Housing Benefit for under 25s

I am all for supporting those who need it Eloethan but It's all very well saying they can live with their parents but this can cause all sorts of problems at home. is not a reason to ask your friends, neighbours and other tax payers to put their hands in their pockets and pay for somewhere else to live other than with parents.

One of the big differences between the time when we were in our twenties and now is that it often costs as much, if not more to rent somewhere to live as it does to pay as mortgage. This is partly a result of the buy-to-let boom but also because of higher expectations among young people. We tended to share somewhat down-at-heel flats, sometimes sharing bedrooms in them. They weren't squalid but didn't have washing machines, let alone dishwashers, were often inadequately heated, the carpets were thin and the furniture rarely matched. They were, however, cheap (and fun) and were a good start until we were able to find something better.

Rents are astronomical and many jobs are poorly paid.

Because too many people are chasing both?

It's all very well saying they can live with their parents but this can cause all sorts of problems at home.

And yet it worked well for many people for a long, long time. The alternative is more people chasing properties, which will raise rents/mortages even higher and a higher social bill to help house them.

Parents tend to stay in their "parent roles"

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Just because they're relatively young, it doesn't mean that they don't have the same need as older people to have a safe place to live.

Again, I don't understand something: the reference to 'safe place to live'.

Why are we a low wage economy when we have the sixth highest GDP?

Excellent point - and decades of Labour/Tory governments hasn't changed that one iota.

But pushing up the tax bill for those in work to pay for young people to live away from their parents before they can afford it, isn't the answer. Until such a time comes that the yo-yoing of Labour/Tory governments stops, people will have to readopt the mantra of 'cutting their coat according to their cloth' - harsh but it has, sadly, become a reality again.

Quite right, Eloethan.
The situation has changed quite radically since we were that age. If you could, going to university was the first rite of passage, and usually people went a long way from home. Nowadays even if they do leave home, it's often to somewhere close so that it's easy to get home if needed.
My granddaughter is living in Manchester. Her friend's parents have a house in Leeds to rent out to them if they can get jobs there, so that's a first priority. They cannot afford to not take rent for this house, and the kids cannot afford to not have jobs, even if it is minimum wage.

Another statistic is that about half of housing benefit claims are from people in work. Why are we paying subsidies to employers? Why are we a low wage economy when we have the sixth highest GDP?

I saw a chart of the top 100 corporations and nations by GDP. Walmart has a bigger GDP than Austria and Denmark. Yet it pays subsistence wages. That can't be right. The six people who inherited Walmart have as much wealth between them as the bottom 30% of the American population.

Where are the under-25's supposed to live then? Rents are astronomical and many jobs are poorly paid. It's all very well saying they can live with their parents but this can cause all sorts of problems at home. Parents tend to stay in their "parent roles" and their sons/daughters tend to stay in their "child roles".

As it is, I think I read that 26% of over 25 year olds are still living in the family home. Many of those that have been able to get a good job still need financial assistance towards getting a deposit for a home. What about those who can't get a job or who don't have well off parents? Just because they're relatively young, it doesn't mean that they don't have the same need as older people to have a safe place to live.

My eldest granddaughter (she will be 20 this year) dreamt of joining the police force from around the age of 9 or 10. To kill time waiting to be able to apply, the worked helping out on farms - and fell in love with farming. She is now rethinking a career in the police force. She works full-time on a farm (and this can often be 6 days per week with very long hours) and has done for two years; she also works several evenings in a pub either behind the bar or helping out in the kitchen. Amazingly, she is the happiest I have seen her for a long time.

She has had the sense to stay at home until she has saved enough to furnish a place of her own (she has already bought her own car and one for her sister and she pays 40% of ALL household bills that her mother gets). She may not reach the dizzying heights that she first dreamt of but I am still very proud of her - more so for being brave enough to buck the trend of flying as high as possible in favour of doing something she loves.

