are forced to sell the family home when an elderly parent has to go into care.
Why shouldn't they get help with housing when a 26 year old can? In a previous job I struggled to make ends meet for years trying to get by on less money than my colleages because I was in a minimum wage job and, as somebody under 25, I wasn't allowed to claim tax credits. I thought it was unfair and arbitrary then and I think it's just as bad now. Local housing allowance, by the way, isn't a free house - where I live it doesn't even cover the cost of a room in shared accommodation. It also encourages the infantilisation of young(er) adults. At the age of 24 you shouldn't have to move back in with your parents if you lose your job and need six months or so to find another one. You're a grown up. And apart from anything else, what about if they live hundreds of miles away or in an area where there aren't any jobs?
I agree it seems unfair but, again, should welfare be about funding a lifestyle choice or ensuring that people have at least got a 'roof over their heads' , a 'fire in the grate' and 'food in their bellies'? Life is unfair but if someone HAS got a supportive family and somewhere to go then, unfortunately it is not really the place of the state to fund their choice to live elsewhere. On the other hand the state SHOULD intevene if someone is estranged from their family for reasons such as domestic violence etc. and assist vulnerable people should they have no option but to live 'independently'. In the 50's many families had siblings living at home until they were nearly 30 and many couples got married and had to live with one or other set of parents whilst scraping together enough money for a deposit on a house. In many countries like Italy many young people live in the family home for years. I sympathise with your view of the unfair and arbitrary nature of the benefit scheme but think you are fallimng into the trap of focussing too much on 'rights' rather than the 'individual's responsibility'.
That's the one scenario that should be ruled out. The problem is 7 out of 8 claimants are in full time employment. Not enough affordable housing + extortionate private rents = one big mess.
This is coming from Cameron, who before the election claimed £1000's per month for a second home, and now has at least three homes, two of them paid for by the taxpayer and one paid for (I assume) from the proceeds of his father's tax avoidance business. You couldn't make it up. If Cameron really is motivated by the belief that young people should live with their parents etc, then why is his government about to start penalizing parents who have their kids living with them? The government is cutting housing benefit to households for each young person they have living with them, claiming that those young people (probably unemployed and out of education) should be contributing in rent to their parents. If there was more affordable housing and if landlords hadnt bought up lots of stock and charged stupid rent for them, people wouldnt have this proble. But yeah, shove loads of people into small properties and wait for the riot.
I broadly agree with the policy, but not the priority. The benefits bill is out of control, and a significant portion is spent on people that either don't need it, or are blatantly not deserving. HOWEVER, this government needs to take urgent action against the tax avoiders and super-rich non-doms BEFORE further measures that target the other end of society. While most hard-working families are being squeezed ever tighter, the spiralling pay awards and tax cuts for top earners is exasperating. I genuinely can't believe how much this government is facilitating this and playing up to the stereotype of posh Tories being the party of the rich.
Cost of Tax Avoidance per year: £69.9bn Cost of Housing Benefit for U25's per year: £2bn Yet they still waffle on about "doing something" about tax avoidance whilst not really doing anything about it. People backing this need their head checking.
I agree, if private firms paid people a living wage which didn't have to be subsidised by Tax payers there wouldn't be a problem - one way to look at is that we as tax payers are paying for people to live in houses they can't afford, another way is to say we as tax payers are giving our money to share holders who take the profits from companies which should be paying their employees are higher share of the profits.
I wouldn't worry too much about this, or any other policy initiative. It seems that things are suggested, found to be unpopular and then dropped a couple of months later. See also: Pasty tax Caravan tax Petrol duty rise in August Not getting involved in individual tax affairs etc
