Cut benefits for under 25's

As King Lear said to his daughter, in a different context:
'Allow not nature more than nature needs
Man's life is cheap as beast's'.

Flick - good post. Like most of us, our family has had caring responsibilities for either grandchildren, or elderly parents. One 87 year old lived 250 miles from most of the family. Those of us visiting to look after her ended up sleeping on the floor, or a chair. This is fine when your'e young, but not so fine when you're in your 60's and inflicted with rheumatoid or osteo arthritis. This ridiculous approach to the housing crisis is simply not cost effective. Even if we only count the financial cost it doesn't work, but add in the social/medical costs and it becomes a disastrous and cruel experiment in keeping the poor and disabled in their place.

Well, we bought a four bedroomed house when we retired and at least three or four times a year every room is in use. Neither of our children live near us, nor, many years ago, did our parents, so we often put up the whole family, now without parents but with grandchildren. The fact that a room is not in use every day does not mean that it is not needed.

My parents bought a two bedroomed bungalow when they retired and deeply regretted it and in their 80s seriously considered moving to a bigger house where they could have a combined workroom/office that did not need to be a bedroom as well, plus three bedrooms so that their children with their grandchildren could all stay overnight rather than just make day visits or individual overnight visits.

What right have these people to dictate to us how we live and what accommodation we need. The reason Housing Benefit payments have soared is because rents have soared, not because more people are occupying accommodation deemed to be to big for them. I understand that some people who have moved to smaller accommodation are paying higher rents, so that this policy is increasing the amount of housing benefit some people are now receiving!!

Oh Annodomini, think on!

Quite right too, Anno.

, sorry Jendurham. I will pay attention in future.

You haven't read the article, Anno.
It's a think tank which says that even over 65s should be taxed out of their homes to make way for younger people, and the picture is of Tessa Jowell.
It's in the DM because they need to get their readers back onside after the Miliband furore.

To be accurate, Jendurham, it's only people of working age who are subject to the so-called 'bedroom tax'. It can't be age discrimination.

Petallus we old folk are more likely to vote so they have to look after us.

I think I already mentioned on another recent thread that I heard a Conservative minister justify these cuts on the basis that they'd rather target the young than old-age pensioners.

Somehow I don't feel very grateful!

uk.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A7x9QX8v11JSVRkANR1LBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE0b2k5ZTRhBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkA1VLQzAwMl83Mg--/SIG=13dlr6lru/EXP=1381189551/**http%3a//www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050800/Over-60-bedroom-blockers-taxed-homes.html
Didn't exactly know where to put this latest DM article.
Bed-blockers in hospital, and bedroom blockers when we go home!
Fits in with age discrimination.

Age discrimination me thinks.

More to the point, as one commentator said, it is irrelevant and will not solve any problems. There are 250,000 NEETS but only 68,000 of these are in the benefits system. The other 182,000 are living off their families/friends/crime and will be unaffected by any government measures.