My 21 year old granddaughter has a first class degree in English and drama. She is working in a hotel getting the minimum wage on a zero hours contract with one of the big hotels. Some weeks she can work 50 hours, others less than 30.
I remember when we rented when we were first married the rent was 20% of one wage. Her rent is about 50% of a good week. She has no family where she works but cannot leave as there is no work up here, so she has to pay the going rent for the area until she gets a job with better prospects.
She's one of the lucky ones. Her course only cost £9000 for the three years, not £9000 per year.
Minimum wage for 21 year olds and up is £6.31, rising to £6.50 on 1st October.
Is it any wonder the young are disillusioned?

I think we get unintended consequences from our attempts to help. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to how "unmarried mothers" were treated in the 40s, 50s and 60s but I am not sure we haven't come up with an equally awful solution putting mums on their own, often quite young, with small children in houses and flats and we give them a subsistence level benefit.

Although Mother and Baby homes were not what we wanted I wonder if we couldn't have a modern version. There could be a nursery where both parenting skills could be taught and the babies and small children cared for while the mothers continued in education and then into work. They would have companionship, care and some guidance.

Currently many young women with babies get trapped in the benefits system and do not feel they can work full time. This affects them now, their children's possibilities and view of the world and the pensions and conditions of later life for the mother. Obviously this does not apply to all in this position but we could be helping more. It seems really cruel to abandon young mum's to try and do things on their own.

I left home at 17 due to family circumstances and rented a bedsit. I was working of course - there were no benefits for young people and we didn't expect them.

You're right, HollyDaze, attitudes and expectations have certainly changed, and I'm just thankful that my own girls have both managed to get on the housing ladder due to their hard work and determination.

I don't know what happened to people when I was young when there were no such benefits but I think we all took it for granted we would live at home until we could support ourselves. I do know there was no point in us putting our names down for a council house unless we were married and had children but now young people can get one on their own.

That is how I remember it being - it seems attitudes have changed so much now. Both of my children left home to start up on their own but both had to move back with me when things went pear-shaped for them until they could afford to move out again. Then again, there is no social housing on demand here.

A young mum, presumably unmarried, living with her parents may - or may not - be better for the baby. It might not be better for the parents though.

I live near a huge council estate and own one of the houses, I see ever day, neglected properties and a run down outlook. the only people who get houses are young single parents. It may be that they cant cope living on their own, I don't know but I remember my gran getting a council house and she and granddad were so proud, the house was kept spotless, garden immaculate and the step scrubbed daily.

My neighbour has lived next door for 8 months and lived there for odd days only, she has had parties, and is rarely seen unless in her pyjamas. She lives with her partner a few miles away and returns to the house every few weeks. A family could be living there who need a home. It is because of the taxpayer like us who are paying for her free rent and council tax that she can afford to do this. There are many like her.

The benefits could instead go to the parents of the young people to help support them until they are a bit more mature. The young seem to just drift nowadays, it has been suggested before that if a young mum lives with her parents for the first year it is better for the baby.

Also could we not go back to lodging houses for youngsters coming out of care, where they could get help form the landlord. It seems there is no pride in having a house nowadays.

I agree with everything you say, Jess. I noticed that Branson has now got in on the Scottish referendum vote. He wants everyone to vote No, which is rather strange as he voted to leave us four years ago and pay his personal taxes in the Virgin Isles. He says his employees pay taxes here so that's okay. They do not avoid millions. Oh, it's not for the tax, it's for his health! Is that the company that also does not pay its fair share of taxes here, Virgin Healthcare?
He has set up lots of charities with the tax he's saved. (Lots of emoticons here - take your pick.)

I agree tax the very rich. They have been doing very nicely thank you, with the super rich getting a lot richer recently. I know you can argue that they will spend their money and that will create jobs but this does not apply if:
they are buying foreign products
they are having several exotic holidays a year
they are investing in property which then pushes up housing costs for others

Also build more affordable homes. Instead of subsidising home buying put the money into the hands of housing associations who exist to do just that. Tweak the planning system which does not foster an increase in the building of affordable housing.
It is impossible to have a fair system when there are so few jobs in many areas. And when people vary so much in their situations and attitudes to work. Either you have a system that is designed to penalise a small number of "work shy" people or you have a system that supports a much larger number who are wanting to work, or working on a low wage. And there are a lot of low wages. Hence the need for housing benefit - mostly paid to working people.

