Housing Benefit for under 25s

You're right, of course, Gracesgran.

It makes me very sad to think it though Ana. I am a great supporter of a National Insurance system into which we all pay so that we can draw out when in need but I feel it has been corrupted, more by a system that traps people into not working or not working enough than by particularly feckless people.

Looking at it another way, rose, if people were paid the proper rate for the job, they would not have to claim housing benefit.
It's not just that the cost of housing has gone up, but pay has gone down at the same time.
The north, in a report out today, represents 30% of the population of England, but 50% of the poorest neighbourhoods.
The northeast does not necessarily need more housing. It needs more jobs so that people can afford to live in them. Since the end of the recession jobs growth has been concentrated in London and the South east.
This report says that the economic output of London is equivalent to wealthy Norway, but the North east is equivalent to Slovakia. The report is about health inequalities, but poor housing often means poor health.

The housing problem didn't start under Gordon Brown rosequartz; selling off council houses and not replacing them contributed too, but you are right that we need to solve that problem rather than turning it on it's head and just encouraging more people to make money out of someone else's tragedy.

I think one thing we should be prepared to spend government money on, borrowing if necessary, is social housing for working people where it is needed, where the jobs are, not just where people choose to live.

If there is no work and rent in the area where you live is exorbitant people should move. I know the arguments against this but I do not think we can afford to pander to them with things as they are.

Things would be better if rich people paid their taxes.

www.change.org/p/david-cameron-hold-an-inquiry-into-benefit-sanctions-that-killed-my-brother/u/8155830?tk=CWVs2lhpxaTViCdcrNp4Kshwey6TG9z4knzEUY-FB2o&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_update_email

This is an update on a man who died because of benefit sanctions. I think Jess mentioned the case earlier.

Gracesgran relocating to get a job in another part of the country is easier said than done. The young man I referred to in the OP might be able to get a job in another part of the country with his skills. However to do this you need the confidence to leave the area and the culture you have grown up in and all the people you know. It will be hard to keep up with children you are not living with (which he wanted to do). But more crucially, you also need money in your pocket - you can't get somewhere to live unless you have a month's deposit, a month's rent to pay in advance, a month's money to live on until you get paid. Not easy for someone who has been unemployed for 6 months.
London vacuums in thousands of confident graduates from Ireland, other EU, AUS and NZ - they typically come from middle class backgrounds (making possible a loan to get started) or at least they have friends who can give them a sofa to sleep on while they get up and running. They are often willing to do basic jobs in order to have the adventure of living in London and/or improving their English. Young people from Barnsley or Bangor won't have mates already there.

Oh and - minor detail - many employment agencies, which act as the gatekeepers to most jobs these days, expect to meet you for an informal interview before they will send you on an interview with one of their clients.

Gracesgran relocating to get a job in another part of the country is easier said than done.

JessM I did not say they should relocate to get a job, just that they should be relocated to cheaper housing, and an area where housing is not at a premium, if they are not working. Job hunting can follow. We should not continue to pay excessive housing benefit for any length of time.

As for the courage to move, etc., I am sorry but your first priority is to work to put a roof over your, and any dependants, head and food on the table. I believe that. If you are truly incapacitated then you should be given help but all the caveats you mention are cutting no ice with me. They would have done at one time but there are to many people having a really hard time who would never consider not working.

One of the things that is often trotted out is uprooting the children. I had 11 different schools, three of them secondary schools, the last a boarding school. Was this because my father was unemployed ... no, it was because he was in the RAF, defending his country.

I hear the same about the size of house people must have if it is paid for by the tax payer. I know several families paying their own way whose homes would not come up to this level. Help is fine; I am very much in favour, but you have to help yourself too.

The system was not brought about to give people the choice of not working.

Things would be better if rich people paid their taxes.

Here we go again durhamjen, let the "rich" pay; everything is the fault of the rich.

This is old fashions socialism at it's best. It is certainly not what I recognise as social democracy which you seem to offer as an example to us all.

Gracegran well said.

We moved for DH's job several times and children moved schools. DH had only ever lived in one place and that was where all his family lived but he moved for his job. One of the moves was particularly hard for me as I loved my job and had an excellent social network but I did because it seemed like the right thing to do when DH's job had been made redundant. At his age getting another job was very difficult so we could easily have given up and said we weren't going to jump through all the hoops we had to but we come from backgrounds where you look after yourself.

I think our children benefited from moving around and getting a wider perspective on life. DiL has only every lived in London and rarely leaves it and has a very narrow outlook on life. There are many benefits of moving for a job and one of them is the satisfaction of being independent.

