Housing Benefit for under 25s

I don't understand how the benefit system works, but what I can't understand is how people who've never worked can claim benefits, but someone with children, who has worked, has lost their job, can't find work and therefore has to default on their mortgage, can lose their house.

Anya - what really makes the difference in the amounts people get in total is whether they are getting housing benefit - which in my area would be around £7000 a year for a one bed flat and then whether there are children and how many. Single people without children and no housing benefit will never get anywhere near the benefit cap( and for that category anyway ie single no children) the cap is much lower

HollyDaze - have you applied for council tax benefit? If all you have is JSA then you would be entitled surely? I assume you own your house?

That must be very hard HollyDaze on top of losing your husband. It does seem that the system is unfair with some people able to get substantial amounts of income and others who, like you, left with nothing.

Thank you for your kind words Gracesgran, they are much appreciated

I agree Hollydaze.

I am sorry you are in such a difficult position. Hopefully you will be able to find a way through. I am sure everyone has given you advice but if your DH had a private pension presumably you have asked if it can be paid to you now. It's always worth asking.

I'd love to know how they get all this money Gracesgran, after my husband died, I had no income and couldn't get an interview let alone a job, so I applied for his pension (he died 3 months before he was due to retire) and I was told I can't have that until my retirement age - in 10 years time! My savings won't last forever and the amount in JSA wouldn't pay the rates!

Makes you wonder why you pay all that tax and NI doesn't it ...

Oh! I can agree with you then Hollydaze . I was, as I said, shocked when they produced the figure. It must be because people are given benefit on the basis of need (as decided by the government). I would have thought that the maximum a not full-time working household should get should be the minimum wage unless you are unable to work.

Please durhamjen do not send me to another link to prove why your view is better than mine. I know that what I have just said sounds harsh but something is wrong when you can get more as a not full-time working household on benefits than others can earn working full-time.

Do you mean you think claimants should continue to get maximum household benefits of more than £23,000 (currently £26,000)

No I bloomin' don't Gracesgran - I'm shocked at that amount. My daughter heads up a team of about 20 people working for a well-known insurance company and she works very hard and doesn't get paid that much (and bear in mind that the cost of living on the Island is a fair bit higher than in the UK).

rosequartzit's because they are prepared to live in hugely overcrowded, substandard accommodation.

www.jrf.org.uk/publications/welfare-sanctions-and-conditionality-uk

This report shows that welfare sanctions disproportionately hit the under 25s, before taking away their housing benefit.

Holly, £26,000 is the maximum a household can claim for in benefits. It is going to be cut by £3000, so the maximum a household can claim is going to be £23000.

It is a bit puzzling though, that people can come to the UK, get paid a fairly basic wage on our farms and still manage to send money home to their families.

I agree that there is a lot wrong that needs putting right, but nevertheless I think that expectations of what the State should provide are sometimes too high.

Do you mean you think claimants should continue to get maximum household benefits of more than £23,000 (currently £26,000) or they should get less Hollydaze. I'm afraid I was shocked when they first brought this in with a cap of £26,000 as that - or more as it was then - I had no idea a household could get as much as that.

I agree that we need proper apprenticeships. The higher level ones seem to be doing quite well but some of the basic ones seem a little suspect.

Claimants getting £23,000pa - I would definitely put a stop to that.

I would wholeheartedly support the apprenticeship scheme (something I've been banging on about for 15 years or more) and I do think their dwindling availability is where things started to go horribly wrong. However, they would have to be proper apprenticeships on not the ones that occur when employers see cheap labour with no real qualifications at the end of the training.

If young people get the training, it should help them find work or even set up on their own. My eldest GD works on a farm and she works very hard and during the season when they are extremely busy, she works around 54 hours per week for just over £7ph - I know of many youngsters that just wouldn't do that and certainly not throughout the winter months with all that that entails with hill sheep as well (and she doesn't get sick pay or holiday pay).

I do think that claiming has to be brought under control but jobs have to be there for people to apply for otherwise, people (not just youngsters) are forced into a hopeless situation where they can't win either way. A good start would be no more manual workers from abroad moving to the Britain (I include us in that hence using Britain instead of UK).

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29398907

Some very good points RQ, well said.

Not aware that I was shooting the OP at al, merely making a point.

However, as I have been the subject of posts that have been rather personal just for having a different viewpoint, I was pointing out that that it is an illogical concept.
I may not agree with some of the posts on here, but that does not mean that I dislike the poster (although if I were to meet them that could be a different matter).

I'll leave you to it.

While very wealthy people, mainly men, are buying multiple yachts and properties, why do we penalise young people who may well be struggling to find their way in life. The growing inequalities in wealth are a disaster waiting to happen in many societies across the world including wealthy UK.

My preference would be for universal benefits and more progressive universal taxes. Those with a lot more should pay a lot more.

rosequartz your logic is impeccable. I wish I did not get so distracted by someone telling me what I think ... but I do.

Unless, of course, it just makes you feel happy to do that.

How about getting back to the subject of the thread rather than just shooting the messenger?

A journalist wrote an article about baby boomers that I disagreed with most profoundly ergo I dislike that journalist.

Two weeks later that same journalist wrote a very moving article about refugees with which I agreed whole-heartedly ergo I like that journalist.

That makes me a very person.

Or is that concept illogical?
Should this be on the philosophy thread?

So, according to your logic, durhamjen, if any one of us disagrees with or takes issue with what another poster writes then 'we do not like' that poster...

Nitpicking. The man wrote the article, just like I write these comments and you write what you write about what I say.
Everything we write is a comment on the other person's views. If all we are writing about is facts on the bedroom tax, then we should always agree with each other. Obviously we do not.