I don't feel encouraged to read you links durhamjen but in regard to what we pay anyone there is always a dichotomy between what is a reasonable amount for the employee and the fact that capitalists will always see the "right" way to go as keeping as much money in the business as possible.

There is no point in just ignoring the fact that capital will always behave this way; it has no conscience and you cannot make it have any. Many people will see nothing wrong with this. The only way they can be persuaded to do anything is by affecting their bottom line. However, if you do this in a way that makes it better for them to work elsewhere they will just move companies to other places.

You cannot make the whole country do what you feel is right; they may not agree. Persuasion is always a better road. Janeainsworth's suggestion makes far more sense to me as it encourages. Business is now global as I am sure you are aware and will only stand being attacked for so long before they up sticks and go somewhere more conducive. This will leave the very people whose quality of life you (and believe it or not, I) would wish to improve.

Did you read the numbers, Ana. It started in 2005. This was earlier this year. 70,000 jobs now cut from 104,000 in 2005. Another 14000 jobcuts in the pipeline over the next five years if the Tories stay in power. They are definitely not out to get the tax take corrected.

Back to the theme of young people and their difficulties.

falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/insulted-exploited-and-insecure-young-people-deserve-fair-pay

Not sure what that link was supposed to illustrate, durhamjen, apart from reinforcing my point that the job cuts started in 2005 under Gordon Brown.

I think you are on to something with NI Janeainsworth. It could be used to help the under 25s as you say. It is really just another tax now and not ring fenced for anything in particular.

falseeconomy.org.uk/tax/hmrc

Job cuts in HMRC.

HMRC has never recovered from Gordon Brown's merging of the old Inland Revenue with Customs and Excise in 2005. He was the one who promoted the swingeing job cuts in that department.

Nonnie It really is complex or perhaps has been made complex hasn’t it. You are right about the Winter Fuel allowance. These pats on the head – just how paternalistic do politicians think they can be? – complicate the system and are pure obfuscation on their part.

It will be interesting to see what the parties come up with in the run up to the election but I think cynicism is so deep now that all parties seem unconvincing.

If the government increased the number of staff in HMRI they would be able to pursue those who do not pay their taxes.
It is fact that the staff in HMRI more than pay their own wages in the fraud department. Instead this government has reduced the number of staff so that they get even less tax back than they have done for years.

That is a solution. There is a way of enforcing it. Take those who do not pay their taxes to court. It does not happen often enough, and not to the rightpeople.

petallus I think I would nuance things a little differently but I do agree with HOW a Government choses to make savings is what defines it as far as I am concerned

It would be expensive to means test pensioner benefits and would set up a whole new level of bureaucracy so I would role all these things into the state pension and then those who earn more would pay more tax. Obviously the government would not get the entire amount back but it would be a simpler system and the amount received would probably be about the same because of the lower admin costs.

Ana you are right, WFA is currently not a means tested benefit. Petallus was suggesting that we may have to look at whether it should be.

That is very patronising durham. Is it really necessary to be so horrid?

I think all Gns know the difference between giving to charity and paying taxes! We also know the difference between filling in a form correctly and telling lies! Maybe we simply have different values?

I don't understand your 'solution', how do you plan to get people to pay their taxes 'properly'? Saying it should be done is not actually a solution, to do so you have to suggest a foolproof way of achieving it. Its a bit like saying we should all drive better, there has to be a way of enforcing it or it is pointless.

Not sure, Ana. I know one year I put something down wrongly - can't remember what, some interest, I think - and ended up having to pay them £30 extra. When the correct documents came through, I could not be bothered to amend it and ask for it back.
I think it's only fraud if you pay them less, not if you pay them more.

Giving to charity is not the same as paying taxes, Nonnie. It is because the tax take is so low that benefits have to be cut.
Paying taxes properly is my solution, so why do you criticise me for criticising and not being constructive. Perhaps you should heed your own advice.