Just heard Alan Johnson on the radio and he said that he couldn't be the tenant of his council house as he was only 19 but his wife/partner (not sure which) was 23 so she could. You had to be 21 in those days.

Things would be better if rich people paid their taxes.

I'm not sure I'd trust anything to change if they did given how much effort goes in to protect the wealthy.

I see you have completely missed the point of my last post, durhamjen, but that's understandable for someone who seems to have such a blinkered outlook.

Good post at 9.08 Gracesgran.

Ana, spot on- expectations have changed so much. Many of us had to live in grotty besdits and flats that took all our money- no money for food hardly, and certainly no money for going out,cinema, holidays (never mind abroad!!!) - if we were lucky going out was to the pub for 1 pint for him and 1/2 of cider for me- and a good laugh and natter with friends.

And later, second-hand everything and mismatched everything- and we made 'do' and laughed about it. It is expectations that have changed so much- food, including take-aways and ready made (no cheap cuts that need hours of cooking and imagination to make palatable) wine, going out, holidays abroad as a 'must', nice furniture and clothes, etc. A huge proportion of those who live in poverty nowadays are due to borrowing to achieve above and then being caught in large debts with extortionate rates- tragic.

Honest question- not talking aobut going back to middle-ages, but would it really hurt the under 25s (ish) to rough it a bit as we did?

No of course it wouldn't granjura it would not only do them a lot of good and make them appreciate things more but they would also get the sense of achievement I still get from managing to save a little bit along the way. It used to make me feel really good making a good meal for very little money and now that DH does the cooking he gets the same sense of satisfaction.

Instant gratification isn't usually a good thing.

And doesn not encourage self-reliance.

Looking back I would say it is much easier to rough it, if you have to, under 25, than it is to mortgage your future, as many do, in their early 20s, in order not to "go without" things that are not necessities, only to find they are roughing it rather more than they had expected in their later years. Even in your 40s and 50s it is harder than in your 20s.

Thanks for the compliment, Gracesgran. Nothing wrong with being an old-fashioned socialist. Certainly beter than being pretend ones like New Labour.

Let the rich pay the taxes they owe. Nothing wrong with that. This country is seen as a tax haven by many billionaires.

How many of us began our working lives owing over £27,000 like many of todays students when they leave university? It's no good saying they did not have to go to university. Successive governments since John Major have made it easier for students to go to university, and encouraged it. In fact at the moment there is no cap on the number of students a university can enrol, I think.
If so many did not go to university the youth unemployment figures would be even higher.
It's no wonder they have to rent for most of their lives, and pay high rents demanded by people who have had preferential mortgage rates using buy to let.

Most of us here who went to Uni didn't have to pay- some even got grants.
And yes, we were very lucky. However- the amount of debt owed could also be hugely reduced by 'making do and roughing it a bit' as described above. I know many students who have nice appartments, go out regularly for meals, have all the latest gadgets and go on hols abroad with friends 1x or 2x a year, have a car, and great fashionable clothes, etc, etc.

And of course many still who do Degree courses which are not worth the paper they're written on- with little hope of decent employment.

Let me get this straight Gracesgran you are suggesting relocating unemployed young people to areas where housing is cheaper? And inevitably these are the areas where there are fewer jobs? How exactly is that going to help them get on with their careers? And don't you think these areas have a few unemployed young people already?
And I think you will find that there are a few seaside towns that are already fed up to the back teeth with other boroughs exporting their junkies to their cheap housing.

Yes. Here is one example. This bit of the coast is the drug and alcohol capital
The social housing is filled by drug and alcohol addicts making what was a pleasant large village into the fastest growing town in Europe.

Looking at it another way, rose, if people were paid the proper rate for the job, they would not have to claim housing benefit.
How many of us began our working lives owing over £27,000 like many of todays students when they leave university?

djen re first point, I think I tried to say that earlier, that businesses had a responsibility as well as the government to young people by providing properly paid jobs and training schemes.

Re second point, no we didn't thank goodness, and this is absolutely wrong. Too many young people encouraged to go to university and a dearth of training schemes for careers which do not necessarily need a degree.
I hope the tide is turning; a young relative has decided not to go to university despite excellent results and is starting to train with a firm who will put him through all his exams.
We need more schemes like this and firms do have a duty to provide them in all spheres of business.

I do remember my MIL telling me years ago that when she was taken on as an apprentice by a local department store to train in all the departments, including window-dressing, that her parents had to pay for her apprenticeship.

That was more or less the traditional form of apprenticeship that had prevailed for centuries. Parents paid the "master" for the training and apprentices just got their board and lodging and had to toe the line until they were qualified.